• Hank’s shares his thoughts on the current media hype surrounding same-sex marriage and those who undermine the Bible such as Lawrence O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly.

Questions and Answers:

• Are alcoholism and homosexuality genetic? Are those who practice these things are not culpable because they can’t help it?
• Is Jeremiah 23:1-5 describing the restoration of Israel only?
• When the Old Testament refers to Israel, How do we know when to apply this to the New Testament context of “true Israel”?
• Why does God deal differently with Abraham and Jonah? In the one case He destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the other case He spares the city of Nineveh.
• In John 10 Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice. How do we hear God’s voice today?

Download and Listen

• What is your view of the rapture? Is it pre or post tribulation?
• How will same-sex marriage destroy the family unit?
• What is the biblical significance of modern-day Israel?
• What will happen when Christ returns? If Jesus returns right now while I’m driving, what will happen to my car?

Download and Listen

• Is Yahweh the correct name for God? Is it appropriate to address the members of the Trinity as Yahweh?
• Are the days of creation in Genesis literal 24 hour days?
• Does the Bible say that the US should support Israel?
• Is interracial marriage biblical?
• Can you explain, “man shall not live by bread alone,” in Luke 4?
• Does Revelation 21:22 mean that there will be no future temple?
• Sometimes I get paid in cash. Do I need to report these earnings?

Download and Listen

• Is suicide the unpardonable sin?
• Does the Hebrew word “almah” refer to a virgin or just a young woman?
• I would like to discuss your view of Mitt Romney’s statements regarding the Israeli-Palestinian controversy. I believe history has shown that some races are superior in many ways.
• What is your opinion of “Heaven is for Real” by Todd Burpo?
• If the church is “true” Israel, what will happen to the Promised Land?
• What if the Temple is rebuilt and there is no rapture, will this shake the faith of people who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture?

Download and Listen

Download and Listen

Download and Listen

The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity. As professor Edwin M. Yamauchi notes, however, the term anthropomorphism is used in a more general sense to include all these aspects, and it is in this general sense that I use the term in this article.¹

We find multiple examples of anthropomorphism in Scripture. For example, God is described as having an arm (Job 40:9), a back (Exod. 33:21-23), breath (Job 33:4), ears (2 Sam. 22:7), eyes (Ps. 34:15), a face (Exod. 33:11), feet (Gen. 3:8), fingers (Deut. 9:10), hair (Dan. 7:9), a hand (Ps. 95:4-5), a head (Dan. 7:9), a heart (2 Chron. 7:16), lips (Ps. 89:34), a mouth (Deut. 8:3), nostrils (2 Sam. 22:9, 16), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), a tongue (Isa. 30:27), and a voice (Exod. 3:4). Moreover, God is said to give birth (Deut. 32:18), hear (Num. 11:18), laugh (Ps. 37:13), see (Ps. 10:11), sit (Ps. 29:10), smell (Gen. 8:21), stand (Amos 7:7), walk (Gen. 3:8), and watch (Gen. 31:49). As well, God is said to experience joy (Isa. 65:19), grief (Judg. 10:16), anger (Deut. 1:37), hatred (Ps. 5:5-6), and love (Jer. 31:3). Relational terms are also used of God, including Shepherd (Ps. 23:1), Judge (Gen. 18:25), Bridegroom (Mark 2:19-20), and Husband (Isa. 54:5).

A number of strange-sometimes heretical-doctrines have emerged among some religious groups as a result of misunderstanding anthropomorphic language. For example, Mormons conclude that God is a physical being because, among other reasons, Moses spoke with God “face to face” (Exod. 33:11²).³ Word-Faith leader Kenneth Copeland says God has human dimensions, standing around six-feet-two-inches and weighing a couple of hundred pounds, simply because God “measured the waters in the hollow of His hand” (Isa. 40:12).⁴ Clearly, misinterpreting anthropomorphic language can lead one far astray doctrinally. My goal in this brief article is to offer three primary insights on how to recognize and then interpret such language when used of God. In so doing, I will follow some of the fundamentals of hermeneutics.

What Does the Text Say? First, we set a foundational theological parameter in understanding anthropomorphisms by interpreting Scripture by Scripture. Martin Luther expressed this principle with the words, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres-Latin for “Scripture is its own expositor.” The Westminster Confession of Faith affirmed, “When there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture…it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”⁵ Addressing anthropomorphisms specifically, theologian Wayne Grudem urged, “It should caution us not to take any one of these [anthropomorphic] descriptions by itself and isolate it from its immediate context or from the rest of what Scripture says about God.”⁶

Following this rule alone effectively prevents one from making the Mormon and Word-Faith errors cited above. For example, by consulting other Scriptures, we quickly see that there is no literal similarity of form between God and His creatures. Numbers 23:19 flatly asserts that “God is not a man.” This same truth is repeated in Job 9:32. Such verses make it clear that when God is described in human terms, such as having a “face” or an “arm,” they are not to be interpreted in a literal fashion.

