UAPS in the News Again

On July 27, 2023, a Congressional hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and the seriousness of the threat they pose to American air safety and security was convened. There were three witnesses who testified at this hearing, two ex-Navy pilots, David Fravor and Ryan Graves, and an ex-Air Force intelligence officer, David Grusch. The two former Navy pilots testified of their encounters with UAPs during Naval training exercises in 2004 and 2015. Fravor stated before the committee: "I have no idea what I saw. It had no plumes, wings or rotors and outran our F-18s." And Graves, who has spoken elsewhere on this topic, arguing that UAPs pose to our national security, said to the committee: "The American people deserve to know what's happening in their skies." 

Yet the most surprising testimony came from David Crusch, who had been connected with a secret Pentagon task force investigating UAPs, who argued, on the basis of interviews with 40 people over a four-year period, that there had been "a multi-decade UAP crash and retrieval and reverse-engineering program" secretly funded by the government and military, without any Congressional oversight or control. And it was obvious from several well-known UFO investigators attending this hearing, as they nodded their heads in agreement with Grusch's statement, that they agreed that this secret program should be exposed and brought under proper Congressional control. But what actual decisions and actions will be taken by Congress as the result of this hearing remains to be seen.

One thing clear from the questions that were asked, and the responses given, is that UAPs are now seen as a real phenomenon deserving scientific investigation. Yet their true nature and purpose still remains open to question. That is, as regards the 10 % that cannot be explained by misidentified aircraft, weather balloons, atmospheric, or astronomical phenomena. Of course, in certain quarters the so-called "extraterrestrial hypothesis" remains the majority explanation among ufologists. It is their conviction that these objects must be spacecraft coming from advanced civilizations on other planets who have discovered and are now investigating our planet.

But even if it were true that, in our own galaxy, there were a large number of solar systems with earthlike planets on which intelligent life had evolved, those who maintain the ETH have to adequately overcome ten hurdles to alien visitation:

1. How can these alien spacecraft quickly traverse vast interstellar distances, given the physical limitations on how fast such craft can travel in space?

2. How can these alien spacecraft sustain crews over such long distances?

3. Why do sophisticated surveillance systems fail to detect incoming and outgoing UAPs?

4. How feasible is it for any extraterrestrial civilization, however advanced, to maintain a mission to earth?

5. How is it that these apparently metallic craft come in such a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors so different from each other?

6. Why are so many different life forms observed, and how do they truly adapt to space travel, as well as earth's atmosphere and gravity?

7. Why do UAPs, if they are physical spacecraft, not behave like physical craft but instead manipulate and violate the laws of physics?

8. What intelligent reason exists for the apparent bizarre and inexplicable behavior so often manifested by UAPs?

9. If alien visitors are physical beings, why, as many reports seem to suggest, do they so closely resemble or correspond to psychic or occultic phenomena?

10. As a proposed "advance civilization" (in the areas of technology, morality, and spirituality) why do these aliens, as many contactees have reported while undergoing psychotherapy, act in a crude, sloppy, deceptive, and malevolent manner?

Earlier in my life, when I was a religious agnostic and interested in astronomy and life on other planets, not only did I find the "UFO phenomenon" (the designation for UAPs in the 1950s to 1990s) fascinating but was also pretty much convinced they were spacecraft from inhabited planets in other nearby solar systems. But as I grew in my knowledge of astronomy and the real challenges of interstellar travel, and started asking myself some of the above questions, my confidence in the "extraterrestrial hypothesis" started to waver. 

In addition, after reading some of the writings by Clifford Wilson, John Keel, Jacques Vallee, and other UFO investigators who argued that the evidence available indicated these objects had an "interdimensional" origin rather than an "interstellar" one, the nature and purpose of these objects seemed less explicable in purely scientific terms to me. However, a consideration of the "interdimensional" origins of UAPs and what that means will be the subject of a follow-up article.

 Living in Chaotic and Difficult Times, Pt 3

Now, in this final essay, I turn to the last NT letter ascribed to the Apostle Peter, which in our Bibles is titled "2nd Peter." I do this because this is Peter's last will and testimony, given to instruct and guide Christian churches that will face an uncertain future once he and the Apostle Paul (to whom he refers in this letter) pass from the worldly scene. Whereas in his 1st Peter he dealt primarily with the perils to the Christians in Asia Minor from hostile pagan neighbors, his concern in 2nd Peter is the threat to the Gospel and the Christian way of life in "the Last Days" when false teachers and false prophets will arise in their midst, denying the Lordship of Christ and denying that He will return "to judge the living and the dead," as the Gospel declares he will. And in our own time, the Christian faith and life is not only facing the peril of hostile outside forces, but also the peril of false teachers who have infiltrated our churches, causing disruption and corruption from false teaching and immoral lifestyles.

