There was a barrier in the right lane, but I went past it. Sometimes there’s roadwork or other things that close the road to cars, but bikes can still get through. This time though, about half a mile down the road…

There’d been a very strong wind the day before which had, evidently, left its mark. It wasn’t a big deal for me; just had to backtrack a bit and pick a different road. A good reminder that our control over the natural world is not nearly as complete as we tend to think.

Some Thoughts in Response to Michel Onfray

Excerpts from my notes on Traité d’athéologie

If man is by nature mortal, then the inability to accept death is a defect — but if, on the other hand, man was created to live forever, then the revolt against death is a sign of good health. “He has put eternity into man’s heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The Christian who appeals to the fact that Christianity offers eternal life while atheism offers nothing is not suggesting that we should just believe whatever we want to be true. The evangelist is convinced that the offer of eternal life will find an echo in the heart of the person who was created to live forever. The claim is judged to be true by the listener not because it is pleasant, but because it corresponds to his deepest nature. And why not? If I believe that 2+2=4 because it seems to me like it must be, why not believe that I am by nature eternal because it seems to me like it must be? Just as the eagle knows it was made to fly, man knows he was made for something that transcends animal existence, something that does not end with the physical death of the body.

“The silence of God permits the chatter of his ministers.”

The general rule is that counterfeits are imitations of something real. Counterfeit bills are not proof that genuine ones do not exist — quite the contrary. Without the genuine, the counterfeit would never have been produced. Same for gods. Same for prophets.

But why does God not intervene to settle the debate? Why not speak in an unmistakable way to prove himself?

1. God has done so in the heart of every human being, but we resist this revelation.

2. God has done so in his creation, but man remains stubborn.

3. God has done so in his Word, which carries within itself the power to convince of its own truth — but as long as the listener remains in the rebellion of his heart, he is convinced by nothing.

4. God has done so in the incarnation of his Son. We killed him not because the revelation was obscure, but because the divine light was intolerable for the sons of darkness.

But true faith is born not when one blindly trusts a human messenger, but when the Spirit opens the eyes of the heart so that the truthfulness of the message resonates in the believer’s innermost being. It is the moment when the child recognizes his Father, the creature its Creator.

The Priestess of Malakh

It’s been a long time since I wrote any fiction, but as I was trying to imagine what sort of events might lie behind the enigmatic text of Genesis 6.1-4, I had the idea for “The Priestess of Malakh.”

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2

Chapter 3: The B’ney-Seth

It was the bleating of sheep that woke her. She opened her eyes to find herself wrapped in blankets on the floor of a large tent. How gloriously warm she felt. And how hungry! After a few minutes, a grey-haired woman ducked through the opening in the tent.

“So you’re awake then. Quite some nap you took there.”

The woman handed her a bowl, and Tovah gratefully drank. Immediately she pulled a face.

“Not used to goat’s milk I see,” the woman laughed. “Never mind, it’s good for you. Drink all that up now and I’ll get you some bread.”

Tovah was too desperate for nourishment to object. In a moment the bowl was empty, and the woman was back with a small brown loaf. She was followed a minute later by a man with a grey beard and a weathered face.

“Look who’s awake,” he said with a light laugh. “Go ahead and eat, we’ll get your story later. In the meantime, I’m Mahalel and this is my wife Milcah, and we’re honored to have you as our guest. My grandson Enoch found you while he was pasturing the flock. In a right state you were, and I had my doubts about your pulling through. But here you are and with an appetite to boot.”

He smiled at her in a grandfatherly way, and Tovah, hardly able to bear the kindness of these strangers, burst into tears.

“Hush child,” said Mahalel gently placing his hand on her shoulder. “It’ll be all right there.”

Catching her breath, Tovah spoke in a small voice, “May you be blessed by all the Gods, my lord. You have surely saved my life, and I will be your slave forever if you will take me in.”

“Are you all alone then?”

“I have no one. No family. No people.”

Mahalel looked at her thoughtfully a moment. “You’d better not get up today. Get your strength back, and tomorrow if you’re able, Milcah will tell you what you can do.”

~

The next morning Tovah sought out Milcah and found her with her hands in a kneading bowl.

“Come here, Tovah, you can knead this dough, and I’ll see to the fire. After that I’ll show you how to milk the goats.” Looking at her, she frowned and added, “And we’d better see about repairing that robe of yours too. I can see by your hands that you’ve not worked much, but you’ll soon get used to it here.”

It was indeed long weary days, aching muscles, and blistered fingers, but each evening she received her food gratefully and lay down contentedly. Mahalel, Milcah, and their children worked as hard as any of the slaves, shepherding their sheep and goats, and roaming from place to place in search of pasture. Tovah’s heart was still heavy with all that she had lost, but day by day she began to feel at home among the B’ney-Seth (as they called themselves), and slowly she started to think there may be a kind of happiness for her yet.

~

She still dreamed frequently of Malakh. Sometimes he comforted her and brought her son back alive. Other times he was angry and punished her cruelly. The bright blue head and the huge yellow eyes hovered over her and his hiss was all around her. Tovah jerked awake, and there he was, exactly as she had seen him in her dream.

“What do you want?” she gasped. In waking reality his presence brought no comfort.

His voice filled her head, “I’m here for what’s mine. You belong to me, little priestess.”

“You abandoned us. You let our son die.”

“Silence! I am your God, I do not answer to you.” The serpent rippled into human form and he spoke out loud, “You can never escape me.”

Tovah opened her mouth to cry out, but he smothered her with his hand and whispered viciously, “None of that, now. I wouldn’t want to have to kill your new family.”

Tovah sobbed in her throat, eyes wide in fear.

~

From then on, he was there every time she closed her eyes. No rest did she get at night, anxiety clung to her by day, and under constant strain, Tovah began to unravel. Milcah reproached her more than once for inattention to her work, but Mahalel regarded her with thoughtful concern.

“Tovah, my daughter, come here.”

She stood before him with her eyes down.

“You have heard that tomorrow is our sacrifice to El-Elyon?”

“Yes, my lord.”

“Tonight you will hear the tale of El-Elyon, for we always tell it on the eve of the sacrifice. And tomorrow, if you wish, you may be sanctified.”

“Sanctified?”

“I see that you suffer, daughter. Something from past days lies heavy upon you. You need healing beyond the art of men, but El-Elyon will save you if you cry out to him.”

Tovah recoiled, “Oh no, my master! I don’t want that at all.”

Mahalel peered into her face and nodded, then, placing his hand on her shoulder, “As you wish. But tonight you will hear his tale.”

~

The fire rose high in the midst of the family as Mahalel rose to speak, “In the beginning, El-Elyon created the heavens and the earth.

“He made the sun and the moon, the stars, the hills and the trees, the fish, the birds, and the beasts of the field. Last of all he made the man and the woman. El-Elyon put our parents in a garden and commanded them to keep it for him. To them was given the fruit from every tree of the garden, except for the one in the center, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This only was forbidden them. There they were, happy in the presence of El-Elyon. But one day a serpent came into the garden and tempted them, and they ate of the fruit that had been forbidden them.”

At the word ‘serpent’, Tovah started and her heart beat faster.

“In wrath, El-Elyon cast our parents out from the garden and subjected them and all their children to a life of toil and pain. As for the serpent, El-Elyon cursed it and declared that one day its head would be crushed by the son of the woman, though his blood also would be shed. Our first parents had many sons and daughters, and these also had sons and daughters, and the land is now full of many people. But most of these have turned away from El-Elyon and forgotten him. They bow before statues of gold and silver and stone and offer sacrifices to evil spirits. In this house however, we serve El-Elyon and look for the fulfilling of his promise.”

“Please,” said Tovah when the story was finished. “What does El-Elyon look like? You have no images of him here.”

“El-Elyon cannot be seen. He is God, and it is forbidden to make images of him.”

“He is a God then, like Malakh?”

“No daughter, he is the God and there is no one like him. We did betray him in the garden, but he has never abandoned us.”

~

Tovah did not sleep that night. She sat and turned over memories and wrestled in her soul. Early in the morning, she left the tent and found Mahalel alone, standing by the altar he had made, a lamb held in his arms.

“Just one animal for the sacrifice, my lord? A lamb?”

“One lamb,” he replied smiling. “And now Tovah, do you choose to be one of the B’ney-Seth and to belong to El-Elyon?”