Further, Scripture reveals that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Hence, it is wrong to think of God as a physical being or as having physical parts.⁷

Still further, because God is a spirit, He is invisible. He cannot be seen. First Timothy 1:17 refers to God as “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God.” Colossians 1:15 speaks of “the invisible God.” As well, warnings against making images and likenesses of God point to the noncorporeal nature of God (see Deut. 4:12; 5:6-9, 22-28).

Clearly, then, interpreting Scripture by Scripture sets a hermeneutic parameter regarding how anthropomorphisms should not be interpreted. We would not know what is not literally true of God unless we first know what is literally true. For example, if it were not literally true that God is Pure Spirit and Infinite, then we would not be able to say that certain things attributed to God elsewhere in the Bible are not literally true, such as God having a material face or hand or arm. This parameter establishes in no uncertain terms that anthropomorphisms are metaphors.

“It’s Like This….” Anthropomorphisms, like other figures of speech, communicate truth by analogy. As Grudem put it, “If God is going to teach us about things we do not know by direct experience…he has to teach us in terms of what we do know.”⁸

For example, when Scripture says, “Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him” (Ps. 103:13), we learn something about God by analogy. Because we understand something of how human fathers show compassion to their children, we can by analogy understand something of God’s compassion toward His children. Such analogies are legitimate, for Scripture reveals that human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27).

Theologians tell us that the analogical language used of God in Scripture is midway between univocal and equivocal language.⁹ Univocal terms are unambiguous; they always have one meaning: Shaquille O’Neal is a tall basketball player, just as the Empire State Building in New York City is a tall building. Equivocal terms are ambiguous, for they can have more than one meaning: The word “trunk” might refer to the front of an elephant, the back of a car, or the bottom of a tree. In analogical usage, we begin with a univocal element (e.g., a human parent loves his child just as the heavenly Father loves His spiritual children), but we perceive that while there are similarities, there are differences as well: human love has limits, whereas divine love is unconditional and limitless. Nevertheless, by analogy, one effectively illustrates the other. That is, we learn something of divine love by first understanding what it means for a parent to love a child. Human love and divine love are different in degree, but not different in kind, and hence the analogy between the two is quite effective.

God, in His infinite wisdom-and as our Creator-knows just which analogies will best help us to understand true aspects of His nature and His relationship with His creation. As theologian Millard Erickson put it, “This analogical knowledge is possible because God selects the components he uses. Unlike humans, God is knowledgeable of both sides of the analogy…God…knowing all things completely, therefore knows which elements of human knowledge and experience are sufficiently similar to the divine truth that they can be used to help construct a meaningful analogy.”¹⁰

Read Between the Lines. Since anthropomorphisms are metaphors that communicate truth analogically, one must begin by seeking to understand the purpose or idea usually associated with the human expression-for example, a hand and an arm normally engage in some kind of action, often in behalf of others. At the same time, it is wise to watch for possible textual clues in Scripture that enable one to infer what is being metaphorically communicated about God by the analogy. What I mean by “textual clue” is illustrated in Psalm 136 where we read of God’s “strong hand and an outstretched arm” (v. 12). The textual clue is found in verse 11, which speaks of God’s deliverance of Israel from the Egyptians. God’s strong hand and outstretched arm point to His mighty power and His active involvement in demonstrating that power on behalf of Israel. Likewise, in Exodus 15:8 where we read of God’s “nostrils,” the textual clue relates to God’s opening up the Red Sea so the Israelites could escape from the Egyptians (see vv. 4-7). The “blast” of God’s “nostrils” is obviously a graphic metaphorical expression indicating that God was the direct causal agent of the sea opening up. In Deuteronomy 9:10, which refers to God’s “fingers,” the textual clue relates to inscriptions on the two tablets of stone containing the Ten Commandments, thus indicating that God is the One who accomplished the inscription. In Exodus 33:11, which refers to Moses speaking to God “face to face,” the textual clue is “just as a man speaks to his friend.” In other words, Moses spoke with God intimately. In none of these verses is there even the slightest hint that God actually has a physical hand, arm, nostrils, fingers, or a face. All of the terms are analogical metaphors.