Much of what he says about our standing in Christ; our understanding of and our following the guidance of Scripture in living a Christlike life (2 Pet. 1:1-21); how we should respond to the teaching and lifestyle of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1-10; 3:17-18) --parallels much of what Paul says in 2 Timothy (cf. 2 Pet. 2 with 2 Tim. 3). But since he specifically refers to the teaching of the false teachers in "the Last Days" in Chapter 3, I mainly draw attention to what he says in that chapter. Their immoral and corrupting lifestyle is the fruit of their disrespect for the moral authority of the Lord Jesus, and their outright denial that he will return to judge both the living and dead.

Now, when you see what Jesus said about false teachers and false prophets of "the Last Days" in Matt. 24:4-14, it becomes clear from what Peter says here that Jesus' prediction about the rise of false teachers who would falsify the Gospel and its demands, seeking to lead Christians astray, had begun to be fulfilled by 64 A.D. These false teachers, despising the godly lifestyle Jesus taught and modeled for his followers, and denying his promise to return to bring full salvation to those waiting for him while judging and punishing those in rebellious opposition to him and his rule, mocked the doctrine of the Second Coming and all its repercussions. "He promised to [return], didn't he? Where is he? Our ancestors have already died, but everything is still the same as it was since the creation of the world!" (2 Pet. 3:4, GNT) Their attitude is that all this talk of Jesus's return to judge the living and the dead is just wishful thinking by religious people; there is no evidence that God exists, let alone directly intervenes in the affairs of humanity to bring about positive change. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!" pretty much summed up their philosophy of life.

But of course, these people are badly mistaken. They have misread God's self-revelation in nature and human history. Not only is there sufficient historical and scientific evidence that shows God exists (cf. Rom. 1:18-20), but also that he has indeed directly intervened in human affairs. As Peter says, "They purposely ignore the fact that long ago that God gave a command, and the heavens and earth were created. The earth was formed out of water and by water, and it was also by water, the water of the flood, that the old world was destroyed" (2 Pet. 3:5-6, GNT). Moreover, these same people tend to argue that if God both exists and is good: If it is through the return of Christ that he will set the world to rights, ending all evil and making a new and better world, why does he not do so and do so quickly?

Peter's response to this question by these skeptics is twofold. First, at a time known and appointed by God the Father, Christ will indeed return to judge the living and the dead. "The heavens and earth that now exist are being preserved by the same command of God, in order to be destroyed by fire. They are being kept for the day when godless people will be judged and destroyed." (2 Pet. 3:7, GNT) And addressing this same matter, Paul wrote the Thessalonian church: "God will do what is right; he will bring suffering on those who make you suffer. and he will give relief to you who suffer...He will do this when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven with his mighty angels with flaming fire, to punish those who reject God and who do not obey the Good News about our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from his glorious might, when he comes on that Day to receive glory from all his people and honor from all who believe." (2 Thess. 1:6-10, GNT)

So, yes, the Day of the Lord will come, and when it does, it will have eternal consequences for both believers and unbelievers. And when it comes, it will come suddenly and unexpectedly for many (cf. 2 Pet. 3:8-10). Yet there is obviously a delay in its arrival. Why is it being delayed?  As Peter explains, in 3:9 and 3:11, it so that wayward Christians might wake up, get right with the Lord, and live holy and productive lives so that they can stand before the Lord without shame and regret. And it is to give non-believers time to repent of their sin, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and start living for him, so that they will not be condemned, but instead enter into Christ's eternal kingdom with a rich welcome. 

Conclusion

Peter concludes his letter with these words, "Since all these things will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people should you be? Your lives should be holy and dedicated to God, as you wait for the Day of God and do your best to make it come soon--the Day when the heavens will burn up and be destroyed and the heavenly bodies will be melted by the heat. But we wait for what God has promised: new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness will be at home." (2 Pet. 3:11-13, GNT). So, between now and the time of the Lord Jesus's return, we are to engage in what some theologians, such as Martin Luther (1483-1546), describe as "active waiting," which involves such activities as prayer, obedient study of the Scripture. evangelism and discipleship, working for social justice and reform that promotes the well-being of the poor and marginalized. And as we do this, Peter says we are helping the Day of God to come sooner than it would otherwise. Something to ponder, is it not?

Living in Chaotic and Violent Times, Pt 2

In 2 Timothy, a letter recognized as Paul's last will and testimony, the Apostle is thinking of the challenges Timothy and others in the Church are going to face in "the Last Days"--which he foresees as characteristic of the time between his death and the Lord's return. Depending on the translation you use, this period is described as being "terrible times" or "difficult times." Yet when you read his description of this period (cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-9), it sure sounds like present day America: Violence, sexual abuse and immorality, greed and the pursuit of endless pleasure, arrogance and narcissism, empty formal religion, and strange religious cults. And in this letter, Paul admonishes not only Timothy, but us as well, to do four things between now and the time Christ Jesus returns and sets up his kingdom in its manifest glory: Guard the Gospel, Persevere in the Gospel, Proclaim the Gospel, Suffer for the Gospel. So now let us do some unpacking of these points made by Paul.