“Yes, my lord. I would be sanctified for El-Elyon.”

~

The morning was grey, the grass damp with dew as the family gathered around the altar. Tovah stood in the center with Mahalel and the lamb. He prayed, his eyes lifted to heaven, and then he spoke to Tovah.

“Do you choose to serve El-Elyon, and him only, all the days of your life?”

Tovah nodded, trembling.

“You must also renounce the ways of the B’ney-Caïn: idolatry, murder, theft, and sexual immorality.”

Tovah’s cheeks flushed slightly and she nodded again.

“Place your hand on the lamb’s head.” Mahalel sliced firmly with the knife and the red blood poured from the lamb’s throat at their feet. He dipped his finger and annointed Tovah’s forehead and hands with the blood. Then she joined the others while he lit the fire and placed the whole body of the lamb on the altar.

“We’re not going to eat it?” Tovah whispered to Milcah.

“We do not eat flesh. The sacrificial animal is only for El-Elyon.”

After that, they sang songs and danced, holding hands in a ring around the altar. Then there was the feast, and they broke their bread together with warm conversation and bright laughter. Everyone smiled at Tovah, and she felt herself wrapped in a kind of happiness she had never known before.

~

The sky was full of stars and Tovah stood alone by the altar, gazing at the ashes of the lamb. A chill wind made her pull her robe close and, looking up, she quailed at the sight of the blue serpent on the other side of the altar.

“What have you done?” he spat. “Didn’t I tell you you could never be free?”

Tovah shook her head desperately. Clenching her eyes shut and grasping the stones of the altar, she pleaded in a whisper, “El-Elyon, save me! If I am yours, have pity on me and save me!”

The head of Malakh rose up over the altar, and Tovah cowered behind it. Suddenly the ground at her face shone with a clear white light. She peeked up to see the back of a shining figure standing on the altar. Malakh hissed in anger and – could it be – fear? There was a terrific crash like bronze cymbals, and Tovah hid her face again. Silence followed, and she became aware that the light was fading. She looked up and saw the shining figure rising up out of sight into the star-filled sky. There was no sign of Malakh, and Tovah knew she would never be troubled by him again. Still peering upward, she remembered how Mahalel had said that El-Elyon had created the stars. Was it one of them that he had sent to leave off its course through the heavens to come down to her rescue?

Still weak, but filled with indescribable peace, Tovah knelt down and bowed before the altar. In tearful whispers she poured out her heart to El-Elyon, her gratitude for his salvation, her sorrow for her past life, her happiness with the B’ney-Seth, her resolution to devote herself to El-Elyon all her remaining days. Finally, she felt that there was nothing left to say, she had laid all her burdens down, and her heart was light. And only then did she notice how very tired her body was. Slipping silently into the tent, she lay down in her place and instantly fell asleep, her face an image of perfect peace and contentment.

~ ~ ~

Artemis II

At this moment the launch is scheduled for today at 6:24p EDT. Too bad that’s half-past midnight here…

~

It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out.

Proverbs 25:2

Bonjour chers lecteurs,

We are living a new adventure this week with the arrival yesterday of Titus’s Italian exchange partner, Tommaso. He came with his class to spend a week in Aix-en-Provence. Each Italian student is staying in the home of a French student, like Titus, and in a month it will be the French students’ turn to go spend a week in Italy. The other kids were enthusiastic in welcoming him (during the entire dinner, Benjamin kept repeating “Hi Tommaso”), and although it’s a bit of a squeeze in our little apartment, we are confident that it’s going to be a wonderful experience for all of us.

The other big event for the week is an “Ask the Christians anything” night taking place at the Faculté Jean Calvin this evening. It will be Yannick Imbert, professor of apologetics, and myself who will be answering the questions. We would appreciate your prayers that many students would come and that the Spirit would give us to be able clearly communicate the truth of Jesus Christ.

Bible notes

John 11:40

“Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”

There are at least two ways to understand the relationship between the condition (if you believe) and the result (you will see the glory) in this statement:

(1) If you believe, Jesus will perform a miracle because of your faith, and you will see this manifestation of the glory of God.

(2) If you believe, you will see the glory of God in the miracle Jesus is about to perform, whether you believe or not.

There are several other passages in the Gospels that seem to go well with the first option:

Matthew 9:28-29 – When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be done to you.”

Matthew 9:2 – And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”

Mark 6:5-6 – And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.

On the other hand, there are other texts where Jesus performs miracles for people in the absence of their faith:

Mark 4:39-40 – And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?”

John 5:6-8, 13 – When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” […] Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was.

And in fact, the second option is theologically satisfying in several respects. We know that Jesus is going to raise Lazarus even though no one expected it. And we have several examples of people who witnessed his miracles without perceiving the glory of God in them. Judas saw them all without ever understanding who Jesus was, and the Pharisees preferred to attribute them to Beelzebul rather than to God (Luke 11:15). Even the resurrection of Lazarus fails to touch those who have not received grace to see the glory of God in it:

John 11:45-46 – Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.

So is it the second option, then, that Jesus means in John 11:40? I’m not sure, and I wonder whether it might not be a combination of the two. Martha objects to the opening of the tomb because she’s thinking in a purely human way, and Jesus wants her to trust him and to expect to see manifestations of the glory of God. She needs to (1) not prevent him from performing the miracle by refusing to open the tomb, and (2) not limit or forget the power of God in the way she sees things. And from every angle, the problem remains the same — and it’s the same one we often have — a human habit of leaving God out of our calculations, assuming that he is not active in this world or that he will not act for us in our circumstances. It is in response to this kind of unbelief that Jesus says, “If you believe, you will see the glory of God.”

~

The Priestess of Malakh

Read Chapter 1

Chapter 2: Gibbor

The great feast was repeated on the anniversary of the first one. Tovah directed the ceremony with three-month old Gibbor on her arm. He was big for his age and active, and his mother’s pride in the son she had born to Malakh was immeasurable.

The following week, Tovah’s happy peace was shattered by the passage of a traveller just come from Havilah. He brought the news that a maiden of that city, Tsereh by name, was pregnant by a God who had appeared to her in the form of a blue serpent as she was bathing in a forest stream. Jealous fury consumed Tovah’s entire soul, and the only thought that could bring her the least comfort was that of bringing about the death of Tsereh. In her dreams she killed her rival a hundred different ways, and by day all her thought was bent toward schemes to bring about war between Raamah and Havilah.

Two months later her chance came, and she hired an assassin to murder her father’s chief counselor while he was visiting Havilah. Of course she assured her father that the anger of Malakh burned against Havilah, and that he would surely give success to their army. And so, with satisfaction, Tovah watched the men of Raamah march off to war.

Within three days the report of total victory returned to Raamah. All the men of Havilah had been killed or scattered, the women and children captured, the city burned. However, in the days that followed, despite her many inquiries, Tovah could not find out that Tsereh had either died or been captured. Surely she must have perished, either in the destruction of the city or in wandering in the wilderness. Still, doubt gnawed at her even as there was nothing else to be done about the matter.

~

At fourteen years old, Gibbor was as big as any man in the city, and stronger than any two of them put together. Restlessness drove him often from the city for days at a time where he would hunt and explore, sometimes taking two or three other boys with him. Once he overheard the herdsmen speaking in hushed tones of an enormous tiger that would come into the herd and carry off any animal it chose, even during the day. The next morning Tovah woke to find the tiger’s pelt proudly tacked up to the front wall of the house.

The following year the rumor went out about a gang of vicious brigands way-laying travelers on the Sabteca road. Tovah hurried to find Gibbor to forbid him to leave the city, but he was already gone. For three days, she did not leave the temple, tasting nothing, praying day and night for her son’s safe return. On the fourth day at sunrise, Gibbor entered the city to shouts of astonishment and presented to his grandfather the six heads of the brigands. From then on in Raamah whenever anything needed to be done which wanted courage or strength or cunning, every eye looked to Gibbor.

~

Some years later, the time came for the old king to go the way of all flesh. Gibbor was on a journey at the time, and Nimhor, the eldest of the king’s surviving sons sat on his father’s seat in the king’s hall. A week later when Gibbor returned, he stormed into the hall and demanded the kingship for himself. Tovah too, standing at his side, urged her brother, “My son is the son of our great God Malakh. You have no right to deny him what he seeks.”

