Tactical Faith
Equipping Christians in Alabama
In this episode of Ancient Art of Facts, Doug interviews Bill Crouse, the President of Christian Information Ministries, about where the ark could have landed. They discuss the traditional mountain, as well as other possibilities of where it might have landed.
If you enjoy this podcast and would like to hear more, please consider supporting us on our donate page.
With my background in engineering, one of the most common topics I have encountered over the years is Darwinian evolution. Because of that, it has become one of my favorite topics to research and discuss. The theory of macroevolution – that all life descended from one common ancestor due to random genetic mutations – can be found everywhere, from high school science textbooks, college history courses, and even children’s movies. Because it pervades nearly all areas of our lives, people just naturally assume this theory must be true. However the popularity of a theory is not what validates a theory. If so, then I would expect to find unicorns congregating in every elementary school hallway.
Believing something to be true simply because it is a pervasive theory is one of the most dangerous logical fallacies we can make. True scientific pursuits will look at the scientific evidence and follow logically where it leads. When this universe is examined honestly, it reveals details and design that the naturalistic explanation of Darwinian evolution fails to explain. And not just because “we don’t know the answer yet,” but because a naturalistic answer is not possible. From the anthropic fine-tuning of the physical parameters of the universe to the irreducible complexity of DNA replication in the cell, there are too many examples of intricate design found within life to have an unintelligent, material, natural cause. The logical conclusion is that design comes from an intelligent designer, not blind, random forces of nature as Darwinian evolution claims. (For more on this topic, check out chapter 2 of my book, Teaching Others to Defend Christianity).
Darwinian evolution desires to explain this existence using material only, acting through natural processes alone. It does not allow for anything outside of this existence as a cause for this existence. While I love to look at the scientific details that require an intelligent, creative, all-powerful Creator, there are so many other aspects of our existence that cannot be explained without this Creator. Here are just a few to get you thinking about this topic.
1.) Living from non-living One of the first lessons elementary kids learn for biology is identifying living vs. non-living things. My kids have brought home worksheets where they were asked to identify whether a rock, flower, balloon, cat, and baseball were living or non-living. This seems truly elementary but it becomes a significant hurdle for Darwinian evolution. How do natural processes alone make the leap from living to non-living? Is there some physical process that can take a baseball and make it a living thing? There are specific characteristics something must have in order for it to be a living thing (movement, respiration, sensitivity, reproduction, nutrition, growth, and excretion). Natural processes working on matter only cannot make such a change from non-living to living. This is why Darwin’s book is called On the Origin of Species and not on the origin of life. He posited that all living things descended from a common ancestor, but he can give no account for where or how this common ancestor began.
The first item deals with life in general, but the rest of this list will look specifically at human life. According to Darwinian evolution, there is nothing unique or different about humans. We have simply progressed down the same evolutionary path as all other living things, even sharing a common ancestor with apes. However, there are things about humans that cannot be explained through this Darwinian evolutionary process. I came across a quote by Charles Magel that was an interesting assessment of this point. He said, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is, ‘Because the animals are like us.’ Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is, ‘Because the animals are not like us.’” This is a fascinating observation. Yes, we share a lot in common with animals but we must agree there is something unique about humans that separates us from the animal world.
2.) Desire for discovery Humans have an almost insatiable desire for discovery. Whether it is under the sea, across the sea, on top of the mountains, or into space, humans have a desire for discovery and exploration. When humans encounter this world around us we have a deep desire to understand “why.” It is what compels nearly everything we do. If an apple falls and hits a dog on the top of the head, the dog will move to another spot. If an apple falls and hits a human on the head, the human will wonder why it fell, why the tree was there, and even why that particular tree grew apples.
No other creature on earth looks at the heavens and wonders what is out there. No other creature studies nature to understand how it works. These are unique features about humankind. Nothing in naturalism explains why this is a part of the human existence, especially since the quest for knowledge is oftentimes at odds with “survival of the fittest.” Humans are very often willing to sacrifice their life to discover new things, simply to leave the human race with the next bit of knowledge. But what blind natural process could have generated a being that would ask the question why – and would search for the answer?
