Foundational Nature and Origin of the New Testament

posted by Clark Bates 
October 28, 2016       



In a recent sermon at North Point Community Church, pastor Andy Stanley made this statement:  

"Those of you growing up in the church were likely taught that 'Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.'  This is where our trouble began. . . because the implication is that the Bible is the reason we believe."  

He goes on to say in the same sermon,  

"The Bible is not the foundation of the Christian faith."  Now I recognize that there are many who are familiar with this sermon and pastor Stanley's work, and that you may even agree with his message, and I'm not here to pick a fight with pastor Stanley.  In fairness, his message was trying to explain that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Christian faith, as is stated by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:13-16:  "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."[1]            

This is an admirable endeavor, and I believe that pastor Stanley believes in the inerrancy of Scripture right along with other evangelicals, but what troubles me and those in the field of biblical apologetics, is the manner in which he approaches it.  You see, there's a danger in saying that the Bible is not foundational to the Christian faith, because it implies that one doesn't need the Bible.  This is to say nothing of the fact that any and all information we have regarding the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, what Stanley proclaims is the foundation of the Christian faith, is found IN THE BIBLE!            

During His ministry, Jesus uttered the phrase, "have you not read" 7 times as recorded in the gospels and the phrase, "it is written" another 32 times.  After Him, the apostles use the same phrase 42 times, and in every instance they are referring to the Scriptures that were known to the people at that time.  This of course was what we would call the Old Testament.[2]  Part of Pastor Stanley's conclusion to his sermon is that the apostles and the early Christians believed in Jesus before the Bible told them so, and this is meant to prove his final point, that it is the resurrection event and not the Bible in which Christians should trust, however the reason for the belief of the first century church is biblical context within which the resurrection event occurred.            

Now again, I agree with the statement that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Christian faith, for without it no one could be saved.  However, what gets confused in this assertion is the existence and purpose of the Bible in relation to that event.  The resurrection of Christ did not occur in a vacuum.  Everything that Jesus did and everything the apostles preached regarding Him was foreshadowed in the Scriptures.  

This is why Jesus could say of His crucifixion, 

"For it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' " (Matt. 26:31).[3]  

So when Pastor Stanley says things like, "Christianity made its greatest strides during the 282 years before the Bible even existed." a question is created.  Well, first I suppose the question would be what happened to the other 42 books of the Bible, since last I checked the Canon of Scripture was 66 books long not just the 27 books of the New Testament, but the other question would be, what does it mean to say "before the Bible existed" and how did we get the Bible as we know it today?  Pastor Stanley seems to have a misunderstanding on this point, and it is this topic that I'll endeavor to clarify here.  

How Did We Get the Bible as We Know It Today? 

       In 2003 author Dan Brown wrote a Bestselling novel titled The DaVinci Code.  This was later converted into a feature film in 2006 starring Tom Hanks.  The crux of Brown’s plot featured the commonly repeated belief that the divinity of Jesus was determined by a vote at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, at which point Constantine ordered all Christian books affirming Christ's humanity to be destroyed.  A tangential result of this action was the official creation what modern Christians call the New Testament.[4] Suffice it to say, this is an abject lie.  How can this be known?  To begin with, the Christian church had no central leadership for the first 400 years of its existence, therefore a conspiracy of the size alleged in Brown’s fiction would be impossible to achieve.  Secondly, biblical manuscripts exist from before the time of Nicaea that testify to the divinity of Christ; but beyond that we have extant records of what occurred at the Council.[5]  The church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea records the events, as does the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and the resulting 20 canons, or rules, that were promulgated after are a matter of record.  At no point were the books of the New Testament addressed at the council of Nicaea.  This ever-important council was convened primarily to deal with the heresy of Arianism which I have discussed here.  In fact, it can be stated that at no time in church history did any council determine the canon of Scripture.  

θεὸπνευστος (Theonustos) 

       It might seem to be a bold statement to suggest that no ecumenical church council ever made a determination regarding the canon of Scripture (especially if your first thoughts were of Laodicea, Hippo or Carthage), but allow me to expand my point.  In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness."  The Greek word translated in the ESV as "breathed out by God" is θεοπνευστος (theonustos).  This word is essential to understanding the first century church's, and those that followed, concept of Scripture.  At its core, the question of the canon of Scripture is theological.  Any proper discussion on how the Bible came to be, must begin there. Let me illustrate my point.  I haven't written a book yet, but let's say that I had.  Not only that, let's say that I have written five books.  The moment I wrote that first book, the Canon of Clark, or of my writings, began.  Let's say that someone was to log on to Amazon and find these books that I had written.  Did that person create the canon of my writings by finding them?  No, of course not.  They only discovered the books.  In the same way, from the moment God inspired Moses, or the author of Job, or the apostles to put ink to papyrus, the Canon of Scripture existed, it was never subject to the determinations of men.  The church has never determined the Canon, it has only discovered it.  

What do we mean by the "Canon" of Scripture?

 

       The word "canon" comes from the Greek κανων (kanon) which means "rule" or, more specifically, "measuring stick".  Its current usage is indicative of the books of the New Testament that are considered authoritative.  So when we say the "Canon of Scripture" we mean those books which God breathed or inspired to be written.  Oftentimes when presentations are made regarding how the books of the New Testament were selected, a list of criteria is proffered: 

 1. Were the books written by an apostle?   

 2. Were they recognized by the church?    

 3. Were they considered authoritative? 

I confess that even I have used a list like this during presentations on Scripture.  Looking back on the books we have, this kind of a criterion can be applied to them, but it is merely a retrospective acknowledgment of what commonalities exist among the texts that separate them from alternative pseudo-Christian literature of the era.  And again, lists such as these can give the false impression that somehow the church decided the content of the Bible, when in fact it is the presence of inspiration that has decided that.      