“No right, sister? Who is this fellow? He is no son of our father Javan. I am the son of Javan and heir to all that was his. Tell your bastard boy to leave my hall before something bad happens to him.”

Gibbor made an enraged sound in his throat and moved toward Nimhor. Hastily, two guards with spears stepped in front to shield their lord. Gibbor smiled mockingly, and then in a movement that the eye could not follow, he snatched one guard’s spear and slew the other with it. The first guard fled, and Tovah shrieked as Gibbor grabbed Nimhor by the shoulders and savagely head-butted his face. Letting the lifeless body crumple to the ground, he turned to his mother, his face radiating joy, “You warned him, mother, didn’t you.”

~

Gibbor was now king of Raamah, with ambition to be even greater. He set out to bring other cities under his dominion, starting with Pi-Hagihon. This was quickly accomplished, and as the spoils came into Raamah, the people began to think of the abundance of gold and silver and slaves that would soon be theirs thanks to their new king. Flush with confidence, the army soon departed in the direction of Sabteca.

That night, Tovah was trimming lamps in the temple under the watchful stone eyes of Malakh, when she began to hear some distant sound. Was it singing with instruments? The sound grew nearer and turned into a cry of alarm.

“Enemies! Enemies within the gate!”

Rushing to the door of the temple, she looked out into the square. Some few people ran here and there as the clangs and yells slowly worked their way up the hill. Tovah stood frozen in the doorway. What was the use of running? There was nowhere to flee.

Torchlight appeared, flickering in one of the streets, and then the raiders burst into the square. One of them seemed enormous, and for a fleeting moment she almost thought it was Gibbor. They spotted her and the temple, and rushed forward as she sank to her knees. Then they were all around her, and a woman stepped forward, looking down at Tovah with vengeful delight.

“So this is the priestess of Malakh.”

Tovah looked up at her questioningly.

“Your service is finished. Give me your ornaments.”

Tovah clutched at the gold snake pendant she had worn so long, but the woman struck her across the face, and she fell to the ground. The men took the pendant from her and the rings she was wearing, and Tovah looked up again to see the woman placing the pendant around her own neck.

“I am the priestess of Malakh now, and I shall serve him in this house.” Looking down at Tovah she added, “After all, I too have born him a son.”

“Tsereh,” breathed Tovah.

“Yes. We are the survivors of Havilah, and this is the son that I bore to Malakh, Ben-Hanahash. Many years have we longed to exact our revenge on Raamah, and now at last…” She sighed in triumph. Then, considering Tovah for a moment, she gave a command. “Take this one out and tie her to a tree. Let her God decide her fate.”

~

All that night and all the next day Tovah cried out to Malakh, weeping and imploring him to come. They had left her in the very clearing where she had first met the serpent God, and it seemed somehow inevitable that he should reappear exactly where she had seen him before. But no one came, and finally exhaustion overcame her, and she fell asleep.

Tovah woke to find a slave woman working hard to undo the knots that bound her to the tree. The woman looked up briefly and Tovah recognized with a shock the face of her sister.

“Shifhah?”

“Not so loud, yes it’s me.” As Shifhah struggled with the bonds she explained. “The Havilim have taken the city for themselves, and we are all their slaves. I heard what happened to you, and I slipped out here to help you. Told the gate guards I had been sent on an errand… oof, that’s got it.”

The rope ends came loose, and as the coils unwound, Tovah fell to the ground, her limbs completely numb.

“I’ve got some bread here for you. You can hide in the forest. It won’t be long now before your son comes back with my husband and all the men. They’ll send these accursed brigands to a bad end.”

Tovah managed to sit up and take the bread from her sister’s hand.

“I’ve got to get back. It’s probably already a beating for me.”

~

Tovah hid in the forest ten days. One other time Shifhah was able to bring her some more bread. There was a creek for water, and she found a few berries besides. Mostly she sat at the edge of the clearing, twisting and untwisting her hair to the rhythm of the anxious thoughts chasing themselves round and round and round again.

Evening shadows were lengthening on the tenth day when Shifhah reappeared, hurrying through the clearing, looking fearfully over her shoulder.

“Tovah,” she cried, grasping her sister’s shoulders and trying to catch her breath. “The men returned… this morning… oh Tovah…. they were ambushed… in the gate.”

“Gibbor!?”

The pain in Shifhah’s eyes was all too clear. “He is dead my sister, along with my husband and all the men. Their bodies are hanging on the city wall.”

Falling to her knees, Tovah tore her robe and wailed. Her soul was a fountain of agony bursting forth in wretched sobs as she rocked back and forth. Shifhah took her in her arms, holding her head against her chest. Only for a moment, then she spoke urgently into her ear.

“Tovah, you must flee. You must run away from here, Tovah, there is nothing left for you. Go far away and live and carry the memory of our family with you.”

Tovah looked in Shifhah’s eyes. “What did I do wrong? What did I do to displease him? Why is he letting this happen to us?”

“Who knows, Tovah? He is a God. They do not really care for us you know.”

“No but I must have done something. I must have dishonored him. Oh, if only I had known. I would have done anything to appease him. If only I had died and he had lived!” Fresh sobs burst forth and she buried her face in the ground.

“Tovah, it’s no use. Let me have this one comfort, to know that you are alive and safely away from here. I must go back now. Do not delay, my sister, once I am gone. You must flee tonight.”

~

Tovah could not flee that night. She had to see for herself. Silently in the dark, she crept up to the wall. There he hung, his hands suspended, his head limp on his chest. Such a fine, handsome son. Tovah gazed and drank her pain in deep draughts. For hours she stood, looking silently, unable to break her eyes from the horrible corpse, unwilling to leave the child of her womb.

Only when the eastern sky paled did she come to herself. Then panic seized her, and she fled into the woods, running as the antelope before the wolves.

~

When Tovah could run no further, she collapsed and slept where she was. Waking again, she continued her way, neither knowing nor caring where her feet took her. After three days she came out of the forest into a land of grassy rolling hills. For three more days she journeyed, sleeping when too tired to walk, rising and moving when too cold to lie still.