These three interpretive principles enable us to perceive God’s intended meaning of the anthropomorphisms in Scripture, especially as related to the historical milieu of the time. The ancients considered God to be very much alive and active in human affairs. To the men and women in biblical times, God was real. They knew Him as a person. He was personally active in their midst. The clearest, most succinct way they could express their view of God and their interaction with Him was in the language of human personality and activity-not in cold metaphysical, theological jargon. As scholar Ludwig Köhler put it, “The purpose of anthropomorphisms is to make God accessible to man….They represent God as person. They avoid the error of presenting God as a careless and soulless abstract Idea of a fixed Principle….Through the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament God stands before man as the personal and living God.”¹¹-Ron Rhodes

Ron Rhodes, Th.D., is president of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries and adjunct professor of theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and Veritas Evangelical Seminary. He is an award-winning author of numerous books and articles.

NOTES

1. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (January-March 1968): 29-44.

2. All Bible quotations are from the NASB.

3. LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1978), 16.

4. Kenneth Copeland, “Spirit, Soul and Body I,” 1985, Audiotape #01-0601, Side 1.

5. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:9.

6. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 159.

7. This does not contradict the Incarnation, in which Jesus (as eternal God) took on a human nature (Phil. 2:6-8).

8. Grudem, 159.

9. See Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 204.

10. Erickson, 204.

11. Ludwig Köhler, Anthropomorphisms and Their Meaning from Old Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 25.

Yet, taking refuge in Ramallah was not good enough, as the West Bank, and with it Ramallah, came under Israeli occupation. To add to the challenge, one of my brothers was in Jordan looking for work at that time and was not allowed to come back home. So, my family worked relentlessly trying to get him reunited with us in Ramallah, but the Israeli occupation authority rejected every application we submitted on his behalf. As a result, my brother ended up in Lebanon where he worked as a Journalist, and he consequently served some time in prison for criticizing the Lebanese government. After the beginning of the civil war in Lebanon in 1975 we didn’t hear much of him; we had no idea what happened to him.

Observing the unfolding events in Palestine, my father, like many Christians, saw it as the fulfilling of biblical prophecies. So, when Israel bombed the PLO headquarters in Tunisia on October 2, 1985, my father thought of Israel’s retaliation power as another proof for these prophecies. Sadly, three days later, we received the news that my brother was among those killed in the attack. My brother apparently had joined the PLO after suffering the loss of his homeland, offering his intellectual services. I am not sure how my father felt afterwards, but I vaguely remember him saying that my brother must have influenced the PLO towards peace. And I kept hold of that idea, that my brother gave his life, not only for his homeland, but also for peace.

Palestinian Christians do suffer for being Christians; they also suffer for being Arabs. Yet, in spite of their sufferings, King Hussein once said that Arab Christians are the glue of the Middle East—no peace would be possible without their contribution. But, the number of Arab Christians in Palestine has dwindled significantly during the past century, and even more in the past few decades. Still, many Christians in the US seem to be ignorant or indifferent about the need to support their brothers and sisters in Palestine. One preacher reportedly went as far as describing Arab Christians as “Christians with a Muslim mind,” apparently attempting to reduce the significance of their existence, or to disqualify their much-needed, balanced view of the ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Indeed, many Christians in the US are encouraged to think that Israel’s presence can be a substitute for the Christian presence in that troubled part of the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. National Geographic, in its June 2009 issue, published an article that underscored the indispensible role of the Arab Christian minority in the Holy Land. As Palestinian Christians, we have been privileged with both a long history and a unique identity in Christ; we also have our own unique mission: through our living Christian witness we strive to bring individuals closer to God; and consequently, we give reason and hope for equality and reconciliation between the different groups in Israel/Palestine.

—Mourice Mrabe

Mourice Mrabe was born in Ramallah in 1962 and moved to the USA in 1989. Mourice came to a personal relationship with Christ in 1981 and serves as a lay worship leader in the Arabic Church of Sacramento.

Whether a report is trustworthy depends on the type of individual making the report—a character or the narrator. Information conveyed by multidimensional characters, such as Jacob, may be contaminated with falsification or error and under certain circumstances should be questioned. The same can be said of characters that function exclusively as antagonists or villains in the story (e.g., Abimelech in Judges 9). Entirely heroic or ideal characters (e.g., Daniel), however, are thought to be generally reliable sources of information, and narrators are considered absolutely reliable, since narrators always share God’s perspective and possess His authority. Further, narrators have various devices at their disposal to authenticate a character’s testimony, the most secure being direct confirmation.