1. Guard the Gospel: The Gospel We Guard and How We Guard It (cf. 1:13-14; 2:8-11). 

The Gospel we guard has its roots in OT Messianic prophecy, and its form and content from the Apostles who first communicated it orally, and then passed it on to us in the full and permanent form we find it in the NT writings. Paul summarizes the Gospel in this way: "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel for which I am suffering, even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained." (2 Tim. 2:8-9, NIV). This summary of Paul's message is pregnant with meaning and significance: The Gospel is about Jesus of Nazareth, who truly lived, died, and rose again; so it is rooted in historical fact, and is not some fabricated myth or legend. It declares that because Jesus was both divine and human therefore he, and he alone, is the only Redeemer and Mediator between God and humanity. And this message emphasizes that it was King Jesus, as the Crucified and Risen One, who not only conquered sin, death, and the powers of darkness; but that he is the One who will return to judge the living and the dead, and set up God's Kingdom in its manifest glory at the end of the age. This was Paul's Gospel, this is what he proclaimed, and it was the message he expected to be passed on and guarded by all those who succeeded him.

He expected Timothy and all others who received this "good deposit" or "the pattern of sound teaching" (1:13) to "guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us" (2 Tim. 1:14, NIV). What Paul has taught about the Person and Work of Christ; about the Way of Life Jesus himself taught and practiced, and which we are to pursue as his followers--with all the wisdom and discernment the Spirit of truth gives us--we are to keep this sacred treasure pure and undefiled by the corruption of worldly philosophy and false religious teaching. As Gordon Fee comments: "Timothy must not allow it to be purloined or eroded by false teachings. But for such a charge, Timothy is not to think of himself on his own. He is to fulfill his responsibilities with the help of the Holy Spirit (see 1:7) who lives in us" (cf. 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, UBCS, p. 333).  And so when we seek to faithfully and effectively proclaim the Gospel in all its fullness and power, we too must rely on the help and support of the Spirit of truth. 

2. Persevere in the Gospel: The Gospel is A Way of Life We Must Persevere In (cf. 1:9-10; 3:13-17). To many people, the Gospel is primarily about Christ dying to save us from our sins and rising to give us new life. And though true enough, people don't seem to think about this question regarding salvation deep enough: "Yes, Christ, has saved me from sin and given me new life. But why, for what purpose?" Evidently Paul had given some serious thought about this question, and so made several statements on the matter. "God saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace" (1:9). And then Paul tells Timothy that if he has experienced God's saving grace and his call to service, he will, like Paul himself, "live a godly life in Christ Jesus" following the instruction the Spirit gives through the Scripture and faithfully proclaiming the message of Christ.

Indeed, he tells another coworker, Titus, that God's saving grace as revealed through Christ and the Gospel "teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for...the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify us as his own people, eager to do what is good" (Titus, 2:12-14). God saved us and gave us new life in Christ for a purpose: that we might eagerly serve Christ and carry out the kingdom work he has assigned to each one of us as members of his Body, the Church. And in Phil. 2:5-11, Paul tells us that we are to have the same mindset as Christ himself, serving God and one another in humble, self-giving love. Moreover, when you read Rom. 8:28-31, Paul makes it clear that God's purpose in saving us, adopting us, and implanting his Spirit in us is that we might become like the Lord Jesus in our thinking, living, loving, and serving. Or as John Stott simply comments on this text: "God wants his people to become like Christ, for Christlikeness is the will of God for the people of God." ("Christlikeness," The Radical Disciple, p.182) And living like Christ is a way of life that is lived, at all times and in all circumstances, solely in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

3. Proclaim the Gospel: The Gospel is to be Proclaimed in Word and Deed (cf. 2:22-26;3:10-12). Whether we do so as ordained leaders or as lay ministers, both men and women--we are to proclaim the Gospel of Christ (which is what Paul means when he says, "Preach the word!" in 4:2) in both word and deed. I think this is evident from what Paul tells Timothy in 2:22-26 and 3:10-12 about the kind of life a preacher and teacher of the Gospel should pursue; the manner in which they not only communicate the Gospel, but in also how they respond to those who oppose them and their message; and then presents himself as a role model of what a messenger of Christ should say and do. Proclaiming the Gospel involves more than preaching a sermon; it also involves credibility rooted in a Christlike life of love and service that confirms that we "practice what we preach." 

St. Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel every day; and when necessary, use words." Though often misunderstood, the point of his saying was that the Gospel we say we believe must be evident in our every-day life activities and relations, otherwise our words are hollow and lack credibility.  So, why are Christians not having a greater impact on society today? There are several reasons, no doubt. But one reason often heard by critics is that too many Christians don't look like the Christ they proclaim. Concerning this, John Poulton states in A Today Sort of Evangelism: "The most effective preaching comes from those who embody the things they are saying...Authenticity gets across from deep down inside people...What communicates now is basically personal authenticity." One of the best compliments I ever received was from someone who said they liked me because I was "an authentic person." So being a real, genuine person, without pretense was highly regarded by this younger person.