On the third day her drooping eyes failed to notice the gathering clouds before the first drops smote her face. Looking quickly up and clutching her torn robe to her chest she peered anxiously around for any kind of shelter. The empty hills offered her nothing, not so much as a gorse bush. And now the rain poured down in earnest, soaking and chilling her to the marrow of her bones. Grey walls of water closed in around her, and finally giving up the fight, Tovah curled up on the ground and waited for death.

~~~

Penny-farthing

Who wants to go for a ride?!

~

On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:2

This past week-end we celebrated Madeleine’s seventh birthday. For me it was a particularly notable birthday, although I can’t say exactly why. We had a few of her friends over, and it was a really nice time together despite the rain keeping us inside.

Yesterday with the students at Foi et Sandwich, we addressed a question which one of them suggested: Wasn’t Christianity invented in order to control people? It was a great discussion, and since it’s a worthwhile question, I adapted my notes into the first article for this Notebook:

Christianity invented in order to control people?

This is a common accusation that seems logical to many people. Christianity is therefore not the truth about God revealed by his Son, but simply an instrument of control used for very earthly purposes. Believing it means being taken in by the cunning men who originated this myth.

A logical fallacy

The first element of response is to note that there is a logical flaw in the accusation. We can perhaps spot it more easily if we analyze another hypothetical statement that has the same structure:

Covid was invented in order to control people.

It is indisputable that an enormous number of people were controlled because of Covid. However, it is not obvious that the reason for Covid’s existence was to justify these control measures. And if we wanted to argue that the virus itself was a myth, the observation that many people were controlled does not advance the argument in any way. There is simply no logical connection between the control of people and the falseness of the reason for that control.

Therefore, even if the original purpose of Christianity had been to control people, it would not follow that Christianity was necessarily false. One does not imply the other.

It is worth recognizing this logical flaw because it comes up a lot. For example: “You’re a Christian just because you are afraid of dying,” or “You are a Christian just because you were born in the US and not in India or Saudi Arabia.” Even if it is true that I am afraid of dying and that my Christian family was decisive in shaping my own faith, it does not follow that Christianity is false. The truth or falseness of an idea can only be determined by examining its actual claims.

For this reason, if we wanted to, we could simply turn the accusation right back around and say that atheism was invented to control people. There is no doubt that totalitarian regimes find it very useful to be able to claim that there is no higher authority than themselves. Of course that doesn’t prove that atheism is false, but this claim is just as plausible as the first one.

The origins of Christianity

As for the claim itself, is it really plausible that Christianity was originally an instrument for controlling the populace? As soon as the question is asked, the answer is clear. Christianity was not imposed by earthly authorities, but vigorously opposed by them. The message proclaimed and believed by the first Christians was offensive and ridiculous to Gentiles as well as to Jews. Its adherents were for the most part insignificant people in society, and they were frequently persecuted by the majority. No one in the first century would have said that in 300 years Christians would be in control of the empire; that would have been unimaginable. If Christianity was “invented,” its inventors gained nothing, humanly speaking, from their invention. It is therefore implausible — manifestly false, rather — that Christianity was invented to control people.

Later?

So, even if this was not the case in the early centuries, can we not say that Christianity was used to control people later on? To this question, we can simply say “yes.” It is obvious that Christianity has been exploited by hypocrites for their own ends. We see this in history, as well as in various cults of our own day.

That being admitted, is Christianity therefore discredited? Of course not. The fact that wicked people can hijack Christianity toward other ends does not in any way prove that Christianity itself is false. For that, one must return to the fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity and demonstrate in what way they are false.

Furthermore, the Bible itself runs counter to this logic of control. For example:

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Matthew 23:8-12

What about religion itself?

OK, if it is difficult to argue that Christianity was invented to control, perhaps it was religion itself that was invented for that purpose. The first Christians had no idea of controlling folk, but the problem is that it is a religion, and the religious phenomenon itself has this will to control at its origin.

But this version of the accusation is just as guilty of unsubstantiated claims as the first. Who invented religion to control people? In what part of the earth and at what point in history? The reality is that religion is universal among human beings. No one has ever discovered a tribe of atheists on a remote island, and there is no trace of the humans who would have existed before there was religion. If one rejects the biblical account which states that the very first human beings were conscious of God, one is left with nothing but speculation without any evidence.

Furthermore, the universality of religion runs counter to the idea that it was invented. It is better to recognize that human beings are spontaneously religious. This takes many forms, but the phenomenon itself finds its source in human nature and does not depend on an “inventor.” The interpretation of this fact is then very interesting, but it falls outside the scope of this article.

~ ~ ~

It’s been a long time since I wrote any fiction, but as I was trying to imagine what sort of events might lie behind the enigmatic text of Genesis 6.1-4, I had the idea for “The Priestess of Malakh.”

The Priestess of Malakh

When men began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful. And they took as their wives any they chose. […] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men of old, the men of renown.
- Genesis -

No I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.
- 1 Corinthians -

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.
- Jude -

Chapter 1: Tovah

The light of the setting sun, dusky red on the battlements of Raamah, found the youngest daughter of the city’s king skipping down the steps toward the gate. There she fell in with the other maidens and the musicians who were to supply the melodies for their dance of the full moon. A short walk brought them to the designated clearing just as the bright moon cleared the eastern hills. The pipes let out the first sweet notes, and the next Tovah knew, the music sent her spinning around the glade, giving herself to the wild delight of youth and the seduction of the summer night.

Song followed song, and the moon had risen to the top of the sky, when Tovah caught her breath as a sudden chill descended on the clearing. She turned to look back toward the trees, dark and still. For a moment, there was nothing, then she perceived something moving. The head of an enormous serpent, iridescent blue, rose up out of the grass and glided swiftly toward her. Other maidens screamed and the whole party fled, but Tovah remained transfixed, unable to look away from the serpent’s golden eyes. In a moment it had reached her, the head hovering a handsbreadth from her nose. Helplessly Tovah stood rooted as the creature’s gaze bore into her eyes as if to read the secret thoughts of her heart. Then there was a kind of ripple from its head down to the tail and in place of the serpect there stood a large man in blue raiment that shone like the skin of the serpent.

“Who are you?” breathed Tovah.

“I am Malakh,” he said, and his voice was like the waterfall above Pi-Hagihon.

“Are you the great God, the one they say made the sky and the earth, who made the first people and sent them to wander through the earth?”

The man made a sound between a hiss and a snarl. “Who told you that? Do not dare to question me. I am your God, that is all you need know.”

“My God,” murmured Tovah, gazing in wonder at the marvelous being before her. And slowly with a sense of solemn wonder, she knelt down, prostrated herself at the feet of Malakh, and worshipped.

~

“And Malakh commands that we build him a temple,” Tovah finished her story, looking around at her gathered family. At first no one spoke. Her father’s face was calm, but with an effort it seemed. Her mothers huge brown eyes hid nothing of her shock and fear. As for her brother Irad, his face was angry. He jumped up.

“So, Tovah is the special one who has been chosen to be the mouth of the great God Malakh? What an honor for you, oh my sister!” He paced around the room. “As for me, I never heard of any Malakh. What does Raamah want a God for? Long have we been happy enough without any temples for snake-men.”

Tovah broke in, “Irad, no, you don’t understand!”

He silenced her with a wave of his hand and continued, “Hush little girl, and let the men speak. We are not so easily awed by the beasts of the forest, we men. When we see a snake, we don’t bow to it,” he looked Tovah in the eyes, “we kill it.”

A sharp hiss sounded in Tovah’s ear and panic tightened her chest. She wanted to fly at Irad and strike him. She wanted to run away and hide. In the moment all she could manage was to strangle out, “Irad, please…”

He smiled down at her and opened his mouth again, but their father interrupted, “Peace, my children. Tovah’s tale is a strange one, and it requires reflection. Irad is right to say that no one has ever heard of this Malakh. And yet, a powerful being like the one Tovah described would be better to have as an ally than an enemy. I will think on it this night, and we will speak again tomorrow.”

Tovah reached out for her brother’s shoulder, but he strode firmly out of the hall, followed by her parents. Horror at Irad’s impiety and dread of Malakh’s response weighed her down to the floor, where she remained, alone with the turmoil of her heart.

Waking the next morning, Tovah had no desire to go out and face the world, knowing in her heart that no good news awaited her. The world, however, would not remain outside. Her handmaid rushed in, her face streaked with tears.

“Oh my mistress, oh poor mistress!”

Tovah sat up and stared blankly, waiting for the blow to fall.

“It’s your brother, mistress. Irad is dead!”

He had been found in his bed, struck by no one knew what evil, his skin a range of hideous colors and his features twisted in an agonized grimace. The king of Raamah did not deliberate any further but gave the order to build the temple of Malakh even as he wept by his son’s bier.

~