3.) Complex and theoretical thinking Of course in order to study this universe around us, we must be capable of complex and theoretical thinking. But if we are material only, formed out of natural processes, how could we ever trust any theoretical thinking? We could no more trust our thoughts than we could trust a calculator assembled by apes to do our calculus homework. Granted, if we were a product of only natural processes we wouldn’t have to worry about calculus because it would be meaningless to us. The fact that we have this level of complex, theoretical thinking – and that we trust this thinking – indicates we are more than just matter. Our thoughts have significance and have some level of reliability to them. This goes directly against what our existence would look like if we were a product of naturalism.
4.) Language, specifically written language Most animals have some form of communication. So if this were about communication, that would not be anything unique to humans. Animal communication, however, is very different from human language. Animals communicate when there is danger nearby, for mating purposes, or when expressing some need or basic emotion (hunger, fear, play). Human communication goes so much deeper than that. We express ourselves in ways far beyond simple animal signaling. We express deeper emotion, our passions and desires, and of course all of those complex and theoretical thoughts we have! If that weren’t enough to separate us from animals, we take it a step further and have a language that is written. In studying ancient civilizations, this is always the sign of intelligence. Humans are able to scratch out symbols, pictograms, or characters in a particular arrangement in order to communicate in a far more sophisticated way than animals. Random genetic mutations does not result in an increase in genetic information. It would not be able to add information to increase intelligence in such a way that humans can work out a code for language and complex communication.
5.) Information If archaeologists consider written language a sign of intelligence in ancient civilizations, then we must draw the same conclusion from the written language in our cells. Darwinian evolution works on the idea that there are mutations in the genetic code to program a new feature in an organism. But it can’t explain the very existence of the genetic code itself, that written language in our cells. For that matter, Darwinian evolution cannot explain the existence of information. Information cannot come from an unintelligent source. Therefore, natural processes working only on material entities cannot produce information, especially information that is written in coded form. E.H. Andrews, Professor of Materials in the University of London said, “It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…Codes do not arise from chaos.” Yet every cell contains information written in code that directs and organizes every living thing. This cannot be the result of a random, chaotic process acting on matter. This is something Darwinian evolution cannot explain.
6.) Musical instruments Humans are not the only creatures that make music, but we certainly take it to a different level. Typically, animals make sounds as their base form of communication. And while at times to us it can be enjoyable to listen to the cacophony of nature’s sounds, for the animal it is usually serving some actual purpose other than just the joy of making music. Humans, however, take the time to make instruments of all types to find new and interesting ways of producing sounds. We use this music not just to signal other animals around us, but to express emotion and to communicate ideas. We use it to share joy or sadness, anger or love. And we produce this music using instruments – simply for our entertainment! This is something unique to humankind. We paint, sing, dance, and act for entertainment. We stop to admire that which is beautiful, like a colorful sunset or a magestic mountain. We stop to observe the beauty in nature and it brings peace to our souls. How does Darwinian evolution explain this uniquely human feature? What survival advantage is there for making music or creating art? What natural explanation can be given that our existence makes room for appreciating beauty?
7.) Marriage Though many animals mate for life, marriage is vastly different. Marriage is a solemn commitment before God and others that you will not only just co-exist with one another, but will love one another, support one another, care for one another in whatever circumstances life may bring. The marriage vows run far deeper than just mating for life. It involves love and commitment. It involves two people becoming as one. Even when marriages fail, it is so hurtful because deep in our souls we know that is not how it is supposed to be. Our failures and disappointments in marriage point out that we know what marriage is supposed to be like. And it is supposed to be far greater than cohabiting and raising offspring together.
There is no evolutionary reason for the concept of marriage. In all honesty, evolution would promote the strongest male mating with as many strong females as possible. Nature would promote the fittest to survive and would discard the weak. Evolution would not promote monogamy, commitment, devotion, and love. Not only is there no evolutionary explanation for marriage, there’s no human explanation for marriage. Where did humankind come up with this concept? There is no place in nature where it could be observed and no discernible reason why it would be invented. As my dad always says about my mom, who recently passed away, “I love my sweet Jan more than evolution would allow.” There is not a Darwinian evolutionary reason for love. Love is something that goes far beyond our genetic code, our material existence, our perpetuation of our species.