But this does lead me, at times, to ask myself, "How authentic am I as a Christian? Do I really embody the Gospel of new life in Christ I'm sharing with others?" For I know that only an authentic Christianity is going to have an impact today. A most disturbing book I read about five years ago was by a California pastor, Dan Kimball, They Like Jesus But Not The Church, in which he sets out 10 reasons why people, between 45 and 18, though attracted to Jesus were repelled by the modern Church. Why? Mainly because when they looked at what the NT recorded about the words and deeds of Jesus and the earliest Christians, as compared to what was being said and done by most Christians in America, they found the discrepancies shocking and repellant. Authentically proclaiming the Gospel in word and deed is, therefore, a deadly serious matter not to be lightly dismissed.    

4. Suffer for the Gospel: The Gospel, Faithfully Lived and Proclaimed, will result in Suffering (cf. 3:12-13; 4:1-5). If anything is obvious from Scripture or the history of the Church, it is that when Christian individuals and congregations faithfully proclaim and live out the truth of the Gospel of Christ--sooner or later--it provokes anger, hostility, ostracization, and even suffering at the hands of non-Christians. Why is that? Not because Christians are deliberately seeking out and inviting persecution, to be sure. Rather, it is the nature of the Gospel we preach and practice. In proclaiming and living by the Gospel, we go in a direction counter to that of our current culture which is pluralistic, materialistic, amoral, and narcissistic in its orientation.

Our pluralistic culture affirms that every religion and philosophy have their own independent validity and so have an equal right to our respect. It therefore rejects Christian claims as to the uniqueness and finality of Jesus as the incarnated revelation of God and as the One alone through whom we can be saved and have a vital relationship with God as Father. But that is what is affirmed by the Gospel we are to guard and that is what we are to preach. As John Stott says, "Nobody else possesses his qualifications. So we may talk about Alexander the Great, Charles the Great and Napolean the Great, but not Jesus the Great. He is not the Great--he is the Only. There is nobody like him. He has no rival and no successor." ("Nonconformity," The Radical Disciple, pp. 101-102) 

Our materialistic culture is definitely preoccupied with materialism in the sense of a general passion and obsession with wealth, social prestige, and pride in human achievements, which the Bible defines as idolatrous greed. And this kind of materialism has always been a peril to spiritual life and vitality. But there is a form of philosophical materialism widespread in our society, especially among the scientific community, known as naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is an atheistic philosophy that, with pretensions of being scientific, teaches the material world is the only reality there is or that can be known; that the universe came into being by chance and without any prior cause; that the physical laws and fine-tuning of the universe that make life possible are the result of blind, purposeless processes; and that if there is a God, since he is not subject to "scientific" investigation and definition, he is irrelevant to any "scientific" explanation of origins. 

So, these naturalistic materialists hate Christianity because not only does it teach that God exists and created the universe, but that his existence and power are evident throughout the universe, which is the work of his hands. And they also hate the fact that Christianity affirms that certain things can be known about God as creator and sustainer of all things because he made it evident to all willing to see it. "Ever since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--God's eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, because they are understood from the things God has made. So humans are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20, CEB). And of course, if God is our Creator and Ruler, and we ignore the revelation of himself through creation, then we are ultimately facing judgment. Hence their fierce antagonism toward Christianity

Our culture is amoral because morality is no longer held as having objective and universal standards. Every moral or ethical system is considered relative to one's time, culture, and social status. In other words, our society is infected with the cancer of ethical relativism. And this is especially true in the area of sexual ethics, which have undergone drastic change since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It used to be that when the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition was taken seriously in America, it was universally accepted that marriage was a monogamous, heterosexual, loving and lifelong union, and the only God-given context for sexual intimacy. But now, in addition to widespread "no fault" divorce, cohabitation without marriage is widely practiced, and same-sex partnerships are accepted and promoted as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage. However, if Christ is indeed our Lord and we are truly living by the moral standards set forth in his Gospel (cf. Matt. 19:3-12 with 1 Cor. 7:25-40), we will find ourselves in opposition to all this ethical relativism, and so likely resisted aggressively by those who disagree with our moral stance. As John Stott says concerning the acceptance of the Gospel and following Christ: "Fundamental to Christian behavior is the lordship of Christ. 'Jesus is Lord' remains the basis of our life" and since he is Lord, we do not have any "liberty to edit and manipulate" Jesus's teaching" accepting what we like and rejecting what we dislike ("Nonconformity," The Radical Disciple, p. 134).