Tovah stood in the shadow of the great stone pillars of the temple of Malakh, gazing up at his golden statue. This was in the form of a large powerful man with the head of a great serpent, unblinkingly surveying his hall. There was a rustle behind her, and for the second time she heard that voice which seemed to resonate in her bones.”

“You have done well. I am pleased.”

The vivid blue serpent circled around in front of her. Its head was lifted up higher than her own, its body thick like the breadth of a man’s shoulders. Tovah fell on her face.

“My lord!”

“This will be my house, and you are to be my priestess and to take care of it. Here I will hear your prayers and accept your sacrifices.”

“I will do whatever you command.”

“Very good. Tomorrow you must prepare a feast in my honor.”

~

“And what does our God Malakh require for the sacrifice?” asked her father.

“Thirty bullocks from the herd, father.”

“He shall have them,” said Javan with a smile. “The cattle have done very well these past months, as have the sheep and the wheat. I don’t doubt that we have our new benefactor to thank for that. He shall have whatever honor he desires.”

~

Smoke billowed from the altar and the savory smell of roasting flesh filled the air around the people of Raamah in the temple square. Prayers had been uttered, worshippers had prostrated, animals had been presented and slaughtered. Now the people were eating and drinking, and the music began to play.

The sun set, and the moon rose, and cask after empty cask of wine was rolled away, and still the people gave themselves to passionate revelry. Tovah watched from the door of the temple as her father picked his way home, stumbling only slightly, and supported by two young women whom Tovah did not know. Others never left the square, and lay here and there overcome by wine or by love.

Tovah turned back inside, and crossing into the hall, she felt a shiver of delight to hear a soft rustle among the columns.

~

The next morning Tovah’s mother, having observed her daughter’s un-slept-in bed, came seeking her in the temple square. She found Tovah coming out of the temple itself, her outer robe cast up over her hair in the manner of married women.

“Did you spend the night in there, child?”

“Oh mother,” sighed Tovah with shining eyes. “I am so happy.”

“Oh, I see. I mean, I didn’t realize that… that is… if you are so happy, then I am happy for you. Come, let’s go home. Come and we’ll see about some fitting garments for a… for a priestess.”

~

New robes she had, and a new life taking care of the temple and seeing to all the necessary rites and sacrifices. Malakh instructed her carefully about these, although she added several elements of her own invention. She could see that he liked prayers and sacrifices very much, but especially being worshipped and having the people prostate before his statue.

Thoughts of all that the last few months had brought filled Tovah’s mind as she wandered home under a star-strewn sky. On a whim, she turned aside into the king’s garden and made her way to a bench by the fountain pool. Here she sat down with her hands on her swollen belly and breathed the fresh night air. A nightingale sang in the branches above, and a thousand stars shone out from the water of the pool.

Basking in perfect serenity, Tovah was suddenly overwhelmed with inexplicable sorrow. There was something sweet and beautiful that she desperately wanted, but she was outside and there was no way in. What was it though? What could she possibly want that she did not have? She peered quietly into the pool, grasping at the beauty of the reflected stars in her heart. Something in the longing she felt made all the other things she loved seem grey and unimportant. Even the wonderful temple of Malakh appeared small and thin in that moment, and to her shock she realized that Malakh himself struck her as hollow and false, like a weak imitation of some greater substance. He was certainly beautiful in an awe-inspiring way, but this longing seemed somehow clearer and brighter.

Tovah felt a tug, a call to follow this longing, and as clearly as she felt the call, she knew that she had refused it. This, here and now, was who she was, what she wanted. The favor of Malakh had elevated her above all mortal women, had given her exactly what her heart desired.

And so the moment was past, the heart-breaking beauty no longer present to her senses, but merely the ache of a memory.

~ ~ ~

There’s two more chapters which I will publish in future FdD Notebooks.

Lectures

I’m still reading The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright (and will be for a while – it’s enormous). I also started Journal d’un curé de campagne by Georges Bernanos.

Au bout c’est la mer

Chelsea and I recently discovered this show which we’re enjoying quite a bit. (You can turn on auto-translated subtitles. I can’t speak for how accurate they are…)

~

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’

John 7:38

It’s been quite busy here the last few weeks, and likely to only get busier between now in the summer. Part of that was the kids’ school break during which my parents visited. I also prepared and gave a presentation on “The Qur’an and previous scriptures” in our local church. A presentation on the resurrection of Jesus is upcoming as well as an event with a youth group and Q&A night for university students. There are also a few family projects, one of which is summer travel in the US (Heads up if you live there).

It’s wonderful to see a number of different doors opening at once as Ratio Christi Aix-en-Provence starts to take shape. Undoubtably that will mean fewer FdD Notebooks, but it is my intention (1) to prioritize local opportunities over internet ones and (2) to prefer quality to quantity. I hope you find today’s article helpful. The subject was requested by someone who wrote me an email, so that is possible if you were wondering.

Humanist Values

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Book III, Section 125

According to Nietzsche’s madmen, the news of the death of God has not yet reached the ears of those who killed him. That is, the atheists he’s speaking to have not yet realized the tremendous consequences of the non-existence of God. No more horizon. No more up or down. No point of reference, no light, no warmth. These atheists are just going about their business as if the non-existence of God had no particular impact other than freeing up their Sunday mornings.

This sort of “atheism without consequences” is probably the most popular kind of atheism today, represented for example by the various humanist societies. The very attractive website for Humanists UK proposes three fundamental values for the humanist approach to life: (1) thinking clearly, (2) being good, and (3) living well. That all sounds nice, but where do those values come from? How do the truth claims of atheistic humanism support those particular values?

The short answer is that they don’t. The values promoted by British humanists are the fruit of the Christian worldview, not an atheistic worldview. If atheism is true, there is nothing particularly significant about human beings, what they think, or what they do. What is a human being other than a temporary accidental conglomeration of atoms? Should that conglomeration “think clearly”? “Thinking”, so-called, is merely a serious of chemical reactions that take place in that part of the human called “brain”, and whether outside observers judge the reactions to be done “clearly” or not, the reactions themselves proceed on their merry way according to the laws of physics without giving a fig for humanist values. As for “being good”, once again the human atom cloud is simply going to “dance to its DNA” whether anybody else thinks that its dance is “good” or “bad”. Never mind the fact that there is no objective standard of good behavior in an atheistic worldview. And when it comes to “living well”, all that amounts to is a complex organic structure biologically programmed to pursue pleasant sensations rather than unpleasant ones. Whether those pleasant sensations are eating chocolate or playing with grandkids, whatever “experiences” the organism may go through, in the end it was simply a bunch of atoms that came together, interacted for a while, and then dispersed.

The problem is not with the humanist values. The values listed truly are valuable; they just don’t come from atheistic humanism; they come from Christianity. Thinking clearly is a good and beautiful thing because we were created to think by a thinking God in order that we can perceive and value truth. Ultimately we were created to know God himself, and thinking clearly is part of knowing him as he is. In the same way “being good” derives its importance from the fact that ultimate reality is a personal God. His very nature is goodness and love, and our vocation as creatures in his image is to reflect that goodness and love in our own lives. Morality is not a convenient social glue, but an objective statement about reality, about what does and does not conform to the nature of the Source of all goodness and beauty and truth. And as for “living well”, there is true and lasting (eternal) happiness to be found because we were made by a happy God in order that we would be happy and satisfied in him.

Could we choose to keep the Christian values and forego the Christian truth?

Is there really a problem here? We like these values; can’t we just choose to value them and not worry about where they come from? Again, the short answer is no. There can be no ultimate divorce between what we believe to be profoundly true about the universe and what we cherish and value.

The thing to understand about values is that they’re like valuables: you can have a lot of them, if you’re rich. This is evident in the videos on the Humanists UK website where the context assumed for flourishing humanists is the liberty and prosperity of modern western society. In this sort of context (painstakingly constructed through centuries of Christian civilization), people can allow themselves to have “luxury values”. They can choose to value things that aren’t essential to their worldview, but are nice to have.

The problem is that when push comes to shove, and when luxury values get to be too expensive, they cease to be values at all. When the hurricane is coming, it suddenly turns out that a full tank of gas is more valuable than a room full of “priceless” artwork. In the same way, what happens to empathy and “being good” when, for example, a spouse’s sickness threatens the happy fulfillment one was expecting from “the only life we’ve got”? Tragically we don’t have to speculate. When people are forced to choose between different values, that’s when the fundamental worldview assumptions are revealed. And if those assumptions turn out to be that life is an accident, that humans are just a kind of animal, and that morality is a social convention, the values that will be revealed under pressure are not likely to have much ressemblance with the publicity materials of Humanists UK.

On the other hand, when a person’s bedrock convictions are those of biblical Christianity: that God is good, that human beings in his image are infinitely valuable, that Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection mean that sin and death have been defeated, these are the things that will be revealed when that person is put under pressure. That is the kind of soil that brings forth self-sacrifice, patient endurance, and unconditional love. Values reflect worldview, which is why the very things that humanism offers fraudulently, are in truth the lived reality of men and women being renewed in the image of their Savior and their Creator.