It can be said that a formal listing of New Testament books did not exist in the earliest centuries of the church, however, contra Andy Stanley, there were books cataloged as the inspired works of God much earlier than 282 years after Christ's death.  While he doesn't say it outright, Pastor Stanley is probably referring to the early church father Athanasius' 39th festal letter, in 367, in which he writes in opposition to heretics that,         

"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."[6]  

However, more than a century earlier, in 250 AD, the church father Origen wrote this,        

"But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing trumpets hammered thin, the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation.  Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets.  Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude.  In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles [and Revelation], and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles.  And now that last one comes, the one who said, 'I think God displays us apostles last,' (Paul) and in fourteen of his epistles. . . he casts down the walls of Jericho."[7]  

Origen wrote this in his commentary on the book of Joshua using his typical, allegorical flare, and while there is much that can be disputed regarding his interpretive methods, within his writing on the book of Joshua he produced what could be argued as the earliest recorded list of the New Testament.[8]         

By this time there were other texts circulating, mostly Gnostic texts, but none are included in this commentary.  Were there as much a dispute regarding the nature of what books qualified as canonical in the early church as some would have us believe, certainly there would be evidence of this in alternate, contemporaneous canons.  What’s more, while a formal list was not produced in the first 200 years of the church, the church fathers that followed after the apostles, and those that followed them, wrote so prolifically that it is possible to trace their references to Scripture back to each of the 27 canonical New Testament books, and no others.  Were they aware of other texts?  Absolutely!  But they did not speak of those texts as authoritative in the way they did the Canon.  

Conclusion 

           What does all of this tell us?  It tells us that regardless of the need to reach the modern age “nones” who have left the Christian faith by changing verbiage from “the Bible” to “the historical documents” it is historically and theologically fallacious to assert that the Bible is not the foundation of the Christian faith.  It is equally fallacious to assert that the early church grew exponentially before the existence of the Bible.  It cannot even be stated accurately that the church grew at a time without the New Testament Canon.  As well-meaning as pastors like Andy Stanley may be with their sincere desire to reach the unchurched, it should not be done in a manner that de-legitimizes the texts upon which the faith itself stands.            

The Christian men and women of the first three centuries of the church risked their lives to hand copy biblical manuscripts.  The need to spread the text of Scripture to the known world was so great that all else paled in comparison.  The thousands of New Testament manuscripts still in existence today testify to the fact that the Bible was most definitely foundational to the Christian faith.    

        The church has never determined the Canon, it has only discovered it 

[1]   All Scripture references come from the ESV translation of the New Testament  

[2]  With the exception of some later epistles, there are allusions to some gospels and early letters of Paul. 

[3]  A reference to the writings of Zechariah 13:7.  

[4] Dan Brown, The DaVinci Code, (Dc Books, 2006), 233.  

[5] Most notably is MS P72 a fragment containing 2 Peter 1:1 in which Christ is referred to as Savior and God.  This MS is dated between 175-200 AD, making it no less than 125 years prior to the Council of Nicaea.  

[6] Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter: Of the Particular Books and Their Number, Which Were Accepted by the Church, Section IV and V.  

[7] Origen, Homiliae on Josuam 7.1.  

[8] This is not a position held universally within scholarship but it has been recently addressed by Michael Kruger here: http://michaeljkruger.com/what-is-the-earliest-complete-list-of-the-canon-of-the-new-testament/ . 

Who Wrote the Book of . . . 1, 2, & 3 John?

Posted by Clark Bates
September 24, 2016


For those who argue against the traditional apostolic authorship of the Johannine Epistles often favor what's commonly called the “Johannine School”, or a community of believers that followed the apostle John. In fact, so prevalent is this approach, much of scholarship presupposes it as fact a priori. The question that must be asked, is whether or not this presupposition is warranted, or is there enough internal or external evidence to support the alternative, apostolic authorship? As with other articles in this series, it is exactly this question that I will seek to answer below.

External Evidence 

While this article is meant to discuss the authorship of the three Johannine epistles the bulk of the arguments leveled against traditional authorship comes from the link between 1 John and the Fourth Gospel. Because the second and third epistles bear such close textual and thematic connections to the first, what can be said of 1 John will hold bearing upon 2 and 3 John as well. At the outset it must be stated that, “Early on, by the second century in fact, Christian tradition identified their author as John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles.”1

Allusions to the epistles in the first two centuries of the church include:

1. Clement of Rome (c.96) describes God's elect people as being “perfected in love” (1 Clem. 49:5;50:3; cf. 1 Jn. 2:5; 4:12, 17-18)

2. The Didache (c. 90-120) speaks of the world passing away in 10:5-6 (cf. 1 Jn. 2:17)

3. The Epistle of Barnabus (c. 130) speaks of Jesus as “the Son of God come in flesh” (5:9-11; 12:10; cf. 1 Jn. 4:2; 2 Jn. 7)

4. Polycarp (c. 135) warns against deceiving false brothers in these terms: “For everyone who does not confess Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh is Antichrist” (Phil. 7:1), surely dependent on 2 Jn. 7 and 1 Jn. 4:2-3; 2:22.

In addition to the above, as recorded by the 4th century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, the first author to refer specifically to a Johannine epistle as the work of John is Papias of Hierapolis (c. 70-163) in the middle of the second century.2 It should be noted that Eusebius makes this reference regarding a disputation on the authenticity of 2 and 3 John, but the acknowledgment that the apostle whom Jesus loved was accepted as the author of 1 John remains valuable to the discussion at hand.

By the time of Irenaeus (c. 180). at least the first and second epistles are explicitly attributed to John, the disciple of the Lord and the author of the fourth gospel.3 Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), prolific writer and leader of the early church, knew of more than one Johannine epistle. This is evident when he wrote of 1 John as, “the greater epistle” ascribed to the apostle John.4 Furthermore, Regarding 2 and 3 John it is Origen (c. 253) who first mentions all three epistles, and while this is only recorded late into the third century it cannot be asserted that Origen created this particular stance but merely repeated what was common consideration of that day.5 IN fact, it can be easily asserted that never, at any time, are any of the three Johannine epistles attributed to anyone other than John the son of Zebedee.6 These facts lead eminent theologian D.A. Carson to affirm, “In line with the majority view among Christian students during the past two thousand years (though out of step with today's majority), I think it highly probable that John the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel and the three letters that traditionally bear his name.”7

Internal Evidence 

Much like the Pauline epistles, the opening verses of 1 John claim that the author was an eyewitness of Jesus' life. And, as was stated in the opening, since 2 John and 3 John stand in close conceptual relation – to each other and to 1 John – the gravity of their admittedly sketchy content is maximized.8 Because of this, the claim to authorship of all three epistles rests firmly on the relation of 1 John and the fourth gospel. This is also the area of contention in modern scholarship as we will see shortly, but first it is widely acknowledged that the fourth gospel and 1 John contain many striking similarities:

1. They both contain the themes of light and darkness, life and death, truth and falsehood, as well as love and hate; all with no third alternative.