Failure to come to terms with these distinctions can lead to faulty interpretations, as it does when the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society attempts to explain the appearance of Samuel in 1 Samuel 28 by appealing to the fallibility of the character’s report. This passage is problematic for the Watchtower because their theology rejects the existence of the human soul as an independent entity that survives the body after death. In 1 Samuel 28:12–19, however, Samuel returns from the dead and speaks to Saul, thus requiring an explanation from Watchtower authorities. They address this issue in Reasoning from the Scriptures, a handbook for dealing with objections that Witnesses frequently encounter when going door to door:

Verses 13, 14 show that Saul himself did not see Samuel but only assumed from the description given by the spirit medium that she saw Samuel. Saul desperately wanted to believe that it was Samuel and so let himself be deceived. Verse 3 says that Samuel was dead and buried. The scriptures quoted under the preceding subheading make clear that there was no part of Samuel that was alive in another realm and able to communicate with Saul. The voice that pretended to be that of Samuel was that of an impostor.¹

The biggest problem with this analysis is that the one who identifies this individual as Samuel is not just Saul, a character type capable of delusions (1 Sam. 18:8–12; 22:7–19), but the inspired and authoritative narrator. Whereas Saul’s report may indeed be mistaken, as the Watchtower claims, the independent testimony of the narrator cannot be dismissed. In fact, the narrator identifies the spirit being five times as Samuel and corroborates Saul’s testimony, as the italicized portions of 1 Samuel 28:11–20 indicate:

Then the woman said, ”Whom shall I bring up for you?” And he said, ”Bring up Samuel for me.” When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.” The king said to her, “Do not be afraid; but what do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.” He said to her, ”What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.” Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has departed from you and has become your adversary? The LORD has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David. As you did not obey the LORD and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the LORD has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!” Then Saul immediately fell full length upon the ground and was very afraid because of the words of Samuel. (Emphasis added.)²

Consequently, if the Watchtower is correct, then the inspired narrator was just as deceived by the impostor as Saul—a conclusion acceptable to neither party in the debate.

Although this particular Watchtower publication seems to overlook the authoritative voice of the narrator, their New World Translation (NWT) does not. It appears that the NWT recognizes the difficulty and cleverly places the name Samuel in quotation marks when invoked by the narrator. Under such conditions, “Samuel” means an alleged Samuel rather than the actual prophet. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that these quotation marks are entirely Watchtower-induced; there is no device, grammatical or otherwise, in the original text to indicate that the narrator was merely humoring Saul or supposing, for the sake of argument, that the individual in question was Samuel.³ In fact, the first one to identify the being as Samuel happens to be the narrator, not Saul (1 Sam. 28:12), an observation that further undermines the translation committee’s assumptions.

Four other considerations support the plain reading of the text. First, the narrator’s straightforward identification of the other characters in this scene reinforces his identification of the spirit as Samuel. In fact, the narrator reports Saul’s attempt to conceal his true identity (28:8), suggesting that he would expose any other pretenders as well.

Second, if the individual was an imposter, we would have to admit that he was a rather talented imposter—and historian as well—since he accurately recalls the earlier circumstances surrounding Saul’s rejection even to the extent of reproducing the words of Samuel in 1 Samuel 15:28, with only minor variations:

1 Sam. 15:28: “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you.”

1 Sam. 28:17: “…the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David.”

The problem might be bypassed by appealing to a demonic spirit as the impostor, as the Watchtower attempts to do elsewhere⁴—not unlike some early Christian commentators. But this option still encounters difficulties with considerations one and three, as well as with the narrator’s unqualified identification of the spirit as Samuel.

It also raises some challenging questions. For example, why would an evil spirit venerate Jehovah by using his covenant name (seven times!) and by emphasizing his utter consistency and full commitment to an earlier oath to punish Saul (1 Sam. 28:16–19)? Additionally, the medium’s startled reaction (1 Sam. 28:12) is not easily explained by the appearance of a demon—a being quite common and unremarkable within her occupation. Also unexpected is the spirit’s communication, which comes across as distinct, realistic, and unmediated,⁵ in contrast to the birdlike mutterings normally emanating from mediums (Isa. 8:19; 29:4). Therefore, it is far less complicated and problematic simply to attribute this degree of authenticity to the real Samuel.

Third, and more impressive, is Samuel’s statement in 1 Samuel 28:19, “Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!” What we have here is something like a five hundred pound gorilla that has entirely escaped the Watchtower’s notice. 1 Samuel 28:19 is, in fact, a prophecy of death and defeat (compare 1 Sam. 2:31–36), which proves to be entirely accurate (1 Sam. 31; 2 Sam. 1) and creates agonizing implications for the Watchtower: their version would mean not only that an impostor prophesied correctly but that he possesses a better record of foretelling the future than they do.⁶ It is much more realistic to credit the prophecy to Samuel, a bona fide prophet (1 Sam. 9:19), who himself mentions the fulfillment of an earlier promise in the same conversation (1 Sam. 28:17–18).