8.) Humans exist You have to admit, there must be something unique about our existence that rises above just the natural world. From the natural world perspective, we would be the least likely species to ever survive to the next generation. We have no fur to keep us warm in cold climates, our skin burns and peels with too much exposure to sun in warm climates, or shrivels up with too much exposure to wet climates. We have no claws for warding off attackers. We have no huge teeth to sink into our prey. We’re not very fast. We can’t stay under water for long periods of time. We can’t jump. We can’t fly. We’re not great at climbing trees. Naturally, we have every reason to be extinct. Except we have these features that Darwinian evolution cannot explain. We have reason. We have complex thought. We have theoretical thinking. We have detailed communication. We have creativity. We have coded information in our DNA. We have marital love. None of these can be the result of random, natural processes acting on material alone. They are the evidence of a divine, loving Creator who uniquely formed humans in His likeness.
Cathryn Buse grew up in Birmingham, Alabama and graduated from the University of Alabama in Huntsville with a masters in Engineering. She worked for nearly ten years in the engineering field supporting Department of Defense missile programs, commercial rocket manufacturing, and NASA design programs. From her experience in engineering, Cathryn discovered that people had a skepticism of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This started her pursuit to study apologetics so she could help others see the truth of the Christian faith and bring thinking minds into faith in Jesus. She founded Defend the Faith Ministry to teach, speak, and write on various apologetics topics. Cathryn has authored two books and is currently working on her third. She now resides in Decatur, Alabama with her husband and two sons.You can learn more at www.defendthefaithministry.com.
Aristotle says in Nicomachean Ethics that every action is done aiming at a good. Before you start listing all the bad actions that people (especially you) do as clear counterexamples to this claim, consider your own thought process when you do something you would say you know to be bad. When you go back to the buffet for the third or fourth time, you may know that you’re going to be miserable and regret doing it, yet you go because in that moment, the partaking of that additional food is appealing and seems to be good. You aim at the good of enjoying food, but your understanding of enjoying food fails to consider the moderation necessary for actual enjoyment that is not fleeting. We can even look at more extreme examples like premeditated murder. When someone decides to kill another person, the murderer may recognize that the victim’s friends and family would be deeply hurt and, if caught, the rest of his life will be spent in prison. Yet, the murderer so strongly holds the belief that the world will be better for him if the victim is not alive in it, that the murderer acts, despite the negatives that could result. For Aristotle, being a good person is not about doing the right action, but about seeing what is good correctly, for an accurate perception of the good will result in right action. Because we all do what we perceive in that moment as good, the way we perceive the good is of the utmost importance. Additionally, the longer we incorrectly hold a perception of something as good, the more difficult to change it, as we fight back against the solidification of our perceptions of value that tend to happen over time.
However, the examples above point to the reality that we don’t properly perceive the good all the time, and that the idea of the good that some have is so misshapen that what is actually good may be repulsive to them. With Christians, Dallas Willard made the case in multiple places that discipleship is too often treated as an optional good for those who are really committed. The mindset is that actually living out the principles of the Sermon on the Mount are only for those “super-Christians”, clergy, or even no one, showing us how far we are from God. However, what Jesus lays out in the Sermon on the Mount is the way of the kingdom, both now and in the New Creation. If these things look unappealing to us now, what reason do we have to think that they will suddenly become appealing upon our death? Jesus tells us that eternal life is not primarily a matter of what happens when you die, but about knowing the Triune God (John 17:3). So if what is now unappealing or lacks value becomes appealing and valuable in an instant upon death, it is worth pondering if it is really you that exists in the New Creation.
If eternal life is something that can be experienced already, then we should be living in that life of relationship with the Triune God in the here and now. Then, as I talked about in a previous post, when you’re in relationship and genuinely pursuing that relationship, the way you see the world is changed, and what you value changes as well. Eternal life is then about learning to see and value reality through relationship with the Sustainer of reality.
While there are seismic shifts that can happen in the way we understand the world, these shifts are incredibly destabilizing and often leave us feeling uncertain of more than just that issue, including who we really are. If we are treating discipleship as an optional part of Christianity, or a secondary emphasis to evangelism, I think we’ve misunderstood what Christianity is about. I am not at all bold enough to make any claims about the salvation of those who hold such a view, whether just in theory or in practice, but it seems that at the very least, the process of transformation into Christlikeness has to happen, and if it fails to at least start in this life, we only further solidify the parts of our life that are contrary to that process, making it a lengthier and more difficult process in the life to come.