2. Both writings contain the same syntax and the same “scheme of salvation”.9

3. Within this theme we are “of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:8/Jn. 8:44); “from the world” (2:16;4:5/8:23;
15:19); we “sin” (3:4/8:34) and “have” sin (1:8/9:41); “walk in darkness” (1:6; 2:11/8:12; 12:35), and are “dead” (3:14/5:25).

4. Jesus is the “Savior of the world” (4:14/4:42) so that “we might live” (4:9/3:16). We pass “from death to life” (3:14/5:24); “have life” (5:11/3:15). Life is in the Son of God (5:11-12/1:4; 14:6).

Those who appeal to a different author appeal to three kinds of phenomena:

1. There are subtle but significant differences between the fourth gospel and the epistle of 1 John. For example, only in John is the logos (Word) personal (Jn. 1:1, 14); in the epistle, the “word” is the “word of life” and it is the life that is personal (1 Jn. 1:1-4). In the fourth gospel, the Holy Spirit is the parakletos (Counselor) (Jn. 14 – 16); In the epistle, Jesus is the parakletos (1 Jn. 2:1). John states that “God is Spirit (Jn. 4:24); 1 John says that He is light and love (1:5; 4:8). In the gospel, Jesus' death is portrayed as his being “lifted up” and “glorified”; in the epistle, Jesus' death is propitiatory (2:2; 4:10)

2. There are words and expressions in John's gospel that are not found in 1 John, and vice versa.10

3. There is a “Johannine school” of writers which took turns writing parts of the books attributed to the apostle.11

In response to objection 1, it is true that the prologue to the fourth gospel uses logos to refer to the pre-incarnate Son of God, but it uses the same word numerous times throughout the gospel with its more common meaning of “message” (8:31). In contrast to the claim, some scholars also see the personal aspect of the “word” in the epistle's use of “word of life” as well. That Jesus could be called the parakletos in 1 John should not be surprising given that in the fourth gospel, John recounts Jesus insisting that He will send “another” counselor in reference to the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:16). This suggests that there is a “Counselor” prior to the Holy Spirit, as John reveals in the epistle, namely Jesus Christ. And lastly, If the fourth gospel looks at Jesus' death as “lifting up” and a “glorification,” it is partly because it is focusing on the historical Jesus and partly because it is intent on showing that the cross was not the defeat that some Jews thought it was. If the epistle casts Jesus' death in terms of its propitiation, that owes much to his polemical purpose: he is concerned to show that sin has serious effects, and the only way to remove those effects is by the provision that God himself has made.

In response to objections 2 and 3, the divergent vocabularies enjoy greater similarity than those of Luke and Acts (known to come from the same writer) or Ephesians and Colossians (also from the same writer, i.e. Paul). These variations actually suggest common authorship rather than servile copying. While a great deal of weight is being made to ride on a “Johannine School” whose existence is not more certain than a number of questionable inferences, there is little more than a presupposed hyper skepticism supporting that weight. What's more the epistles of 2 and 3 John are so closely linked in vocabulary and theme, any suggestion of separate authorship must bear an almost untenable burden of proof.

While much is made of the author's reference to himself as John “the elder” in 2 and 3 John there is nothing anomalous about an apostle designating himself as such (1 Pet. 5:1). Also, the term “elder” can also be used to refer to an old man rather than an office of the church. If the author of these epistles is the son of Zebedee and subsequently the last remaining apostle, such an allusion is perfectly appropriate. This is even strengthened by his use of “the elder” possibly suggesting that among all the elders of the Ephesian church, this author is one of singular importance. Finally, the author of separates himself from his readers with “we” versus “you” statements (1:1,3; 4:14; 5:6-7). The author distinguished himself as a writer and eyewitness from his readers, a second generation believers.

Conclusion 

It can be difficult in the realm of academia to want ot contest a rising tide of skeptical criticism in regards tot he New Testament documents. It can be even more daunting for the average layperson to stand against such claims made by scholars in the field. However, the oft repeated claim that “all of scholarship says...” is largely overdrawn and should be received with its own healthy level of skepticism. The truth of the matter is that there are good reasons to accept the traditional authorship of these books as represented from within the text and maintained by the first two thousand years of the Christian church. Given the evidence above and the inability for the “Johannine school” to effectively prove the opposite, I see no reason to doubt that the author of the 3 epistles of John is any other than “he whom Jesus loved”.

1 D. Rensberger, The Epistles of John, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 2.
2 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.17
3 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.16.18
4 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 3.4.32; 3.5.42; 4.16.100.
5 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.10.
6 D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament: 1,2,3 John, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 671.
7 D.A. Carson, “The Johannine Writings,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T.D. Alexander and B.S. Rosner, (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity Press), 132.
8 Robert W. Yarbrough, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series: 1-3 John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 6.
9 John R.W. Stott, The Letters of John, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 21-23.
10 A.E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, ICC, (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark Publishing, 1912), xvi.
11 R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, IBT (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 152.

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Jude?

Posted by Clark Bates
September 17, 2016

The epistles of 2 Peter and Jude are closely intertwined within the early church and the New Testament.  Because of this, it is often viewed that if one can be deemed pseudepigriphical in nature, the other must necessarily follow suit.  In this series on New Testament authorship, it has been my desire to not only provide an accurate overview of the issues, but to communicate an adequate defense for the traditional view of New Testament authorship.  It is my conviction that, given the available evidence, it is reasonable to ascribe the existing canon of Scripture to the authors by which they are named or assigned.  In our last article, the defense was laid for the second epistle of Peter, so we must now turn our sites to its companion piece, the epistle of Jude.