Reading

The most recent books I finished are Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor by D.A. Carson and Rejoice and Tremble by Michael Reeves, both of which are outstanding. For the second one in particular, I wasn’t sure what to expect from Dr. Reeves, and was delighted to find the book even better than I hoped. The author succeeds in doing justice to his tremendous theme both in what he says about it and with the prose that he uses. As for Michel Onfray (Traité d’athéologie), perhaps I should have stuck it out, but I really dislike it when an author wastes my time with gratuitous assertions based on nothing more than stereotypes. My current book is The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright who is quite engaging. (I would of course be happier if he had a higher view of scripture.)

Flamingos

While they were here, we visited the Parc Ornithologique de Camargue with my parents. It’s a truly wonderful place if you like birds even a little bit.

~

Unite my heart to fear your name.

Psalm 86:11

D. didn’t really feel like talking with the strangers who had sat down at his table in the student dining area, but my friend I. drew him out with just the right friendly questions to get a conversation started, which then turned into a long discussion about Islam, Christianity, and salvation in Jesus Christ. We were chased out when the cafeteria closed, and even then we kept talking for a good twenty minutes outside the doors. We finally parted ways—not on the same page about God, but happy to have shared this experience and to have touched the roots of our common humanity.

It seems to me that it is often like this. We are uncomfortable with the idea of talking to people we don’t know, and we especially don’t want to discuss religion… but when it happens, we like it. Personally, I suspect that in reality we have a deep desire to talk about our fundamental beliefs, to express them to others and to listen to them in return, but we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that it’s not a good thing. Maybe dangerous, and probably impolite. We don’t do that, and we’re afraid of what might happen.

So it’s hard to take that first step, but when we manage to overcome the awkwardness, it’s beautiful to see what can happen. My hope for D. is that he would discover Jesus as his savior, and I pray for him that God would call him to himself. In this life I will never know what fruit will come of that conversation, but for my part, I am simply grateful to have made his acquaintance.

What does it mean that Jesus was begotten?

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Psalm 2:7

“Look,” said my Jehovah’s Witness friends, “the Bible says that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. How can you say that he is eternally part of a trinity if he was begotten by the Father? What kind of sense does it make to say that a son is the same age as his father? That’s why the biblical teaching is that God’s Son is the first and greatest of his creatures, the one through whom he made everything else that exists.”

This is the point where my explanation of the deity of Christ from Hebrews 1 got derailed because verse 5 cites Psalm 2:7.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?
Hebrews 1:5

I unintentionally walked right into one of their favorite proof-texts, and the explanation that I was able to give at the time was not as clear or as convincing as I would have liked. Here’s the explanation I would offer today:

An analogy

The first thing we need to make clear with our Jehovah’s Witnesses friends, is that neither one of us is taking the word beget literally (they might think that they are). The literal sense of begetting has to do with biological reproduction. Nobody believes that that is what the Bible is talking about in Psalm 2:7. The idea of the Father begetting the Son can only be understood as an analogy, so the question that needs to be asked is: What does the analogy mean?

Option 1 - Origin

This is the way Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the analogy of begetting. When someone is begotten, they come to exist, and so when the Bible says that the Father begat the Son, it means he created the Son. This seems to line up with Luke 3:38 where Adam is called the son of God, and we know that Adam was created directly by God.

There is a problem though, and the problem is that the actions of begetting and creating are not the same thing, and the language is not interchangeable. I have begotten children, but that does not make me their creator. And God is the Creator of the asteroids, but he did not beget them. The fact that Adam is called the son of God is not simply a reference to the fact that God created him, but more significantly to the fact that he created him in his image. Notice that in Genesis 5:3 it says, “When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” Seth, in Adam’s image, is Adam’s son, and Adam in God’s image, is God’s son.

The fact that, unlike asteroids, Adam is God’s son because he was made in God’s image pushes us toward a different way to understand the analogy of begetting.

Option 2 - Nature

“Like father, like son,” we say, and I would quite surprised if every language ever spoken didn’t have a similar expression. One of the most fundamental things about sons is that they resemble their fathers and share the same essential nature. For this reason, the Bible often uses sonship language as a way of saying that someone shares certain characteristics with their “father”. For example, in Matthew 5:45, those who are “sons of God” are those who love their enemies, just as God loves his enemies.1

As for Jesus, he is not simply a son of God, but the only-begotten Son of God. Others may share certain characteristics with God, but he represents the Father perfectly because he fully shares the same divine nature as his Father.2 That’s why John says:

No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten God who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
John 1:18

Option 3 - Office

There’s another essential aspect of the title “son of God” in the biblical revelation, which is that it’s a title for the kings of Judah descended from David. God says to David, speaking of his sons: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam 7:14).3 This is the promise that stands behind the statement of the king in Psalm 2: “I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’”

But when was “today”? When was the Son begotten by the Father? For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the answer is that it happened at the beginning of creation when the Father created the Son. That’s not however the way the apostle Paul interpreted this text. Speaking to the synagogue in Antioch of Psidia, he said:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”
Acts 13:32-33

In the same way, he says in his greeting to the Romans:

[Jesus] was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.
Romans 1:4

For the king in Psalm 2, the moment of begetting was the moment when he was established as king,4 which happened for Jesus (according to his humanity!) when he was resurrected and ascended into heaven.5 His fathers received the title of “son of God” when they were enthroned in Jerusalem, and the same title was bestowed on him when he was enthroned in heaven.6 7

Conclusion

Following Paul’s interpretation then, Psalm 2:7 has nothing to do with the supposed creation of the Son of God, but with his triumph over death and his enthronement in heaven. The sonship language used for Jesus also refers to the fact that he is the perfect revelation of the Father because he shares the same nature. Far from demonstrating that Jesus is an exalted creature, the title of Only-Begotten Son is one of the many ways the Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ is himself fully God, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

Reading

I’m still working my way (slowly) through Moby Dick, as well as J.I. Packer by Leeland Ryken. I’ve put A Secular Age (which feels incredibly long to me) on pause while I read Traité d’athéologie by Michel Onfray. I’ll have some comments to make on this last one in a future issue.

Master and Commander

I love this movie.

Bonjour dear readers,

Last week I was invited to give two talks: one on Thursday evening at the Faculté Jean Calvin on the reliability of the New Testament, and another on Saturday morning at the Agapè in Lambesc on faith and science.

Both went very well; there were great questions, and I really enjoyed the discussions that followed the talks. The most encouraging part was that my friend Timothée told me he talked for a long time afterward with two non-Christian students who were impressed by the evidence in favor of the historicity of the Gospels. Of course what I presented is not what you tend to learn at school or hear on the television, which is why it’s so important for us to create these opportunities so that people can discover how solid and reliable the foundation of the Christian faith truly is.

Ask and it will be given to you

In a recent conversation, the question came up once again as to how we should understand the New Testament promises—apparently unconditional—that God will do whatever we ask of him. This reminded me of the exegesis paper that I wrote last year on Matthew 7:7–11, a passage I chose in part because I wanted to explore this exact question. Here’s an excerpt from the conclusion of that paper:

⁷ “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ⁸ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ⁹ Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰ Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”
Matthew 7:7-11

Jesus’ encouragement to ask may seem to be without any limit in these five verses. The statements “Ask and it will be given to you” and “Everyone who asks receives” are expressed categorically and without exception. But, as already noted, this passage cannot be isolated from its context in Jesus’ teaching and in the Sermon on the Mount. These promises are given to the disciples in the context of their project of living here on the earth as citizens of the kingdom of heaven. For them, the exhortation is categorical and without exception to remove all obstacles to the response that Jesus wants: he wants his disciples ask. Discussions about the need to ask according to God’s will or about the reasons why God does not answer every prayer may have their place, but here such clarifications would have been a distraction. What matters is that the disciples understand the goodness and generosity of their heavenly Father and, consequently, that they ask him frankly and simply, like children, in perfect trust.

As Marcel Dumais observes, this pericope is the last one before the conclusion of the body of the sermon with the Golden Rule (7:12). This teaching is given a privileged place, bringing the disciples back to dependence on the Father. It’s vital that they not walk away with the idea of living out the kingdom in their own strength, but rather they need to embark on this difficult path strengthened by the hope that God will provide for all their needs. It is first and foremost their view of God that will change everything else.