Our culture is narcissistic, which involves an excessive self-love and pursuit of self-realization even to the point of deification, as evidenced in the Human Potential Movement and the New Age Movement of 1970s and 1980s. The late Shirley Maclaine, a New Age leader, expressed the self-centeredness of the movement in the mantra: "I know that I exist; therefore I am. I know the god force exists; therefore it is. Since I am part of that force, I am that I am." Since we and the Divine are one, the New Age calls us to look inside ourselves for solutions to our problems, not to some savior outside ourselves. And to love the Divine is to love ourselves as well, since we are one with the Divine. "But, no, this is surely a mistake for three reasons. First, Jesus spoke of the 'first and great commandment' and of 'the second,' but did not mention a third. Secondly, self-love is one of the signs of the last days (2 Timothy 3:2). Thirdly, the meaning of agape love is the sacrifice of oneself in the service of others. Sacrificing oneself in the service of oneself is clearly nonsense! What then should our attitude be to ourselves? It is a combination of self-affirmation and self-denial--affirming everything in us which comes to us from our creation and redemption, and denying everything which can be traced to the fall." ("Nonconformity," The Radical Disciple, p. 156.) 

Conclusion

Since acceptance of the Gospel leads to a mindset and a new way of life that is counter to that of our culture, we should not be surprised if non-Christians react against us in angry, hostile, and aggressive ways. "If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name" (1 Pet. 4:14-16, NIV). So may God through the Holy Spirit always grant us the wisdom, courage, power, love, and self-control to guard the Gospel, to persevere in the Gospel, to proclaim the Gospel, and suffer for the Gospel, if necessary. Amen! 

    

Living in Chaotic and Violent Times, Pt 1

As the Ukraine/Russia conflict rages on; as a teenager, radicalized by white supremacist propaganda, kills 10 African Americans in a grocery store; as sexual abuse and a criminal cover-up rocks the SBC; as abortion is deceptively promoted as a woman's right to "healthcare"; as another, horrific and senseless mass shooting occurs at a Texas grade school--I, like many others, find myself asking questions that have long been asked in similar times of chaos and violence: "How long, O Lord, will this wickedness last? Destruction and violence are everywhere; strife and conflict abound. Don't you see and care? Aren't you going to intervene? And what do you expect me to do about it?"

So, for the last couple of days, I have been seriously pouring over and pondering what Habakkuk, Peter, and Paul have to say to God's people about living in such times. When you read their respective writings, they either lived in such times or foresaw their coming in the future, and so gave counsel and instruction to their readers as how to persevere through these difficult times. And as a result of this study, I wish to share some guiding principles each biblical writer offers that I think will help us cope with and navigate our own situation.

Living by "the Faith" That Is "Faithfulness" 

The first life principle, given to us in Habakkuk 2:4, is found throughout the Bible, and is illustrated in various ways in the lives of people such as Abraham, Sarah, Ruth, and David. And it is best known in the form that Paul presents to his readers in his Letter to the Romans, "The righteous shall live by faith." (Rom. 1:17) However, in the actual prophecy given by Habakkuk, as rendered by the NIV, the text says, "The righteous person will live by his faithfulness" (Hab. 2:4) So what do these writers mean by "the faith" which is also "faithfulness"? That is the truth unfolded in this short OT book that provided a moral compass for God's people in chaotic and dangerous times, a moral compass that is as relevant to our situation as it was to Habakkuk's time.

Living in Faithfulness Is Not an Avoidance of Harsh Realities 

 As you read through the prophecy of Habakkuk, he first honestly but humbly approaches God. Then Habakkuk confronts Him with his fears, doubts, and questions, confident the Lord will respond (Hab. 1:2-3). We see from this response of the prophet that faithfulness to God involves, at different times and places, our honestly facing harsh realities we would rather avoid and at the same time be open with him about our own fears, doubts, and questions. And because we are his people, we too can be confident of a response from God. Yet the Lord doesn't respond immediately to Habakkuk's anguished cry. 

Such is their relationship that, when the Lord thinks the prophet can handle it, he tells him that he is going to intervene and set things right. But he is going to do so in such a way and such a manner that is totally unexpected: He will use the Babylonians as the instrument of His chastising and correcting Judah. Stunned, Habakkuk responds, "What!? Lord, considering who you are, how can you do this? And considering who the Babylonians are and what they've done, are you not going to punish them for their wickedness and violence?" 

Though expecting a rebuke for this second complaint, Habakuk is still confident in God's sovereignty, goodness, and faithfulness to his covenant with Israel, and so waits for the Lord's response. In the same way as we find ourselves searching the Scriptures, wrestling with God in prayer not only about our current crisis and what we should do about it, we must be confident that God is still sovereign, is still good, and will fulfill all the promises of the new covenant he has made with us in Christ Jesus. But we may be surprised that not only is God at work in the present, but also as to how he will intervene and set things right. As the old hymn says, "God moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform."  