Internal Evidence           

In keeping with ancient Greco-Roman conventions, the Epistle of Jude begins by naming the author, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. . .” (Jude 1).  This opening identification serves to distinguish this “Jude” from others that would have been known at the time.  The name “Jude” is Semitic in origin and a very common name in the Palestinian region, given it's Hebrew equivalent “Judah”.[1]  In the New Testament there are several men named Jude:

1.  Judas Iscariot (Matt.10:4)

2.  The revolutionary Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37)

3.  Judas of Damascus ( Acts 9:11)

and

4.  Judas called Barsabbas (Acts 15:22-32)

Of these four, only the last two are plausible candidates for authorship, however the additional identifier, “brother of James” eliminates them as potential authors.  There is one of the Twelve identified as “Jude, son of James” (Lk. 6:16), but the use of the Greek adelphos in Jude, in opposition with the lack of designation in Luke, suggests that these are not the same individual.  The only man named in the New Testament that would be comparable with this identifier is Jude, brother of Jesus, listed alongside James (Matt. 13:55).  His being listed last in the grouping may also suggest that he is the youngest of Jesus' siblings.  This Jude also feels confident in mentioning his relationship with an undefined “James”.  Given that they appear together without qualification, it is reasonable to identify this James as “the Lord's brother”, a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9).  Since honor in the Mediterranean world is shared among members of a family, the honor ascribed to James would enhance the status of Jude in the eyes of the reader.[2]

In the early church, some disagreement circulated regarding the identity of this particular “Jude”.  Some of the fathers identified the author as Jude, the apostle, while others believed him to be the one also known as “Thaddeus” (Matt. 10:3), but the majority of the church agreed with his familial link to the Lord Jesus.  Clement of Alexandria (c.150- 215) wrote,

“Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, whilst knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother.  But what said he? 'Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,' - of Him as Lord; but 'the brother of James.'  For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.”[3]

This is seconded by the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 180-200?), Tertullian (c. 155-240), and Origen (184-254).  While it is true that these same men, and others, refer to Jude at times as “the apostle Jude” it must be recognized that, in the Western Church, the apostle Jude of Luke 6:16 was believed to be the synonymous with the biological brother of Jesus Christ.[4]

Pseudepigraphical Challenges 

As has been discussed many times in this series, even in the last article, the practice of writing under the name of another, well-known figure (pseudepigraphy) was common and practiced in the ancient world for a variety of reasons.  Serious questions in the ancient church were raised regarding the epistle's authenticity in spite of its wide acceptance in the Western and Alexandrian churches.  The Church of Alexandria adopted a “maximalist” approach, adopting a wider array of books at first, but culling them later, whereas the Syrian church adopted a “minimalist” approach, slowly admitting any contested texts.[5]

The church historian Eusebius also acknowledged that Jude was one of the “disputed” books, but also recognized that it was read publicly in many churches.[6]  Much of the disputes regarding the book can be traced to its use of the apocryphal text 1 Enoch (Jude 14-15).  This, according to Jerome, who wrote, “Jude, the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch it is rejected by many.”[7]  Because of its wide use in antiquity and no clear voice raised in opposition to the possibility that the Lord's brother wrote this text, it remained canonical and authoritative.

The greatest confirmation of the authenticity of Jude, while not conclusive on the grounds of pseudepigraphy, is its reproduction in 2 Peter.  As was discussed in the last article, if it can be concluded that 2 Peter is authentic, the only plausible answer to this reproduction is that the apostle Peter borrowed from the existing epistle of Jude in his writing.  If this is the case, the author of Jude is a first century Hebrew of note within the Christian church, and not a pseudepigriphical concoction.

As is the case with all contemporary debate regarding authorship, much of the protestation surrounds the use of Greek style, sub-apostolic outlook and identification of the heretics mentioned.  The use of Greek in this epistle is clearly by one who has mastered the language, which, just as it has for the Petrine epistles, raises doubts as to whether a Galilean might accomplish such a task.  Much in the same way that Origen saw in the epistle, “powerful words of heavenly grace”[8], so too have modern scholars seen “a relative purity of Greek style and prose. . . suggest[ing] both careful composition and deep Hellenization,”[9] and concluded that, “while a Galilean like Jude must have spoken Greek fluently, it is not easy to imagine him handling the language with such art.”[10]

Given the assessment that linguistic ability of the ancient world was closely tied with one's social status, a Galilean son of a carpenter is unlikely to be so skilled in the language of Scripture.  However, there are two factors that work to mitigate the negative assessment of traditional authorship.  First, Jude, along with other brothers of Jesus, engaged in itinerant ministry, which presupposes a fluency in Greek.  As Green mentions, “They hardly traveled with a phrase book as a modern tourist might do.”[11]  Secondly, very little weight is ever afforded its due regarding the use of secretaries in the writing of these epistles, especially from critical scholars.  It is an established fact that those who did not possess a high degree of literacy, “paid professional scribes to draft communication on their behalf.  The practice passes undetected in private correspondence.”[12]  Because of this, Jude should not be rejected on stylistic grounds.

With yet more similarities to the disputes over 2 Peter, it is argued that the Judean Epistle speaks of the apostolic community as having since passed.  If this is the case, then the letter must have been written after the first century and could not have been authored by the traditional Jude of the early church.  In vv. 17-18 the author writes, “remember the words previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” suggesting to some that this emerges from a post-apostolic era.  However, this argument flounders in v. 18 in which the author then writes, “they said to you. . .” suggesting that the readers of this epistle heard the words of the apostles in their own lifetime.

Lastly, the identification of the heretics the author seeks to combat has become troubling for some.  If they can be identified as Gnostics, the epistle is second century at best and subsequently pseudepigraphical.  The profile of these heretics as presented in the epistle is that they have distorted the gospel of grace as to promote a theology where one is freed from moral constraint (v.4).  They were familiar with the church and even participated in the “love feasts” suggesting they were seen as disciples of the church (v.12).  They denied the Lord (v.4).  They appear to have rejected any authority over their conduct (v.8) and could be understood as having rejected apostolic authority (v.17).  Finally, they also claimed to have divinely inspired revelation in dreams (v.8).  If this assessment is correct, the heretical profile finds more in common with first century antinomianism, rather than second century Gnosticism.[13]  The lack of any mention of Gnostic cosmology and anthropology only furthers this position, allowing for clear credibility of traditional authorship.