Lastly, the narrator’s comment in 1 Samuel 15:35, that “Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death” is suggestive and may allude to the meeting in chapter 28. (Interestingly, Samuel’s attire [1 Sam. 28:14] and Saul’s capitulation to witchcraft are also anticipated in the same vicinity [1 Sam. 15:27; 15:23].) If, however, 15:35 is unrelated to the events of chapter 28, then its place in the overall story of Saul and Samuel seems excessively coincidental and circumstantial.

It is evident, then, that only by abandoning the fundamental principles of interpreting biblical narrative, as well as ignoring abundant clues in the passage, has the Watchtower been able to achieve an interpretation that satisfies its theology. Any disciplined reading will conclude that the Watchtower has been unsuccessful in neutralizing 1 Samuel 28, one of the most effective passages for demonstrating the independence of the soul and its continued existence after death.

—John Makujina

John Makujina is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Erskine College. His publications appear in journals such as Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of the American Oriental Society.

notes

1 Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1989), 385.

2 All Bible quotations are from the NASB Updated Edition.

3 A footnote in the 1971 edition of the NWT mentions that the Septuagint translators understood “spirit medium” (1 Sam. 28:3) as “ventriloquist” (Greek, engastrimuthos). Whether or not the Watchtower is suggesting ventriloquism as a possible solution, it should be noted that engastrimuthos is associated with gastromancy, a Greek form of divination unknown in the ancient Near East and quite different from performance ventriloquism.

4 For instance, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1989), 91–92; Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1995) , 113.

5 The medium was somewhat removed from Saul during Samuel’s oracle (1 Sam. 28:21).

6 See M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 3–4, 8, 24, 44, 57-58, 95, 99–100. Whether a report is trustworthy depends on the type of individual making the report—a character or the narrator.

In the first of three major sections within the book, Copan definitively deals with slogans that pertain to anyone’s philosophy of life—slogans related to fundamental truth and reality, such as, “Truth and reality are in the eye of the beholder,” and “Why not just look out for yourself?” Each of the three major divisions offers several self-contained chapters, and each chapter concludes with a very helpful summary of his argumentation and a list of resources for further study on the topic.

In the second major section, Copan adroitly addresses a set of slogans pertaining to particular worldviews. Here he shows how we can know which worldview is actually true, concluding that “the existence of a good personal God who created the world and made humans with value and dignity (‘theism’) does a better job of explaining the features of this universe and of human experience than alternative nontheistic worldviews—whether the view is naturalism (‘nature is all there is’) or nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, and the like” (p. 10). It is within this section that Copan provides a particularly compelling defense of the God of the Bible against the accusation that He is arrogant and egotistical. As part of his argument, Copan establishes that humans derive the most fulfillment through worshiping their loving Creator and that God’s greatest act is His astonishing self-humiliation in Christ’s incarnation and death on the cross for the sins of the world.

In the third section, Copan analyzes slogans that ultimately compare and contrast the various theistic alternatives of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, such as “Aren’t the Bible’s ‘Holy Wars’ just like Islamic Jihad?” He concludes that only God’s revelation in Christ provides the intellectual satisfaction the honest seeker is looking for. Here Copan demonstrates the stark qualitative differences between “Yahweh war” in Israel’s early conquest of Canaan and Islamic Jihad. Copan carefully examines as well the so-called imprecatory psalms—those psalms proclaiming judgments against Israel’s enemies with such harsh words as, “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” (Ps. 137:9, ESV). Copan shows that when we read these kinds of words in light of the original Near Eastern context and practice, we see that such expressions of moral outrage were often spoken in the midst of the psalmists’ own suffering at the hands of the unjust and do not necessarily reflect the author’s concrete desire, but in fact were often accompanied by words of deep personal concern for their enemies, ultimately allowing for repentance and the turning away of God’s wrath. If none of the other elements of this book catch your attention, I encourage you to obtain it for at least this insightful discussion.

This powerful book covers several other topics as well, including homosexuality and also Christ’s alleged false prophecies that He would return bodily within the lifetime of His disciples. Copan’s treatment of these prophecies is largely consonant with Hank Hanegraaff’s views expressed in The Apocalypse Code (Thomas Nelson, 2007), and readers of the latter will delight in Copan’s work as well.

—Stephen Ross

Stephen Ross is Research Assistant to the President of Christian Research Institute.

notes

1 Dr. Copan holds the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is the current president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

2 E.g., “That’s Just Your Interpretation”: Responding

to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001); and “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” Responding to Objections that Leave Christians Speechless (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).