The Christlike perspective is necessary in the New Creation, for without it, we may live in the Kingdom, but without an understanding and appreciation necessary for the flourishing we are all called to in the New Creation. So if we must gain this perspective, but it is presently a perspective foreign and unappealing to us, if clothed with that perspective in an instant, would we know how to function? This is not simply being given glasses to make things clear that were once blurry, but learning that what we thought was up is down, what we thought was power is weakness, what we thought was ugly was beautiful. If we are able to immediately accept and thrive with that instantaneous change, what is the connection between these new people and the people we were before this change? It seems like all that we valued and even the way that we remembered our lives would shift so dramatically, that while it may be the same resurrected body, it may be the same embodied soul, but is that the person we knew ourselves to be before we died? [1]
However, if we are working to bring our perceptions in line with Christ, to see the world as He does, then, like Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, what we now see as a reflection in a mirror, we will then see face to face in the New Creation; what we know in part now we will know fully in the New Creation. It is as though we will gain glasses to see perfectly the things we strained to see here and now. Glasses only do good for people who are trying to see reality, but are struggling. Glasses don’t cure blindness, nor do they cure those who lack a commitment to truly experience reality, preferring to perceive things in ways that serve them most.
Working to gain that Christlike perspective of the world cannot be done on our own, but requires Jesus, for at the very least, we need Him as a check on us as to whether our perceptions are actually becoming more like His or not. We too have work in this, as no one can make us see things differently than we want to see them. An oversimplified analogy would be that of the magic eye pictures that were so popular in the 90s. What looks like a weird, formless pattern on first glance, becomes an interesting 3D picture upon looking at it in the right way. However, if you don’t look at it in the right way, you’ll continue to only see the pattern and not the picture that is within the pattern. You can train yourself to make it easier to see the picture, but it is a different way of looking at the picture than you typically look at the world. In Christ, the reality of the Kingdom requires you to train yourself to see in a way that is foreign to this world, but failing to do so, means that you fail to see the depth of what is going on in the Kingdom, not just in the New Creation, but even in the here and now.
Again, I am not saying that those who call themselves Christians but fail to strive toward a Christlike in the present will not be in the New Creation, for the Triune God does not want anyone to perish, but all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9). However, the work necessary to change our perception can and should begin now, because I believe the Triune God wants all of us there, not just our embodied souls, and there won’t be an instant in which our perceptions are completely and dramatically changed to appreciate the reality and beauty of the Kingdom.
How do we do this? I’ll lay some groundwork for this in the next post.
[1] The explanation of why an immediate, dramatic change in values might undermine our identity is discussed at greater length in a future podcast to be linked once recorded.
I recently had a conversation with someone who asked how it could be anything but arrogance that would lead us to question God’s actions in the world. Someone making a claim about not being able to believe (or seriously struggling to believe) in a God who does a certain thing in the world, puts that person above God. “Who are we to try to tell God what is right and wrong?” I see the submissive intent in such a sentiment, but I think it is misguided. We must ask the question of the intent of Creation and how that relates to our ability to understand right and wrong. If the Triune God created out of desire for relationship with creation, then we should examine how that should lead us to understand what God is trying to do throughout Scripture, and how we should approach this mentality of questioning.
John Walton recently made the case that the Torah wasn’t given as a legal code, but as a guide toward wisdom. God was showing the Israelites the kinds of actions that a wise person does. The goal of wisdom cannot be reduced to the actions we do, for two people can do the same action, while one does it as a reflection of wisdom and the other for reasons ranging from social pressure to folly or some other reason that falls short of wisdom. As a parent of younger children, I’m learning that you give rules when your kids are young, but you must do that with the long term goal of having them internalize the intent behind those rules. If they are unable to move past the rules to the intent, they can struggle when placed in situations where the rules do not clearly apply. However, as they grow, the hope is that they come to see the good that is driving the one giving the rules. This is what God was doing with the Israelites according to Walton.