God must not be thought of as a reluctant stranger who can be cajoled or bullied into bestowing his gifts (6:7-8), as a malicious tyrant who takes vicious glee in the tricks he plays (7:9-10), or even as an indulgent grandfather who provides everything requested of him. He is the heavenly Father, the God of the kingdom, who graciously and willingly bestows the good gifts of the kingdom in answer to prayer.1

It is this view of God, this filial relationship, that will ultimately be the disciples’ most distinctive trait. Those who follow Jesus will learn from him his radical theocentrism, which will transform every aspect of their lives. In particular, they will not chase after earthly goods like the pagans who do not know God, but will place their complete trust in his provision (6:25–34), and they will direct all the desires of their hearts to the Father (7:7–11), without fear of reproach. This trust in God’s favor, made concrete through prayer, will therefore be the driving force of the entire life of the disciple in pursuit of the kingdom of God.

We need your help

This apologetics ministry for students only exists because of your generosity. There is a wide-open door here—thousands of students who have never heard a single good reason to believe in Jesus—and we are asking you to step through that door with us by joining of our team of partners.

Learn more

Murmuration

If you happen to bump into me in Aix, looking up at the sky with my mouth hanging open, I’m probably just watching the starlings.

O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Psalm 8:1

“God is more patient than you, that’s all.”

This is the last line in a recent entry in my notebook written when I was feeling discouraged about myself and about life. In reality there’s a lot to be pleased about at the end of 2025. This year I did my first conférence, on the reliability of the New Testament. Next month I’ll be doing two – within two days of each other – one on the New Testament again and the other on science and faith. We also piloted Parole et Pancakes this year, doing worldview studies with the youth from church over the summer. And in the fall we started Foi et Sandwich with students who live in the dorm at the seminary, which is not big yet, but is starting strong. Not to mention the fact that we celebrated eight birthdays in our family, shepherding six kids through another year of tiny, life-changing moments, doing our imperfect best to pass on the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

And for next year, there’s lots of ideas at various stages of maturation, and every reason to look forward to twelve months of honest, faithful labor for the kingdom, which by God’s grace will bear the fruit that he has ordained for this ministry.

So why was I discouraged? In part, I don’t measure up to my own expectations (nor to God’s, but those two sets of expectations aren’t exactly the same which is part of the problem). In part, there are things that aren’t where I want them to be. But that’s just to say that they aren’t there yet. And in part, it’s been rainy and my feelings tend not to correspond with objective reality.

“God is more patient than you, that’s all.”

This is obviously true; nobody who knows me would include patience among my chief virtues. What’s comforting is that God sees all the same things I do, but he’s not frustrated like I am because he’s not in a hurry to fix everything this instant. The only projects that actually matter are his projects, and those are always at exactly the stage they should be. Whatever failings are mine have already been taken into account, and each will be healed in its time. Whatever obstacles stand against the Word will only do so as long as he allows them to. He is working all things according to his will, and even me-of-little-faith being down in the dumps now and again is (somehow) part of his master plan.

As someone in ministry who depends on donations, it’s natural to carefully curate what you share so that people only see the bright side of ministry. You want to highlight successes and constantly exude an unshakeable faith. That makes sense, but that’s not my vision for this newsletter. I called it the Notebook because I wanted it to feel a bit like reading a personal notebook with scattered, short reflections across the whole range of whatever subjects are occupying my mind at the time. My whole ambition as an apologist is simply to tell the truth (convincingly if possible). And the truth here at the end of 2025 is that (1) 2025 was a good year, (2) I am weak and sometimes get discouraged for no good reason, (3) God is faithful and working all things for good, and (4) my faith is in him, not me.

And this truth is for you dear reader: whatever you’re feeling as 2025 turns to ’26, know for certain that God has each one of us right where he wants us.

One year of the Folie de Dieu Notebook

On January 1 of this year, I ambitiously sent out the first issue of the FdD Notebook, knowing full well that my track record for writing consistently offered no reason to be optimistic about the future of this project. On December 31, I’m still here, sending out the 25th issue, and nobody’s more surprised than me. Looking back, I’m pleased with the variety (and I’ve also spotted a couple areas to fill in a bit more next year). I think my personal favorites were “The Qur’an and the loss of the plot”, “Biology is insufficient”, and “A brief argument for the Bible as God’s word”. The one that got the most responses from you was naturally my reflection on the death of Charlie Kirk. By the way, thank you so much to each one of you who hit the reply button during the year (especially the critics!). If not for you, I would never have been able to stick with it, and the Notebook would have withered on the vine within a few weeks.

Here’s a list of each article from the year, organized by categories rather than chronologically (a few turn up in more than one category). Nobody has time to read my ramblings twice a month, so here you can just pick the ones that look more interesting. You can also share these links if there’s one on the list that you think would be a blessing for your circles. All of this is free, and it’s going to stay that way thanks to the people who generously support my work with Ratio Christi. If anything you’ve read here has benefited you, would you prayerfully consider becoming a financial partner to help our apologetics student ministry take root in France?

Apologetics

• Truth, what truth?

Atheism

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

• Biology is insufficient

• Neil DeGrasse Tyson can’t be wrong?

The Bible

Inspiration

• What did Jesus think of the Bible?

• A brief argument for the Bible as God’s word

• The proverbs of the Bible and ancient near-eastern wisdom

Historical and Textual Reliability

• A suspicious fact about the Gospels

• Comparing five verses in two ancient manuscripts

Word studies

• Bible translation and the word “jewish”

• Why is it called an ark?

The Bible in its context

• Treated as a slave

Culture

• The King and I and the collision of worldviews

Deity of Christ

• Church councils and the deity of Christ

• Who created the world?

• 1 Corinthians 8:6 – The Father alone is God?

Epistemology

Faith, Evidence, and Science

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

• Attempted scam

• The God of the gaps or the God who makes the grass grow?

• Neil DeGrasse Tyson can’t be wrong?

General Revelation

• What’s that for?

• Thanksgiving and Paul’s apologetic of the harvest

Reflections

• Sticking up for the Church

• An “I am” poem

• After the fire

• Personal response to the death of Charlie Kirk

• Forgiveness earned is not forgiveness

Religions

• The supernatural in other religions

Buddhism: the Bible and the Four Noble Truths

• 1. Dukkha

• 2. Desire

• 3. The end of dukkha

• 4. The eightfold path

Islam

• The Qur’an and the Bible

• The Qur’an and Jesus

• The Qur’an and the loss of the plot

• Forgiveness earned is not forgiveness

Jehovah’s Witnesses

• Who created the world?

• 1 Corinthians 8:6 – the Father alone is God?

Take refuge in him

I’ve been building a playlist of songs based on the Psalms lately. There’s several different groups in there and I appreciate different things about each of them. These guys are great because they sing the words of the psalm just the way they’re written which is great for getting scripture stuck in your head.

~

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

Psalm 19:14

Bonjour dear readers,

By far my favorite American tradition is Thanksgiving, and one of the highlights of each year is being able to share this tradition with the people around us here in France. This year, we had 21 people in our apartment, most of whom were not American. It’s a lot of work, especially for Chelsea, but we love to do it every year it because of how much of a treat it is for our friends and neighbors to experience an authentic Thanksgiving. Each time, it feels almost miraculous when it all comes together, because we feel quite overwhelmed with all there is to do. In fact, it really is too much for us, and it’s a welcome reminder each year to discover once again that “his grace is sufficient for us,” which is true not only at Thanksgiving, but all year long.

~

Forgiveness earned is not forgiveness

It’s December now, and we’re starting to think — among other things — about Christmas presents. (I say “we”; some people have already finished their list, while others won’t think about it for another three weeks…) But what exactly is a gift? That might seem obvious. A gift is something you give freely without expecting anything in return. If you have to pay anything at all in exchange for the “gift,” then it isn’t a gift. Even if the price is greatly reduced compared to the value of the item, it is still not a gift; it’s just cheap. Or, to take another example, if the bakery offers a free baguette with the purchase of five baguettes, that’s not a gift; it’s a gimmick. A true gift is completely free, no strings attached; otherwise, it’s not a gift.

This train of thought becomes more theological when we observe that forgiveness is a form of gift. It is a gracious act by which a person decides to no longer consider another person as guilty. But if this forgiveness is not given freely, it’s not really forgiveness anymore. A king, for instance, can pardon a condemned man, in which case he becomes a completely free man. If, however, the king imposes any kind of penalty, it is not forgiveness. It may be a very light sentence compared to the offense, and that can be a form of grace, but it’s not forgiveness. True forgiveness is a gift, and it cannot be bought or earned. If, for example, you can “buy” your pardon for $100, that is not purchased forgiveness — it’s a cheap fine. Or if the condemned man is pardoned because of some exceptional service rendered to the kingdom, it is still not the case that he has earned his pardon. Despite all the good deeds someone might have done, justice requires a punishment for every crime; and if that punishment is waived, it’s a pardon — and it’s free.