Living in Faithfulness Requires Patience and Enduring Commitment 

So, does he get an answer to his second question? Indeed, the Lord does give him an answer: "Yes, in due time, in fulfilment of my prophetic word, I will raise up those who will overthrow proud and crooked Babylon and thus end its reign of tyranny. But until then, the righteous person will live by his faithfulness. And the day is coming when the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Hab. 2:2-10). The clause translated from the Hebrew as "the righteous person will live by his faithfulness" helps us see that true faith is not only trust and reliance in an eternal, unchanging God who is mighty to save, just and fair in all His dealings with us, and who keeps his promises--but also, in addition to this, true faith in God also involves our commitment, fidelity, and obedience to this God and His revealed will for us, regardless of the circumstances. And yet you might wonder how this is possible for Habakkuk, or anyone, to answer this call to faithfulness?

The Focus of a Life of Faithfulness: Our God, the Everlasting Rock

Even though God is calling us, like Habakkuk, to persevere in a life of trust, commitment, and obedience in chaotic and difficult times, He gives us his assurance that judgment will come upon those who oppose Him and mistreat His people; that even if we can't always see it, He is, as our Shepherd, with us in what appears to be our darkest valley, both protecting and sustaining us (cf. Hab. 2:2-3 with Ps. 23:4; John 10:14-15, 27-30); that as our "Rock" and "Fortress" (cf. Hab. 1:4 with 2 Sam. 22:1-3; Ps. 18:2), we will find that we truly have security and safety in Him, and that nothing can get close to us without passing through Him; and unlike human rulers who are like a mist and whose plans come to naught (cf. Ps. 146:3-4), our Mighty God is eternal and lives forever--so He is able to keep his promises and deliver us out of the most difficult situations (cf. Hab. 1:12 and 2:20 with Ps. 9:7-8; Ps. 145:13-20). And then there is the sure hope of Christ's Return, and the creation of a new heaven and earth, in which we will dwell with our God in unbroken fellowship and joy (cf. Hab. 2:13-14 with 2 Pet. 3:13). This is the moral compass that will enable us to cope with and navigate the stormy seas of life through which we are now sailing.

Conclusion 

So then, like Habakkuk, even though things may remain chaotic and difficult, our confidence is in the LORD, our Rock, Strength and Savior, and we will "patiently wait" for Him to keep his promises to come and set things right (cf. Hab. 3:10-19). However, as we will see in Part Two, this "patient waiting" is active, not passive in nature, according to the Apostle Paul: It is actively living out the Gospel of Christ.  

 The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Pt 3

There are some NT critics who, apparently assuming that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are "irreconcilably at odds with each other," make their case that at least one of these books cannot be considered an accurate account of Jesus' life, words, and deeds. They point out "variations" in the wording and location of various discourses and stories as "evidence" that supports the case they're making against the trustworthiness of the Gospels. However, as we mentioned in a previous article, these apparent discrepancies and contradictions have been known and explained in various ways since at least the third century A.D.  And in our own day, such answers have been provided as well, e.g., Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (Zondervan, 1984). 

It amuses me sometimes that these critics think serious Christians are unaware of these problems. The New Testament, since its production and distribution, has been the most scrutinized book of religious literature. So, it comes as no surprise that nearly every passage in the one of the Synoptic Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke which can be compared side by side) has been seen as contradicting a similar passage in another by someone for some reason. Yet most of the charges raised against "evident" errors and contradictions in the gospels have been adequately answered by many who have defended trustworthiness of the gospels. Some of the "alleged" discrepancies or errors raised against the Synoptic Gospels by critics and skeptics come under the following 7 categories: 

1. Conflicting Theology: This supposedly occurs when certain Gospel sayings on a topic are viewed as in contradiction because they express variations in theology. For example, take a critic, who does not believe in prophecy, pitting Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God coming and being inaugurated after his baptism and his ministry in Galilee (Lk. 17:20-21), with his teaching that when he returns at the end of history, following certain "signs," he will deliver his people and rule over the nations (Lk. 21:25-32). This critic may argue that both cannot be true in the same way and at the same time. Jesus must have taught the Kingdom was imminent, but when that did not happen, the Church invented a saying of Jesus that made the Kingdon future. But several NT scholars have pointed out (e.g., George Eldon Ladd in The Gospel of the Kingdom), when all the texts in the Gospels pertaining to the coming of God's Kingdom are examined and weighed, it is clear that there is an "inaugural" phase that began with Christ and his ministry; was further manifested in his pouring out the Spirit on the Church and equipping it for its world mission; and then in a future glorious return of Christ, then God's Kingdom will be "manifested' in all its fullness.  Thus, they summarize Christ's teaching as, "God's Kingdom is now, and yet to come." So, the "alleged" discrepancies between Christ's various sayings about the coming Kingdom can be harmonized and integrated without doing violence to the meaning and significance of the individual texts. It is often the presuppositions of the critic, rather than the Gospel text itself, that determines how they analyze and categorize it. 