This idea resonates with what Jesus was doing in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus is taking a number of prohibited actions, and pushing deeper, not just to the intent, but in the way we perceive the world and the value in it. For instance, he says that feeling an intense anger with your brother is akin to murder. I don’t know about you, but I don’t seem to have ready control over when I feel intense anger or not (although we all have control as to how we respond to that anger within us). Some say that Jesus is saying that wanting to do something is the same as doing it or dwelling on the idea of doing something is the same, but I think it is more helpful to think of it in terms of Jesus pushing us farther, to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mathew 5:48). Jesus is serious when he says we should not feel that intense anger if we want to be perfect. However, given that the feeling of anger is often outside our control, Jesus is pushing us to go beyond our actions to the way we see things. Bruxy Cavey has said that there is no response to any situation that is better when done out of anger than when done out of love. The difficulty is training ourselves to have a lens of love toward a situation, when we’re already so proficient with an ingrained lens of anger. This is what Jesus is pushing toward with the Sermon on the Mount, such that we do not allow ourselves to feel justified and fulfilled by our doing certain actions. Rather, if we are to be like Jesus, we need to try to see the world as Jesus does.
Seeing the world in the same way is an important part of any meaningful relationship. If my wife and I see things differently, it can result in conflict. For instance, my wife finds Folgers coffee made in the coffee maker to be insufficiently different from my hand-ground, third wave coffee beans that I use a cone filter and gooseneck tea kettle to make (yes, I’m a coffee snob, thank you, Brett Jameson), such that she’s pretty much just as happy with Folgers as she is with the coffee I make. I joke about how this just further confirms her lack of taste (I mean, look at who she married!!). While this doesn’t cause detrimental conflict in our relationship, it is a difference that reflects how we see the world differently and could lead to conflict (i.e., if we came on a difficult time financially, whether my coffee is worth keeping in the budget, or concerns about the ethics of mass coffee bean farming in order to save money, etc).
As Christians, the most important relationship we have is with the Triune God, who does accurately perceive all that is in the universe. We can trust that when Jesus tells us how things are, that is how things actually are. When we are told that “our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers, authorities, and principalities,” that if we see someone with flesh and blood and our response is to see them as our enemy with whom we are at war, we’re seeing them incorrectly. When Jesus tells us, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”, loving your enemies doesn’t mean wishing a painful death upon them, or all kinds of evil. I’m pretty sure that Jesus doesn’t want you to pray for those who persecute you to just stop persecuting you, but to genuinely want good for them (which will likely involve no longer persecuting you, but that may not happen as quickly as you’d like). When Jesus says that those known by God are those who clothed Him when naked, fed Him when hungry, and visited Him in prison, their reaction tells us that these are people who didn’t do it to earn points with God, but because they saw a need and met it, unknowingly serving Jesus at the same time. Jesus is pointing us to a way of life that does not make sense in a context where we’re used to seeing might make right.
Yet it doesn’t appear we are expected to have it right in order to be in relationship with the Triune God. Abraham, often held up as an exemplar of faith, demonstrates a disturbing lack of faith throughout Genesis (presenting Sarah as his sister to try to save his life, impregnating Hagar, etc). He was also called a friend of God, despite his seeming lack of trust in many instances. David, a man after God’s own heart, was a murderer and an adulterer. Peter denied Christ after three years spent living with him, yet became the leader of the apostles (and still needed to be rebuked by Paul). These people were obviously not required to have everything right about God in order to be held up as someone close to God. Yet, as they grow closer to God, I think we see that they are transformed by their relationship with God.
God is willing to meet people where they’re at, whatever views they hold of Him. If someone claims that they are unwilling to believe in a God that does something (assuming it to be something God actually does), then I think it is much more in God’s nature, assuming He created to enter relationship with creation, to meet the person there and let that be a starting point. When we encounter God and continue to pursue God, our views of God cannot help but be changed, just as we continue to learn more about all those that we enter into relationship with. However, forcing someone to abandon that view in order to be in agreement with us and our ideas may push them away from growing in that relationship, rather than allowing God to show Himself in the timing and ways that person can handle.
The problem occurs when we think we have everything figured out and we know God fully. If we get to the point where we believe we have complete knowledge of God, then God must perpetually fit inside those parameters. I know my wife incredibly well, but I’ll admit that I still learn things about her on a regular basis. These things I learn are rarely, if ever, completely shocking, but over time, I realize that I didn’t quite know her as well previously as I do now, and I anticipate this to continue through the rest of our lives. If this perpetual growth is true in our relationships with finite beings that we share the most intimate parts of our selves with, how much more is it with respect to the infinite Creator and Sustainer of the universe?