While the debate over this epistle's authorship will likely continue into perpetuity, the absence of compelling arguments against the traditional authorship leave the reader with no credible reason to reject it.  Yes, it certainly can be asserted that the brother of the Lord required scribal assistance in its composition, but the issues raised in opposition fail to account for the other specific details of the text.  The weight of internal evidence and the support of the early church stand in favor of its authenticity.  Jude continues to exist as a representative of non-Pauline Christianity and gives us valuable insight into the character of the early church.  It is invaluable to all who read it and profitable for training and instruction in righteousness.



[1]Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1: Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 112-25.
[2]Gene L. Green, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series: Jude & 2 Peter, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 2.
[3]Clement of Alexandria, Comments on the Epistle of Jude.
[4]The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 907.
[5]Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 284.
[6]Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.25;3.25.3; 6.13.6; 6.14.1.
[7]Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 4.
[8]Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10.17.
[9]J.P. Oleson, “An Echo of Hesiod's Theogony vv.190-2 in Jude 13,” New Testament Studies 25 (1979):495.
[10]J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, (London: Black, 1969), 233.
[11]Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 8.
[12]James L. White, Light from Ancient Letter, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 216.
[13]Simply put, antinomianism is the belief that the grace of God frees the believer from moral requirements.

Who Wrote the Book of . . . 2 Peter?

Who Wrote the Book of . . . 2 Peter?

Posted by Clark Bates

September 3, 2016

      In the realm of biblical authorship, few books face as great a tension as that of the Epistle of 2 Peter. Difficulties abound regarding the style and language of the work, as well as its comparison to the Epistle of 1 Peter, and that is to say nothing of its less-than-stellar reception by the early church. In light of these barriers, most of the academic world reject 2 Peter as apostolic, preferring to view it as a pseudepagriphical writing from the second century. Below, I'll acknowledge and briefly examine the evidence used for objection to traditional authorship and counter them, where possible, with a more measured understanding of what is accused.

Internal Evidence

      To begin, the author of 2 Peter identifies himself as Simeon Peter, the apostle of Jesus Christ (1:1). In addition the author includes several personal flourishes including his experience with the Lord Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration ( 2 Pet. 1:17-18 cf. Matt. 17:1-5; Mk. 9:2-7; Lk. 9:28-35). The author also seems to feel the imminence of his death while alluding to the prophetic utterances of Christ, as recorded in the Gospel of John (1:14; Jn. 21:18-19). The author refers to this as his “second letter”, inferring that he is the same author as that of 1 Peter (3:1) which, in the last article this was argued as being apostolic in origin, strengthening the apostolic authorship of this epistle as well. What's more, the author speaks of himself as a companion in ministry with the apostle Paul (3:15-16), placing his own teachings on par with those of the apostle to the gentiles. Therefore, the internal evidence demonstrates that the author of 2 Peter sought to identify himself as the apostle Peter.

      This notwithstanding, 2 Peter stands apart as one of the most contested New Testament epistles today. As previously mentioned, modern Academia believes it to be a pseudepigraphical writing of the 2^nd century. According to NT scholar Richard Bauckham, “The Petrine authorship of 2 Peter has long been disputed, but only since the beginning of this century has the pseudepighraphical character of the work come to be almost universally recognized.”¹ Attempts by many scholars to defend the traditional authorship of 2 Peter have not been received favorably, even to this day, and it would be disingenuous to attribute all of this opposition to entrenched skepticism within Academia. That is not to say that no response can be made, but that any response should be made with respect to the evidence presented.

“The contemporary reader must, on one hand, decide whether the arguments against the book's authenticity are cogent,and, on the other, whether there is sufficient warrant to affirm that the letter came from Peter.”²

Historical Difficulties

 

     A common assertion in defense of forgery is that 2 Peter is not quoted in any church documents, prior to the third century.³ This is not universally accepted, however, given the argument from several regarding its limited use in the second century by way of allusion. While even Bauckham recognizes that there is better evidence than is sometimes admitted for second century use of 2 Peter, the evidence is decidedly weaker than that of any other accepted writing.⁴ writing from the fourth century but speaking of the second, the historian Eusebius recognized 1 Peter as authentic but doubted the authority of the 2 Peter, “The so-called second Epistle we have not received as canonical, but nevertheless it has appeared to be useful to many, and has been studied with other Scriptures.”⁵ However, even though 2 Peter finds itself within the Eusebius' list of “disputed books” (2 Peter, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John), it is in good company as all these works were included into the canon of Scripture. Therefore, although inadvertently, Eusebius has given credence to the early disputation of the letter while simultaneously demonstrating its use in in the second century! By the fourth century 2 Peter found its way into the canons of Laodicea (AD 360), Athanasius (ca. 296-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-387), Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 390) and Carthage (AD 397), among others.

      In modern scholarship, 2 Peter has been rejected as authentic due to its use of Jude, largely because the epistle of Jude is deemed to be “post-apostolic”, and if the author of 2 Peter utilizes Jude, it must have been written after the apostle's death.⁶ However, if it can be ascertained that the dating of Jude is incorrect, this argument against 2 Peter fails. Another argument against Petrine authorship as linked to the epistle of Jude is the use of imitation from one letter to the other. 2 Peter appears to mimic sections of Jude, making it submissive to the latter. Given the apostle Peter's primacy in the early church, it is considered doubtful that, were his letter authentic, it would be in a secondary position.⁷ However, even this argument is based on suppositions. If the epistle of Jude is authentically penned by the brother of Jesus, it would be customary that the higher status would be bestowed upon the family member over the apostle.

Literary Style and Language

      Concerning literary style and language, the letter contains a considerable amount of rare words gleaned from a variety of literary works, poetry and obscure sources. This would suggest that the author is widely read, something the biblical accounts seem to contradict, regarding the nature of the apostle (Acts 4:13). This is deemed so conclusive that the “Hellenistic influence . . . rules out Peter definitely.”⁸ This uniqueness in style, when compared to the first epistle, is so distinct that it is concluded that each letter is written by separate authors. 1 Peter speaks of the “revelation” of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:7), while 2 Peter refers to His “coming” (2 Pet. 1:16; 3:4) and “the day of the Lord” (3:10). 1 Peter describes God's redemption as “the salvation of your souls” (1:9), but 2 Peter prefers to speak of “entry into the eternal kingdom” (1:11). 1 Peter quotes the OT extensively, while 2 Peter scarcely; and while 2 Peter refers back to the first letter, there is virtually no intersection between the two.