2. The Practice of Paraphrasing:  Sometimes the words of Christ, instead being "literal" utterances are "paraphrases" that bring out certain nuances of the original utterance that help the Gospel writers make certain points in their version of what Christ (or some other person) said. For example, at Jesus' baptism, Luke and Mark record the Father saying to Jesus, "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." But Matthew records the Father's words as, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." As recorded by Luke and Mark, this address is directed primarily to Jesus as an assurance as he begins his Messianic mission, but Matthew paraphrases it to show that this is both an assurance to Jesus and a declaration to the listening crowd as to who Jesus was. "Matthew has probably just reworded Mark to highlight the fact that the heavenly voice spoke not only for Jesus' benefit but also for the benefit of the crowd (and so as well as for those who hear this story later)." And again, Matthew is not doing anything in violation of ancient historiography in doing this. "[An ancient] historian or biographer referring to what a person said did not necessarily try to cite his exact wording. So long as what he wrote was faithful to the meaning of the original utterance, the author was free to phrase his report however he liked, and no one would accuse him of misquoting his source or producing an unreliable narrative." (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p.118)

 

Some other subcategories of “paraphrasing” that have been mistaken as apparent contradictions or discrepancies by critics and skeptics are the following: 

A. Theological Clarification.  A good example of the first sub-category is found in the contrast between Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37, warnings to the twelve disciples and then to a large crowd about the cost of discipleship and how it impacts their relationships with their families. Luke's version of this saying seems very harsh, since it talks about "hating" relatives, possessions, one's own life.  But Matthew talks about "loving (relatives, possessions, one's own life) more than me." Isn't this a discrepancy, a watering down of Jesus' teaching by Matthew? Not necessarily, as pointed out by Dr. Craig Blomberg: "Matthew's paraphrase is a fair interpretation of what Jesus' harsher sounding statement in Luke meant; in semitic language and thought 'hate' had a broader range of meanings than it does in English, including in the sense of 'leaving aside', 'renunciation' or 'abandonment.' Moreover, as G. B. Caid explains, 'the semitic way of saying "I prefer this to that" is "I like this and hate that" (cf. Gen. 29:30-31; Dt. 21:15-17). Thus, for the followers of Jesus to 'hate' their families meant giving the family second place in their affections" (cf. "Contradictions in the Synoptics?" The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 121) So while Luke made a literal translation of Jesus' saying and Matthew gave a paraphrase of it, the meaning and application of the saying is the same.

 

B. Representational Changes. The best example of this is the accounts given by Mark and Luke of the paralytic whose friends take him to the house where Jesus is teaching, but because of the large crowd surrounding the house, they climb up on the roof, make an opening the roof, and then lower the man down so Jesus can heal him (Mk. 2:4; Lk. 5:19). Mark describes them "digging through" a thatched roof and letting the man down, while Luke describes them "removing the tiles" and letting him down in front of Jesus. "Luke's account of lowering the paralytic through the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching removes Mark's reference to 'digging' which would have been necessary with the typical thatched roofs of Palestine, and replaces it with a description of the removal of 'tiles,' more common atop buildings elsewhere in the Roman Empire...All these changes simply help a non-Jewish audience to picture the scenes more vividly and comprehensibly in their minds, even if the actual details of the imagery have changed. Modern Bible paraphrases do much the same thing; the Living Bible, for example changes David's lamp to a 'flashlight' and Paul's command to greet the brethren with a holy kiss to the injunction, 'shake hands warmly' (Ps. 119:105; Rom. 16:16). So, it should not cause distress to discover that the original writers of Scripture did much the same. The meaning of the overall passage in each case remains unaltered; in fact, it is precisely to preserve its intelligibility for a foreign audience that the details of the picture are changed." (Ibid., p. 122)

 

C. Synecdoche. This is a third sub-category, where a part is used to stand for the whole. The best-known example of this is where Jesus promises that God will give good gifts to those who ask him. Matthew records him saying, "If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?" while Luke who almost quotes the same saying exactly, changes "good gifts" in the final clause to "the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 7:11; Lk. 11:13). Luke makes the change to show that of all the gifts God is eager to give us, the Holy Spirit is the most important one. "Since the Holy Spirit is the preeminent example of the type of 'good thing' which is a heavenly gift (cf. Mk. 13:11 pars.; Jn. 14:16-17; Acts 1:8), and thus the most important part of the whole, the change is justifiable." (Ibid., p.124)

                                           

3. Chronological Problems. In part, we have already addressed this problem in a previous article, where we pointed out that all three Synoptic Gospels follow a general geographical and chronological order, within which stories, discourses, and sayings of Jesus are brought together because of common themes or topics--without violating the Greco-Roman historiographical conventions of the first century. We must remember that from the time of St. Agustine, it was recognized that the Gospel writers did not intend to write a detailed itinerary of Jesus' ministry with every event in its strict chronological order, but at different points in the narrative arrange material under common themes or topics to make certain points about Jesus' identity or the true meaning and significance of Jesus' teaching. "Apart from the infancy and passion/resurrection narratives, the gospels simply do not provide enough information about the time and place of the incidents recorded to enable them to be fitted together with confidence chronologically precise harmony...But if one applies the principle of assuming a chronological connection between two portions of the Synoptics only when the text explicitly presents one, then the apparent contradictions of sequence vanish" (Blomberg, "Contradictions in the Synoptics?" The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 127).