A man once committed a heinous crime for which he receive the most extensive sentence, life behind bars. During the long, drawn-out process of receiving the hearing for this punishment, the man–for some reason unknown to many–became enamored of the judge’s gavel. Judgment was passed and the felon immediately embarked upon his life-long journey of imprisonment. This particular prisoner was quite the artist. Upon entering prison, he spent his lay time crafting his very own version of the judge’s gavel. The prisoner felt as if his creation had arrived at the point of perfection. He developed a philosophy behind his art that supported those who commit a crime of the same nature as his own or anything remotely resembling it, even to the point of placing a stamp of approval upon their reason for doing so.
After sharing his vision about both the art and philosophy, other prisoners joined the endeavor. It appeared that he had formed his own organization behind prison walls. Other prisoners with a lesser sentence, who had been influenced by his proposal, were so passionate about it they became ambassadors for it upon their release. They began to identify with those they felt were like-minded. Over time, other people became curious about the new movement. The thing that struck people as paradoxical was the pennant of a judge’s gavel in support of those who commit crimes the same as the prisoners in an effort to justify their crimes. Little did the people know, the pennant bore the image of the gavel of the actual judge who sentenced the founder to life behind bars.
One must take the story above for what it is worth. However, upon analyzing the story, readers would initially have a number of questions accompanied by a variety of conclusions. First of all, who is the prisoner and what quality of life did he have prior to committing the crime? How was his upbringing? Has the prisoner been diagnosed with some case of psychosis? Specifically, what caused him to be obsessed with the gavel, a sign of judgment?
Beyond all other things, people would probably be more concerned with the individual’s fixation upon the gavel, which suggests that the person is either out of touch with reality and totally deranged or has a psychological disorder that has gone untreated for an extensive period of time. At this point a question must be posed: can we find any similarity to the story above relevant for our current time? The answer to this question can be provided upon the examination of a simple word used in the biblical text. Afterwards, a few notes will be offered concerning a group that is also enamored with a symbol of judgment but now use it as the frontispiece for a movement supporting the lifestyle of its adherents.
A heavy shower moves in and then speedily dances toward the horizon. As the sun rolls from underneath the blanket of thick clouds its rays graces the little rain droplets of the fleeing storm and causes the beautiful phenomenon known as the rainbow.
Lore, tales, and myths have formed around such meteorological occurrence. Any person on the street should quickly produce the answer for what is at the end of a rainbow—that precious pot of gold. Enjoy the attempt at attaining that pot! Who wouldn’t be up for seeing Thor blaze across that awesome rainbow bridge, which connects Midgard to Asgard? Have you heard of the promise of good luck from having seen a rainbow? There are many perspectives surrounding the rainbow that have been passed down through the decades, millennia even. There are even ancient traditions of the rainbow depicted as the bow of an archer.
There are times when Scripture is quite predictable regarding a particular topic. Some skeptics are tired of what they feel is the same old song of their plight of sin and, thus, being in need of a savior’s grace to bring them into true fellowship and a right standing with God. No matter how much they crave to hear something that builds their ego, this is still what they need to hear. They, nevertheless, rarely hear of the ironic twist the sin of humanity brings upon its own head. Without further adieu, let the Scriptures speak!
What is the reason of the rainbow in the first place? We can begin with a brief overview of Genesis 6. The Lord Himself was pressed to respond to what was occurring upon the planet as a fraction of the angelic hordes came down and took up residence amongst the human race. Not only did they assimilate with human flesh but also began to procreate with humans as we find “the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them” (v. 4a)—reminiscent of Enochic writings. Some speculate that the angelic realm began to share sensitive information with humans, which may be why another verse notes, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (v. 5). With all these transgressions compiled and judgment pending, the Creator notes, “I am sorry that I have made them” (v. 7b), and eventually destroys the earth with water. To add more, the flood was so powerful that not only was it caused by rain from above but also violent forces of water escaping from underneath the earth’s crust (7:11 cf. 8:2).
Just as ancient customs present evidence of covenants between two parties being sealed with some tangible sign (please see Ruth 4:7–11), God gave what we now call the rainbow to humanity as the sign of a covenant. God gave this sign after having destroyed a majority of the earth’s population, preserving only a select few. This sign was brilliant, colorful.
