First and foremost, the son in question should not be thought of as an adolescent guilty of nothing more than slamming doors or stubbornly asserting his independence. Rather, the son described above is old enough to be morally culpable of extravagantly wicked behavior that threatens the health and safety of the entire community. As such, the prescribed punishment is not for adolescent decadence, but for adult degeneracy.

Furthermore, the parents’ desire to spare their own son serves as a built–in buffer against an unwarranted or frivolous enforcement of the law. Likewise, ratification by the elders precludes a precipitous judgment on the part of the parents. Thus, the standard of evidence prescribed by the Mosaic Law exceeds that of modern jurisprudence.

Finally, for modern skeptics to claim the moral high ground over the ancient Scriptures is the height of hypocrisy. Rather than the civility of the Mosaic Law, our culture reflects the carnality of Israel’s neighbors who sacrificed their sons and daughters. Indeed, for over three decades Western society has sanctioned the systematic slaughter of children, guilty of nothing more than being unloved.

For further study, see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, (eds.), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996); on related issues, see Hank Hanegraaff, “TV’s The West Wing vs.The Bible” available through the Christian Research Institute (CRI) at www.equip.org.

Ezekiel 18:23
“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their wicked ways and live?”

First, the Mosaic Law is hardly about letting a rapist off easy. The consequence for raping a woman engaged to be married was stoning (Deuteronomy 22:25). If the woman was not engaged, the rapist was spared for the sake of the woman’s security. Having lost her virginity, she would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in the culture of the day, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. As such, the rapist was compelled to provide for the rape victim for as long as he lived. Thus, far from barbaric, the law was a cultural means of protection and provision.

Furthermore, there was precedent under the Mosaic Law for the victimized woman not to marry the victimizer if her father determined that she could be provided for in a more suitable manner (Exodus 22:16–17). Thus, the law was not designed to force the rape victim into an unbearable marriage, but to secure her future and that of her children.

Finally, neither then nor now, there is no perfect resolution for a woman who has been violated through the horror of rape. The modern–day solution of aborting a child conceived through rape only compounds the horror. Indeed, if we are completely satisfied by any earthly solution—even the death penalty—our moral sensibilities are seriously skewed. Ultimately, only eternity will make all wrongs right.

For further study on Mosaic laws, see Hank Hanegraaff, “T.V.’s The West Wing vs. The Bible,” available through the Christian Research Institute (CRI) at www.equip.org.

ISAIAH 25:8
“The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.”

First, details and descriptions in the narrative defy allegorization. The book of Jonah is written in the genre of historical narrative. The brief mention of the fish does not deter literarily from the descriptions of Jonah’s journey to Joppa, his payment of the fare, his conversations with the sailors during the storm, and his eventual trip to Nineveh.

Furthermore, the Christian worldview presupposes the miraculous. The universe itself is an effect that presupposes a cause equal to or greater than itself. Just as the uncaused First Cause created the universe, so the uncaused First Cause is capable of supernaturally intervening in the universe he created. Because God created the universe ex nihilo (“out of nothing”), preserving Jonah in the belly of a great fish poses no problem whatsoever.
The Christian worldview presupposes the miraculous.

Finally, when we hear a miraculous account of this magnitude we would do well to seek a second opinion. In the case of Jonah, corroboration is provided by no less an authority than Jesus Christ. Our Lord not only referred to Jonah’s preservation for “three days and three nights in the belly of a fish” as a miracle, he used it as the basis for prophesying that he too would be preserved for “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). As such, Jonah’s marine rescue is a type of Jesus’ miraculous resurrection.

For further study, see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, (eds.), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996).

Matthew 12:40
“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in
the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Furthermore, slavery within the Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could thus use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exodus 22:3).

Finally, while the Bible as a whole recognizes the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practice of slavery. In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States of America. Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. In America, many are beginning to wake up to the liberating biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate equality (Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:26–28; Galatians 3:28).

For further study, see Paul Copan, That’s Just Your Interpretation:Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 171–178. See also Hank Hanegraaff, “President Bartlett’s Fallacious Diatribe.” Available from CRI at www.equip.org.

1 Timothy 1:8–11
“We know that the law is good if one
uses it properly. We also know that law is made not
for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels,
the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious;
for those who kill their fathers
or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts,
for slave traders and liars and perjurers––
and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
that conforms to the glorious gospel
of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

First, the ideal pattern of monogamous marriage of one woman and one man was established early in Genesis: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (2:24). Moreover this very passage was quoted by both Jesus and Paul in defense of the sacredness and exclusivity of monogamous marriage (Matthew 19:3–9; 1 Corinthians 6:15–17; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:2).

Furthermore, the Bible explicitly condemns the polygamy of Old Testament kings (Deuteronomy 17:17). Likewise, New Testament elders and deacons are called to be “the husband of but one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). Just as the requirements for church leaders set the standards of morality and spiritual maturity for all believers, so too the admonition against polygamy for the kings of Israel demonstrates the danger of this practice for all.
Solomon is the quintessential example of one whose legacy of faithfulness was compromised because of his polygamous behavior.

Finally, God’s disdain for polygamy is seen in its consequences. The Old Testament clearly reveals the familial strife and temptations that accompany the practice. Solomon is the quintessential example of one whose legacy of faithfulness was compromised because of his polygamous behavior. Despite his world–renowned wisdom, Solomon’s peaceful and prosperous rule ended in idolatrous scandal and civil strife, for “his wives turned his heart after other gods” (1 Kings 11:4).

For further study, see Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

MATTHEW 19:4–6
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one.”