 

4. Omissions. As to why the Gospel writers omit various stories or sayings of Jesus that were found in the sources they used is quite impossible to say; every scholarly attempt to explain these omissions is at best an educated guess based on available evidence. The omissions fall into one of two categories a) omissions of entire passages or b) omissions of various details within passages. For instance, Luke, in his portrayal of Jesus and his ministry, follows a geographical outline that traces Jesus as he travels through Galilee, Samaria, Judaea, Peraea; but he omits what Mark describes as Jesus' "withdrawal from Galilee" (Mk. 6:45-8:26). And in the second category, there is Jesus' well-known teaching on divorce and remarriage. As worded in Mark and Luke (Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18), it appears that under no circumstances does Jesus ever permit divorce and remarriage; but as it is worded in Matthew, Jesus prohibits divorce and remarriage, "except for porneia (i.e., "sexual immorality, marital unfaithfulness, adultery"). Some critics charge that Matthew has changed Jesus' absolute command as reflected in Mark and Luke because the church, in Matthew's time, found it too severe or impractical. "Yet although the exegesis of these passages is complicated by a number of ambiguous grammatical features, the most convincing solution still remains the one which sees Matthew as simply spelling out what Mark and Luke leave implicit. The debate about divorce in Jewish circles in Jesus' day pitted the followers of the famous teacher, Hillel, against those of his rival, Shammai. The former took a more liberal view, permitting divorce in a wide variety of circumstances; the latter, only in the case of adultery. In other words, both sides agreed on the exception which Matthew adds, so Jesus could have safely presupposed it without fear of misunderstanding" (Ibid., pp. 131-132). 

5. Composite Speeches. Matthew, who in part presents Jesus "as the Prophet like Moses" predicted in Deut. 18:14-18, punctuates his narrative of Jesus' life with five major discourses or "sermons" (chs. 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25). These discourses are unparalleled in Mark's book, while having several partial parallels which are scattered throughout in Luke's work but having a different context than the ones in which they have been placed by Matthew. As a result, some critics believe Matthew took scattered sayings and then creatively "wove them together" into the five major discourses, filling them in with material of his own making. However, since rabbis in Jesus' time not only gave memorable proverbial sayings, but also regularly spoke in coherent, organized discourse on various themes or topics, many short discourses by Jesus on several topics were either memorized or written down. Therefore, it is more likely that Matthew took these short but complete discourses of Jesus and added related material from other sources that helped round out the five major discourses. This was an acceptable practice in ancient historiography. And in some sections of Luke where similar discourses are given in different locales, we may have examples of itinerant repetition.

 

6. Apparent "Doublets." This category applies to what appears as repeated incidents common to all the Gospels or just to those within one of the Gospels. This involves records of Jesus doing similar miracles, healings, and feeding the poor that appear in slightly differing contexts, such as Jesus feeding of the 5,000 and of the 4,000 in Matthew and Mark. However, the different contexts and the difference in details indicates that though similar in many ways, these incidents are separate and may have been done for varied reasons, which must be discerned from the context in which they have been placed by the Gospel writers. But they are not, as some think, "fabricated fillers" designed merely to make Jesus look greater than he was. 

7. Variations in Names and Numbers. This last category involves apparent discrepancies between Gospel parallels that seem to be a confusion of names and numbers. These are often compounded by textual variants where there are variant spellings, or where letters and symbols similar in appearance were often used to represent different numerals. For example, in the story where Jesus heals the demoniac "Legion," Mark and Luke say he did so in the region of the Gerasenes (Mk. 5:1; Lk. 8:26), while Matthew says he did so in the region of the Gadarenes. Apparently, there were two cities across the lake from Galilee, Khersa and Gerasa, the one close to the shore and the other 35 mi. inland; yet both were commonly referred to as Gerasa. Matthew, sensing the ambiguity, gives the name of the province in which Jesus performed the miracle. And then there the complex variations of the names found in the family genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38. Several explanations have been given, but the best explanation is that Matthew is giving the legal succession list for Joseph as a descendant of David, while Luke's genealogy refers to Joseph's actual parents and their family tree.  And as for confusing numbers, Matthew 21:7 has often been read as though Jesus straddled two animals as he rode in triumph into Jerusalem, contrary to what the other Gospels say. However, ambiguous grammar is the problem; most commentators state that the second "them" in the sentence refers to the garments placed on the donkey's colt and that Jesus sat on them, not on two animals at the same time. 

Though I have only touched the highlights, I think I have shown that there are reasonable explanations and solutions to many so-called "discrepancies" or "contradictions." Consequently, the overall historical reliability of the Gospels remains intact, and so does the certainty of what they record about Jesus’ life, words, and deeds. And if the reader wishes to study this issue in greater detail, I recommend they consult Craig Blomberg’s books, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels and The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. They will also find helpful material in Donald Guthrie’s Introduction to the New Testament.