Still, the word “rainbow” deserves further scrutiny. A closer look at the word that is actually used in the Hebrew text yields something quite interesting. The word used is קֶ֫שֶׁת (“qeshet”). It is used 74 times in 19 out of the 39 books of the Old Testament (OT). What does this mean? Well, out of all the times the word is used it unequivocally means “bow.” Yes, “bow” as in the ancient archer’s bow. What is that hanging in the sky? Would it be farfetched to say that we set our gaze upon a divine weapon? If not, what the God of heaven and earth would like for us to understand is that he will never punish humanity again with this particular weapon. Thus, He places it in the sky as a sign of remembrance of a former judgment, but one in His arsenal of weapons that has enjoyed millennia of retirement. Another weapon will be chosen to bring a terrible element to destroy the entire universe (2 Pet. 3:10).
One must always allow room for skeptics. That includes those who bring reasonable arguments to the table and those who launch straw man or other logically fallacious counter-arguments. Everyone deserves to be heard. At the same time, all must keep in mind that “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14). Things written in Scripture require a measure of faith that must be given by God. That would even apply to well-known accounts such as the creation narrative, the crucifixion, and apocalyptic visions. The author understands that some will come from a perspective not founded on a Scriptural basis. All are invited to the table, however.
At any rate, how can one rightly call the rainbow a sign of judgment, much less a weapon? The person who asserts this may have overdosed on Marvel Comics. Right? In addition, we need to get a scientific view of the phenomenon. Though a person can only see most of the 180º arch, the other arch is unseen. In other words a skydiver, when conditions are right, can see a 360º rainbow. Furthermore, a spray nozzle from the water hose engaged on a light, misty setting produces the same result in sunlight. Good criticism from the argument of semantics would move even a theologian to assert that the Koine word for rainbow is ἶρις (“iris”), which merely denotes a circle of light.
As a rebuttal for the first criticism of the 180º versus 360º, we may appeal to another natural element in order to gain perspective on how specific Scripture is being with the term “bow.” At this point it would be relevant to take a brief voyage to the coasts of the southernmost parts of the Asian continent, an area near the Ring of Fire where tectonic plates frequently shift and cause massive destruction through tidal waves that form tsunamis.
If a person sees a growing tidal wave but identifies it as an ocean wave (waves caused by wind), it can prove to be deadly. This actually happened in December 2004. After an unusual recession of the water, the tourists on the beach (ground-level perspective) thought that the wave they saw approaching was a mere ocean wave.
On the other hand, the people in the high-rise condominiums (bird’s eye perspective) said things like: “We should warn the tourists!” “It’s a tsunami!” “Oh, my God look at the waves coming!” “Clear out, people!” There were large quantities of people who lost their lives because of a simple misjudgment—an incorrect perspective. Even though many were yelling at the top of their lungs to warn the people on the ground, it was done to no avail due to the sound of the raging sea.
In an inverted sense, Scripture places emphasis on the very thing that is seen from ground-level (Gen. 9:13, 16 cf. Ezk. 1:28). We see an arch that is not 360º, which presents the uncontestable shape of a bow as the Hebrew Scriptures attest. People have representations of the rainbow as their business emblems, on shirts, and several other places. One hardly ever sees the rainbow imprinted or drawn as a circle. That the Koine Greek word for “rainbow” means “circle,” this could be dealt with in a simple rebuttal. The BDAG (Greek Lexicon) itself notes that there are some theologians who purport the word ἶρις (“iris”), as is used in Revelation 4:3 and 10:1, means “halo.” However, the BDAG suggests that John’s use of the word is similar to Ezekiel’s use in 1:28 as an actual 180º arch. In addition, at this point, Ezekiel is making reference to the way Genesis uses the word in chapter 9. Considering this, God’s ancient weapon is near His very throne and also graces a chosen angel to bear it as the Revelation passages present above.
The irony behind all this is that some appear to be visually impaired due to the fact that the very tool of God’s judgment is now embraced as an actual emblem to represent the very thing God hates. Yes. Some have fallen in love with the “the judges gavel”! Is this not a special case of abnormality?