      While a great deal of credence is given to the differences in style and vocabulary of the two epistles (and the differences should not be minimized) there simply is not enough of a corpus of Petrine literature to determine what the apostle could, or could not, have written. The apostle could have referred to Christ's “revelation” in one instance, and to His “coming” in another. Similarly, the use of Hellenistic terminology is insufficient grounds to reject apostolic authorship given the Hellenistic world within which the apostles lived, wrote and ministered. It is a well known fact in the early church that the apostle Peter was in need of linguistic help. Thorough knowledge of Greek was not as widespread in Galilee and the ability to write well was not universal by any means.⁹ The use of an amanuensis has been discussed in previous articles and was common practice, especially for the apostle. To quote the Beatles, Peter “got by with a little help from his friends.”¹⁰ While there is little documented on either side of this debate regarding the license which the apostle may have given his “secretary”, it is common knowledge that various amanuensis throughout the centuries would contribute as little as dictation or as much as linguistic style and language. Because of this broad range of secretarial practices it becomes impossible to say what kind of style Peter could have used.

Historical Setting

      It is also argued that the letter provides historical clues to a late dating. The author speaks against heretics “since the time the fathers died” (3:4) suggesting the letter was written to a problem occurring after the first generation of Christians. In 3:2 the author speaks of “your apostles” suggesting the apostles were a group to which the author did not belong, and in 3:16, the author speaks of Paul's letters as “Scripture,” indicating that that the book was written in a post-apostolic age.¹¹

      Regarding the use of the term “fathers” in 3:4, there is no reason to see this as a referent to first generation Christians unless you operate from a position of skepticism regarding the dating of the text. The early church did not refer to the first generation of Christians as “the fathers”, however it was a term utilized for the Jewish ancestors.¹² Likewise, in 3:2 the use of the term “your apostles” does not suggest a post-apostolic authorship, but is merely a designation of those who have preached and ministered the gospel to the readers. Regarding the use of “Scripture” in light of the apostle Paul's writings, a suggestion of pseudonymity must be forced upon the text. While it is true that during the apostle Peter's time the term “Scriptures” referred to the divinely inspired works of the OT, but early into the life of the church, the same term was applied to the teachings of Jesus (1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:6).

       The majority opinion that 2 Peter exists as a pseudephigrical text is not without its difficulties, even given its wide acceptance. As has been discussed in early articles, there is no secured reasoning that a document, known to be pseudonymous, would ever be allowed into the canon. Very little attention is given to this feature because most who argue for the pseudonymous nature of this epistle already accept a limited canon of authentic Pauline writings and presuppose a New Testament filled with pseudepigraphy! Ironically, the above-mentioned “personal flourishes” within the epistle are also used as a reason to accept pseudonimity!¹³ It is argued that the emphasis on Petrine authorship is too heavily stressed and suggests the author is covering their work. This approach tends to overflow with an unnecessarily extreme form of hyper skepticism to the text, and can not explain why the author would use the instances that they did, rather than more foundational events that ascribe higher authority to the apostle.

      The contemporary objections to Petrine authorship are not without their weaknesses, and we must not allow the volume of opinion to decide a case such as this. These objections should be received and analyzed, but also responded to. The verdict of the early church was certainly ambiguous but the epistle was clearly used, and widely so. What's more, while the epistle bears little similarity to it's earlier counterpart, it bears no similarity to the later apocalyptic literature that also bore the apostle Peter's name. Academic consensus aside, we are left with three options regarding the authorship of this epistle:

1. The prima facie claim of the letter to be apostolic should be accepted.
2. The evidence of its forgery is determinative, therefore it does not deserve canonical status.
3. Or, the evidence is inconclusive.

Many prefer a form of the second option but seek to keep the epistle's canonicity, but this is disingenuous. Others, in the face of the dispute, find the third option best. I see the acceptance of the epistle into the canon as a clear rejection of the second option, and while I can sympathize with the third, only the first is permissible in light of the existing evidence and a high view of biblical innerancy.

1Richard Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account of Research.” Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt, 2.25.5 (New York: de Gruyter, 1988), 3719.

2Gene L. Green, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Jude & 2 Peter, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 140.

3Pheme Perkins, Interpretations: First and Second Peter, James and Jude, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995), 160.

4Richard Bauckham, World Biblical Commentary: Jude, 2 Peter, (Waco: World Press, 1983), 160.

5Esuebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.3.1.

6Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 144.

7It has been argued by some that Jude imitates 2 Peter, but this line of argumentation is not corroborated by the evidence.

8W.G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, transl. H.C. Kee, 2^nd. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 431.

9Green, Jude, 146.

10 Mark, Sylvanus, and a certain Glaucias are three such “friends”.

11Earl Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary, (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 308.

12Green, 316.

13Kummel, Introduction, 430, 433.

Priviged Planet:. New Study Suggests We are Alone in the Cosmos

In the paper, the three astronomers calculated the likelihood for advanced life as a function of cosmic time and concluded that we humans must be the first on the cosmic scene. In their calculation, they presumed that any life possibly existing in the universe must be like us in that its chemistry is carbon-base ...

Click on the link below
Are We Alone in the Cosmos?

Book Review: No God But One by Nabeel Qureshi

Book Review:  No God But One: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence For Islam & Christianity

Posted by Clark Bates
August 27, 2016

      For those familiar with his previous writings, Nabeel Qureshi's biography as a Muslim Zealot turned Christian apologist has made him the overnight authority on Christian/Islamic Apologetics. As he recounted in his first work Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, Nabeel spent much of his life as a devout American Muslim, fervently seeking to spread the faith of Allah and his messenger Muhammad to all who would hear him. Raised to love Islam but faced with insurmountable questions after the events of 9/11, the author sought to investigate his faith and silence the doubts that began to permeate his thoughts and worship. Through multiple interactions with Christians and Muslims, over the course of four years, Nabeel's faith in Allah and the Prophet began to erode, while his realization and acceptance of Jesus began to increase. As he recalls,

“On August 24, 2005, when I could resist no longer, I bent my knee to Jesus and proclaimed my faith in Him. Soon after my family was shattered, and the next year of my life was by far the most harrowing I have ever endured. I was now an outsider, both to my family and to all my friends in the Islamic community.”¹

      Having achieved a degree in medicine from Eastern Virginia Medical School, the author focused his sights on defense of the Christian faith, earning degrees in apologetics from Biola University and religion from Duke. Currently, Nabeel is pursuing his doctorate in New Testament studies from Oxford University and is an international speaker for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. The events that Nabeel describes in his premier writing are now parlayed into his latest work as a structured, point-by-point comparison of the Christian and Islamic faiths, with the ultimate goal of demonstrating the overwhelming reliability of Christianity and the need for Muslims worldwide to seek the truth.