First, we should note that Adam lived almost a thousand years (Genesis 5:5) and fulfilled God’s charge to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1:28). Thus while Scripture does not tell us where Cain got his wife, the logical implication is that he married either a sister or a niece.

Furthermore, because genetic imperfections accumulated gradually over time, there was no prohibition against incest in the earliest stages of human civilization. The Levitical law against incestuous relationships was given by God hundreds of years after Cain at the time of Moses. Thus familial relationships were preserved and birth defects were prevented (Leviticus 18:6, 9).

Finally, the speculation that God may have created a wife for Cain as he had for Adam is completely ad hoc. The consistent teaching of Scripture is that “from one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him; though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26–27).

For further study, see Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

GENESIS 4:17
“Cain lay with his wife, and she
became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.”

To begin with, this question was anticipated by Christ, who long ago proclaimed that his followers would be recognized by the way they lived their lives (John 15:8). Thus to classify as Christian those who are responsible for instigating atrocities, is to beg the question of who Christ’s disciples are to begin with. As Jesus pointed out, not everyone who calls him “Lord” is the real deal (Matthew 7:21–23).

Furthermore, this question implies that Christianity must be false on the basis that atrocities have been committed in Christ’s name. There is no reason, however, why we can’t turn the argument around and claim that Christianity must be true because so much good has been done in the name of Christ. Think of the countless hospitals, schools, universities, and relief programs that have been instituted as a direct result of people who have the sacred name of Christ upon their lips.

Finally, those who use this argument fail to realize that the validity of Christianity does not rest on sinful men but rather on the perfection of Jesus Christ alone (Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). Moreover, the fact that professing Christians commit sins only serves to prove the premise of Christianity—namely, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23); thus all are in need of a Savior (1 John 3:4–5).

For further study, see R. C. Sproul, Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), chapters 4 and 7.

Matthew 7:21–23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!’”

First, the Nazi philosophy that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans were Supermen led to the extermination of six million Jews. In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti–Christian physical anthropologist: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” Far from religiously motivated, Hitler’s “Final Solution to the Jewish problem” was grounded in the naturalistic philosophy of survival of the fittest. In fact, Hitler overtly distanced himself from Christianity, proclaiming, “I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie” and “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”

Furthermore, the inherently atheistic utopian philosophy of communism eclipsed even the carnage of Hitler’s Germany. Karl Marx saw in philosophical naturalism the scientific and sociological support for an economic experiment that led to the mass murder of multiplied millions worldwide. Mao Tse–tung’s communist dictatorship of China accounted for the deaths of an estimated sixty–five million people, while the U.S.S.R. under Stalin saw between twenty and thirty million murdered as a result of agrarian collectivization and the Great Purge. Add to that two million Cambodians––nearly a quarter of that nation’s population—massacred by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime, and the death toll resulting from the secular ideology of communism becomes a horror beyond comprehension.More people died as a result of secularist ideologies in the last century alone than have died in all the religiously motivated conflicts of Western history.

Finally, a third ideology of modern secularism has led to even more ghastly consequences. Though not formally organized under a deranged dictator, this invisible holocaust continues to claim the lives of untold millions around the globe. Four thousand helpless victims––more than the total casualties of 9/11––die each day in the United States alone. The secularist ideology to which I refer, of course, is abortionism. Indeed, the modern bioethical holocaust has eclipsed the carnage of Nazism and communism combined.

Even apart from the ongoing genocide of the unborn, over one hundred million people died at the hands of secularist regimes during the twentieth century. Coupled with recognition of the innumerable humanitarian aid efforts motivated by religious commitments, these statistics should motivate secularists toward humble introspection, rather than haughty inculpation of religion.

For further study, see Os Guinness, Unspeakable: Facing up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco,2005);see also,Hank Hanegraaff,“If Christianity is true, why are so many atrocities committed in the name of Christ?” The Bible Answer Book Volume 1 (Nashville: J Countryman, 2004).

Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it brings joy
to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”

First, Christian theism acknowledges that God created the potential for evil because God created humans with freedom of choice. We choose to love or hate, to do good or evil. The record of history bears eloquent testimony to the fact that humans of their own free will have actualized the reality of evil through such choices.

Furthermore, without choice, love is meaningless. God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces his love on people, nor a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love him. Instead, God, the personification of love, grants us the freedom of choice. Without such freedom, we would be little more than preprogrammed robots.

Finally, the fact that God created the potential for evil by granting us freedom of choice ultimately will lead to the best of all possible worlds—a world in which “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4). Those who choose Christ will be redeemed from evil by his goodness and will forever be able not to sin.

-Adapted from Resurrection

For further study, see Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes, When God Weeps (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997); Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), chapter one.

Romans 8:28
“We know that in all things God works
for the good of those who love him, who have been
called according to his purpose.”

First, truth is an aspect of the nature of God himself. Thus, to put on truth is to put on Christ. For Christ is “truth” (John 14:6), and Christians are to be the bearers of truth. As Os Guinness explains, Christianity is not true because it works (pragmatism); it is not true because it feels right (subjectivism); it is not true because it is “my truth” (relativism). It is true because it is anchored in the person of Christ.

Furthermore, truth is anything that corresponds to reality. As such, truth does not yield to the size and strength of the latest lobby group. Nor is truth merely a matter of preference or opinion. Rather truth is true even if everyone denies it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone affirms it.

Finally, truth is essential to a realistic worldview. When sophistry, sensationalism, and superstition sabotage truth, our view of reality is seriously skewed. The death of truth spells the death of civilization. However, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn discovered, “One word of truth outweighs the entire world.”

-Adapted from The Covering

For further study, See Os Guinness, Time for Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000).

John 18:37–38
“‘You are a king, then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’” ‘What is truth?’ Pilate asked.”