What is the group this article addresses? The answer would be the group that goes by the acronym LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender). Their agenda is not only to engage in unnatural acts of immorality but also encourage others, even children, to do the same. They parade in the streets, are some of the best lobbyists and politicians, and have a major stronghold in school systems across America. What is the face of their movement? A divine weapon: the bow.
It may well be that an article as this and those who graciously warn people who cheerfully engage in sin against the Lord are screaming out, as it were, to the people on the beach: “Clear out, people!” “The judgment of God is on its way!” “Trust Him. He will save you!” Sadly, for some individuals the raging seas of life drown out the sound of God’s heralds of the gospel.
May all who have these internal, conflicting feelings about unnatural sexual desire receive eye salve that they may see the majesty of the Lord and receive the gospel of grace. Anyone who identifies as homosexual, lesbian, or anything of that persuasion, should know that they are precious in the sight of God and are created in His image (Imago Dei). God must preserve the dignity of this concept by holding all accountable for the misuse thereof.
So, what is that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No. That is God’s weapon, His archer’s bow. Although He allows us to see His weapon across the sky, it has been put to rest. It is the testimony of a standing covenant that water will never be used to destroy the earth again. Indeed, it will be the fire next time.
Baumgartner, Walter and Ludwig Koeheler. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by M. E. J. Richardson, G. J. Jongeling-Vos and L. J. De Regt. New York: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2000.
Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2000.
I recently had a friend express to me the hurt he felt that his Christian family did not accept his alternate religious beliefs. He then went on to explain that his own religious views did not require everyone else to abandon their views in favor of his. His consternation at the closed-mindedness of Christian proselytizing was clear. The pain and distress experienced by my friend was real and evident, and I expressed my sincere sympathy with what they were going through.
So why can’t we all just get along? I’m sure you’ve seen the “Coexist” bumper sticker before (see the image above): each of the letters are formed to represent a religious or other ideological view. The implication is that these ideologies have not been doing a good job of peacefully coexisting, and that world would be better if we all just got along. Is that a fair interpretation of the message being communicated here? Isn’t this also the message expressed by my friend?
Still, though, the application of this is pretty unclear, isn’t it? The devil’s in the details, as they say. We can cry for peace all we wish, but it cannot be achieved through declaration or emotion alone. There are two problematic assumptions I see with the “coexist” approach. 1. All paths are presumed to lead equally to God, and/or 2. Religion is considered a placebo. But both of these assumptions are really condescending towards anyone who takes religion seriously, aren’t they?
Concerning “all paths lead equally to God,” most religions differ with every other religion (and I include atheism in this) over the big questions of life. What happens to our consciousness upon death: reincarnation, absorption into the great spirit, heaven or hell, extinction? What is the significance of mankind: God’s special creation, insignificant happenstance of evolution, insignificance of illusory existence? Who was Jesus: a deceiver, a lunatic, the son of God? All religions could be false, but under no circumstances can they all be True (with a capital “T”).
In regards to religion as a placebo, I mean that it is an atheistic view which presumes from the outset that all other religious views are false, but that it has some positive psychological benefit for the believer, so it is OK for a person to believe. At least, it is so long as they don’t take it so seriously that it starts to affect other people in any way.
In either of these cases, religion is reduced to an ice-cream parlor in which you choose your favorite flavor, mixing and matching components as it suits you, to pick what appeals to you, and in which it would be ridiculous for someone else to say your preference is wrong. But is religion simply a matter of opinion, like ice cream flavors, or are does religion refer to absolute truths which are independent of our likes and preferences? The only good reason to hold a religious (or any other) view is because it is objectively true, and accurately reflects reality, isn’t it? This makes it rather important to thoroughly investigate and compare coherence, consistency, and completeness of the core claims of any religion being considered, and see if they accurately explain the world we in which we live.
At any rate, this view of religious tolerance self-destructs. Reflecting back on the conversation with my friend, I wish I had asked him why, if trying to change others’ religious views was such a great moral crime, he was trying to change his Christian family and my religious views? After all, Christianity is a missionary religion, and respectful persuasion is part of our core beliefs.
** This article originally appeared on The Woodshed here.
Jonathan Wood currently works at Briarwood Church as the computer network administrator. He has a B.A. degree in Computer Science from University of Alabama at Birmingham, and is currently pursuing a master’s degree in apologetics from Birmingham Theological Seminary. Visit his blog at The Woodshed.