      Separated into ten parts, No God but One addresses the various dissimilarities between the two faiths, followed by an epistemological analysis of each faith's claim to truth. Much of Nabeel's writing is contemporary with the debates circulating in the public sphere regarding Muslims and Christians worshiping the same God, the comparison of modern jihad with that of the Crusades, Muhammad as opposed to Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and the Quranic claims of divine origin and perfection. In so doing, the author provides a plethora of information for the Christian and Muslim reader, sandwiched between the harrowing account of a young Muslim girl's conversion to Christianity and its resulting consequences.

      Nabeel's method of approach creates a means by which the reader is systematically exposed to an increasingly monumental level of evidence, calling into question the very foundations of Islam. The author crafts arguments that include comparing and contrasting Sharia versus the Gospel, Jesus versus Muhammed, Trinity versus Tawhid (Allah is absolutely one), and the Quran versus the Bible. All the while interspersing his own personal life story into the content of each comparison, Nabeel provides the reader with an immersive experience that relates audience to narrator on an intimate level rather than merely offering data for consumption.

      Nabeel's earlier work, Answering Jihad, suffered slightly from a sense of hurried compilation. Admittedly, that work was produced within the period of a few months, but impressively carried a great deal of information. No God but One does not suffer from this in any way. From start to finish one gets the impression that great care and compassion has gone into each chapter. The author's desire to present his own journey to faith as the template upon which each challenge is made allows the reader to feel for those embracing the Islamic faith and long for them to see truth. As Nabeel states at the outset, “In rejecting the Source of Life, we bring death upon ourselves. This bears repeating: The result of sin is death because it is a rejection of the Source of Life.”²

      However emotionally effective this text may be, it does not remain at a superficial level. In dealing with the relation of Islamic Tawhid versus the Trinity, the author relays, both through his firsthand knowledge and investigative results, that, “the trinity the Quran is denying is actually tri-theism, three gods: Allah, Jesus, and Mary.”³ Challenging not only the logical difficulties that arise from the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid, namely the teaching that Allah can have no attributes and remain Tawhid, Nabeel turns the Islamic argument of Allah's transcendence on it's head, accusing Islam of creating a god made in the image of man: “If God created our minds, then He must be greater than their comprehension. Who are we to demand that He be simple enough for us to understand Him?”⁴

      The purpose of this book seems very clear, the faith of Islam cannot overcome the historical data and metaphysical claims upon which it survives. In contrast, the Christian faith is built upon metaphysical truth claims, grounded in the historical space-time event of the resurrection. In every avenue of inquisition the author finds Islam untenable and Christianity unwavering. However, his earnest desire to not abandon the faith of his birth reminds readers that this debate involves real people in desperate spiritual circumstances. Far from being a tool by which to browbeat non-Christians, Nabeel's book seeks to build empathy while simultaneously conveying truth.

      The target audience of this book is broad. It's readability makes it accessible to every layperson of either faith. At the same time, it's detailed information provides an excellent apologetic resource for the pastor, teacher or evangelist seeking to reach out to their Islamic neighbors or friends. While some Christians might find the apologetic used within to be cursory, so too might the skilled Muslim; however, for many of both worldviews a deep understanding of their faith's cardinal doctrines seems to be sincerely lacking in the West, and, as such, this book will continue to serve even them. This work may stand out as the author's crowning achievement, but it is too soon to be certain. As far as effectively conveying the reason for Christianity over Islam, Nabeel succeeds admirably. Doing so in a manner that engenders no hostility from the side of the writer is an even greater achievement, and is one that is successfully accomplished as well. As the author expresses it in his appeal to Muslim brothers and sisters, “Leaving Islam can cost you everything: family, friends, job, everything you have ever known, and maybe even life itself. Is it really worth sacrificing everything for the truth? The answer is simple: It depends on the value of truth.”⁵

1Nabeel Qureshi, No God but One:A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam & Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 23.

2Nabeel Qureshi, No God but One, 34.

3Ibid., 62.

4Ibid., 68.

5Ibid., 349.

A Brief Defense of the Moral Argument

A Brief Defense of the Moral Argument

Posted by Clark Bates

August, 23, 2016

 

      What moral difference would it make if God did not exist? A large portion of society today would probably say, “None.” An excellent example of this is found in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. It says:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Now compare this with the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The point of agreement within these two worldviews is the objective value of humanity, but the area of discord is the source of this value. According to the U.N., objective moral value presumably comes by naturalistic processes. Humans are simply “born with it.” Whereas the Declaration of Independence asserts that this objective moral value comes from something greater, namely God.

      This is the heart of the Moral Argument for God. Formally stated it would sound like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

On the basis of this argument naturalism cannot account for objective moral values, such as those stated in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, because naturalism functions as a valueless process. The same naturalism that Tennyson called “Red in tooth and claw,” and that Richard Dawkins said in , “should not be used as a guide for society”, is a valueless process that cannot conceivably produce valuable personal beings.^{1 2}

Let's examine each premise to see if the conclusion follows:

Premise 1: If Objective Moral Values Exist, God Exists.

      Now the only way to determine if this premise is true is if it can be demonstrated that naturalism cannot produce moral values and duties. Let's begin by defining what I mean by an objective moral value or duty. An objective moral value or duty is a an obligation to do what is right in a given circumstance regardless of one's personal opinion. It's often asserted that many atheists or non-theists are just as, if not more than, moral as Christians. This is used as evidence that belief in God is not necessary for morality to exist. This is absolutely true. You don't have to believe that God exists in order to be moral. But the argument before us is not that it is necessary to believe in God for objective moral values and duties to exist, but that for objective moral values and duties to exist God must exist. It has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in God, for all mankind is created with the same image of God regardless of their belief system and therefore all mankind is able to recognize the same objective moral standards.

     

       According to Sam Harris, “If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis of objective morality.”
³ What Harris is proposing is a form of “atheistic realism” which asserts both that the physical universe is all that is and yet objective moral values are brute facts that exist within it. The issue here is that what he's asserting is that metaphysical realities somehow exist within a strictly physical world and we should just not question that. To take it a step further, a moral obligation is a type of proposition, i.e. “Rape is bad.” We make propositions all the time, but they arise from our mind; Harris is insisting that these objective propositions somehow arise from mindlessness. This is a kind of expansion on the work of another atheist named Michael Martin who wrote that “One could affirm the objective immorality of rape and deny the existence of God with perfect consistency.” In both instances these men are making the claim that moral values and duties are just the result of human evolutionary development, however they are guilty of equivocating what “is” with what “ought” to be. It “is” true that mankind psychologically acknowledges laws (that exist apart from themselves mind you) that provide an enduring basis of reality. It “is” true that one can affirm that rape is wrong and deny God, but neither of these factors can answer “why” those things are true. They tell us that rape “is” wrong, but not why rape “ought” to be wrong. They confuse an is with an ought.

      To put it another way, the evolutionary process is primarily interested in survival, not in true belief. It can, and has been, argued that moral values help us survive, but this says nothing about whether those moral values are true, and for morality to be objective it must necessarily be true. We may believe, with the UN, that human beings have intrinsic value and that this has helped us survive, but this may still be false. We may believe in moral obligations as a means of preservation of the species, but this belief may be wrong. And if an appeal to objective moral values is going to be made, such an appeal requires that these values not only be real, but that they be true. For if they are not true, there is no longer an objective reason to abide by them. If naturalism fails to account for the “Why” of objective moral values and duties it cannot serve as adequate explanation for them.

Premise 2: Objective Moral Values do Exist

     The nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche famously, and rather dramatically, stated that “God is dead” in his “Parable of the Madman”, but even he recognized that with the destruction of God came the destruction of objective value. He wrote in that same parable,
 

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”⁴

The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre saw this too when he wrote,
 

“It is very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him.”⁵

      Now it's often claimed that objective morality cannot exist given the wide diversity of moral values throughout the world. However, C.S. Lewis, in his work The Abolition of Man, surveyed the basic moral precepts of various cultures and found at least 8 points of commonality with all. There were agreed upon moral laws regarding general and special benevolence, or kindness, an expected moral duty towards parents and the elderly, moral laws regarding justice, regarding integrity and truth, regarding mercy and generosity. In short, while differences in particular moral circumstances may exist in various cultures, there are multiple areas of cross-cultural common morality. As Frank Turek rather comically reiterates, Hindus believe that it is immoral to eat cows, whereas Americans do not. The reason that Hindus find it immoral to eat cattle is their belief in re-incarnation and the potential for that cow to be inhabited by an ancestor. Americans eat cows because we don't believe that Grandma is in the cow. However, while the practice is different the moral value remains the same, both Americans and Hindus agree, it's wrong to eat Grandma!

      While it might be en vogue to deny the existence of an objective moral law, it is impossible to live consistently with that belief. Our daily lives belie the reality of objective moral values. Our reactions to perceived violations reveal a sense of moral justice. You might say that you don't believe in an objective moral standard but if you've ever been the victim of theft or been in a hit and run accident you've filed a police report! You did this because you intrinsically acknowledge that it is morally objectionable for someone else to take your belongings or for someone to damage your car without retribution.

      Without an objective moral law there would be no standard for human rights. Just as we've seen in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, human rights are endowed by the Creator, making them unalienable, that is to say, inherent. When Nazi war criminals were brought before the Nuremburg trials they were convicted of violating human rights inherent to all people. If moral values and duties were merely subjective, the Nazis did nothing wrong. For them, the extermination of various races and people was the morally right action to achieve the Ubermensch (Supermen). The Allied nations could not accuse them of committing criminal actions unless a standard of moral values and duties exists beyond personal preference. What's more, any moment we as individuals or as a society declare one particular set of moral values deficient to another, we are claiming to know a standard by which they are measured.

      Let me ask you this, “Why do Black Lives Matter?” I don't ask that to be inflammatory. I agree that black lives do matter, but unless you have some objective moral standard by which to determine that they matter, there's nothing to protest. The sense of social injustice that we see rising up in various areas of this country point to the recognition of a universal standard of human value. Ironically, the political group that most often denies the existence of objective morality yet vociferously supports social justice movements are labeled “progressives”. The very name of which implies that a change in moral values must occur, meaning we are not living up to an unspecified objective moral standard that is claimed to not exist.

      Truth can be defined in many cases as that which best corresponds to reality. Objective moral values surface in every facet of our daily lives, bleeding through the reality of our existence. When someone consistently maintains a belief despite its being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality it's called being delusional. No matter how loudly one might shout down the existence of objective moral values or duties, the truth of reality will always prove them wrong.

Which brings us to:

Premise 3: Therefore, God exists

       In the absence of a naturalistic explanation for objective moral values and the verifiable existence of these same objective moral values, the explanation must exist beyond the realm of naturalism. The fact that moral values are equivalent to moral propositions means that they must be made by a moral mind that transcends our own in such a way that all of humanity can perceive it. In the same manner that physical laws cannot be asserted without being applied by a lawgiver, neither can moral law be acknowledged without a Moral Lawgiver. This Mind or Lawgiver is best understood as God. The rejection of such a possibility finds its existential bite in the accountability that necessarily follows. If there is a moral standard to which we are held, set by a transcendent Moral Lawgiver, then we are accountable to that Lawgiver. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity,

“It is after you have realized that there is a Moral Law and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power – it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk.”⁶

 

 

1Alfred Lord Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H., Canto 56,

“Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law

Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed.”

2Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 380-1.

3Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values, (Simon & Schuster, 2011), 215.

4Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Parable of the Madman”

5Jean Paul-Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” trans. Bernard Frechtman, (Carol Publishing Group, 1945).

6C.S> Lewis, Mere Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 31.