The fiction of “earned forgiveness” becomes even clearer when forgiveness is turned into a general rule. If someone were to declare that from now on every crime can be canceled out by performing some particular service, it is no longer gracious forgiveness but simply a lax system of justice. When forgiveness is truly granted to someone who does not deserve it, the standards are maintained while grace is shown to an individual. But if people are automatically forgiven because they somehow earned it, all that amounts to is just low standards.

The importance of this argument lies in the fact that human religion tends naturally toward the idea of a deserved forgiveness in one form or another. This phenomenon is particularly clear in the Muslim doctrine of the scales. According to the Qur’an and Muslim tradition, the fate of each person on the Day of Judgment is determined by the relative weight of his good deeds versus his bad deeds. Thus: “As for one whose scales are heavy [with good deeds], he will be in a pleasant life. But as for one whose scales are light, his refuge will be an abyss.” (Q 101:6–9). The good news though: “Whoever comes [on the Day of Judgement] with a good deed will have ten times the like thereof [to his credit], and whoever comes with an evil deed will not be recompensed except the like thereof” (Q 6:160). Thus, in Islam, there is no forgiveness of sin, because you have to “earn” your forgiveness through good works — but forgiveness earned is not forgiveness. And so, instead of a demanding standard of justice with the possibility of forgiveness, the Qur’an offers a more lenient form of justice where the standards have been lowered to the point that sinful people can meet the conditions for entering Paradise by their own efforts.

Not so with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to which: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). This gift can neither be bought nor earned, and all those who have the idea that they will be able offer something to God in exchange for eternal life are seriously mistaken. On the other hand, just like with a Christmas gift, God’s forgiveness can be asked for, and that’s something which we are encouraged to do: “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16).

~

Christmas is coming!

Bonjour dear readers,

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving (if you’re not American and you didn’t know), and it’s no accident that this celebration takes place during the harvest season. It’s at this time of year that it’s particularly appropriate to thank God for all the blessings we have received from his hand, and it was this association with the harvest that made me think of Acts 14 for this week’s reflection.

In this passage, Paul and Barnabas are in Lystra, and Paul miraculously heals a lame man, which provokes the amazement of the crowd. Unfortunately, the pagans interpret this act according to their own pagan worldview, and they conclude that Paul and Barnabas are gods who have come down to earth in human form. Once Paul realizes what is happening (they were speaking in Lycaonian), he rushes to stop them from offering sacrifices, exclaiming:

Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.
Acts 14:8–17

Here, then, is the core of Paul’s apologetics among the pagans. With little time to elaborate, he urges them to turn from idols and to worship the Creator God, who they did not know although he “did not leave himself without witness, for he did good to them.” Paul declares that the message he brings comes from the God who was already speaking to them through the rains, the fruitful seasons, and the harvests that he provided.

This argument may seem inadequate to us. The things Paul attributes to the God of Israel were attributed by the pagans to their own gods, so why should they pay attention to him? How does the harvest refute paganism? In order to grasp Paul’s logic more fully, let’s turn to the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, where he develops his thought further:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:18–23

Paul affirms that human beings, made in the image of God, have this innate capacity to recognize him through creation. All people are aware of the Creator God and of some of his attributes, and they understand that they owe him worship and thanksgiving. We all know that we owe this thanksgiving, because if there is one absolutely indisputable fact, it is that we are not autonomous but dependent. We did not make ourselves, and our continued existence depends on countless things that we receive, such as oxygen, fresh water, and the food we harvest each year.

By reminding the people of Lystra of all the good things God gives to humanity, Paul seeks to awaken their natural consciousness of the living God which has been suppressed and corrupted by paganism. He calls them back to the gratitude that is natural to us in our humanity but essentially absent from paganism. The Greeks did not consider the gods to be their creators, and their relationship with them was a more transactional one. They saw their gods as more powerful than people, but people had their own independent existence, and could in some sense negotiate with the gods. People gave the gods what they wanted (honor, devotion), and the gods in return gave people what they needed.

But deep down we know that life is a gift, as is everything that sustains it. When Paul told the people of Lystra that they owed their harvests to the God who gives freely out of pure goodness, it was a truth that resonated with their intuitive knowledge of their Creator. Likewise, today we see that gratitude is expressed even by people who do not believe in God (especially at Thanksgiving). This does not come from evolution; it is the imprint of God’s finger on our hearts. He has never left himself without a witness in the good things that he gives us, and the joy we receive from them is multiplied for us who know him… and thank him.

Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving;
let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise!

Psalm 95:2

Bonjour dear readers,

As the four weeks of silence on my part testify, it’s quite a busy season for us here. What’s more, there’s very little chance that things will slow down anytime in the next two months! I’m happy to tell you that the family is doing well, and we’re receiving each day as the Lord gives it to us.

I’d also like to add that the new weekly apologetics gathering, Foi et Sandwich, is coming along nicely. It’s mostly theology students who are interested (though not only!), and the number of people coming has mainly increased during these first weeks. Please do pray for this initiative, that the Lord will make it bear fruit.

A suspicious fact about the gospels

I really do like Alex O’Connor; he’s probably my favorite skeptic. Here he is in this video with an argument against the resurrection of Jesus. It’s not the most fully developed argument, but he does bring up some things that are very useful for Christians to understand.

(Here’s the transcript for people who would rather not watch the video:)

It does seem to me suspicious, for example, that the gospel of Mark which is the earliest gospel contains no post-resurrection appearances, and then the gospel of Matthew does include post-resurrection appearances. The Gospel of Luke includes even more. It’s only in the Gospel of John that we get, for instance, doubting Thomas. [And it] is the latest gospel – canonical gospel I should say. That’s where that arises and in fact the story of doubting Thomas, famously he doesn’t believe that it’s the risen Christ, and Jesus says come and touch my wounds, and he touches his wounds and he says, “My Lord and my God!” And Jesus says, “You believed because you’ve seen. Blessed are those who believe without seeing.” So in my view what we have is this so-called mythological development of no post-resurrection appearances and as the time goes on, as we get further away from the source, the stories get more fantastical ending in a moral lesson to believe without evidence, yes this to me does seem a little bit suspicious.

The Order of the Gospels

The first response to this kind of argument is to notice that Alex makes the claim that Mark was the first gospel written, and the question that should immediately pop up in our minds is: “How does he know that?” The answer is that he doesn’t, for the simple reason that no one does. We do not know in what order the gospels were written, nor what their precise relationships to one another are. Of course, we have theories and speculations, and Alex is right to say that most scholars think that Mark is the first gospel. But the very fact of saying “most scholars” is an admission that there are scholars—who know far more about the subject than Alex and I put together—who think otherwise. No theory about the origin of the gospels is decisive because the reality is that the data we have simply do not settle the question decisively. That does not mean that it isn’t interesting to continue studying and discussing the topic. However, it is dishonest to claim knowledge of something which no one knows, and any argument built on a specific theory of the origin of the gospels is built on sand. Any conclusions drawn from such an approach are at least as doubtful as that first highly questionable step.

There Are More Than Just Gospels in the New Testament

The second thing I’d want to say is that Alex willfully ignores 23 of the 27 books of the New Testament in this analysis. It’s not only the gospels that speak of Jesus’ resurrection; there is also, for example, 1 Corinthians, a book that is, “according to most scholars,” older than all four gospels. In chapter 15 of this letter, Paul gives us a kind of creed of the early Church, the main part of which is a list of appearances of Jesus after his resurrection:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
1 Corinthians 15:3–11

One detail that we don’t want to miss in this text is that Paul claims to have passed on what he himself had received. What Paul tells us here does not originate with him, but is what Christians already believed before he was converted which happened in the very first years after Jesus’ departure. The reality is therefore exactly the opposite of what Alex suggests. The testimony of Jesus’ appearances after his resurrection is not a late addition but an integral element of the Christian message from the very beginning of the Church.

Believing Without Evidence?

Alex finishes by referring to the well-known story of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas. For Alex, this is the culmination of the trajectory he perceives: a story where Jesus himself claims that we must believe without evidence: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed!” Now for one thing, I don’t understand Alex’s logic, which claims that the author of the gospel teaches the necessity of believing without evidence while at the same providing a whole lot of evidence (which he supposedly invented himself?). In any case, the lesson Alex finds in the story of Thomas is not at all the one indicated by the text itself.

Here I should note that some Christian apologists make the same mistake in the opposite direction when they take Thomas as a commendable example of someone who sought evidence before believing. They, like Alex, fail to notice that Thomas, before seeing the risen Lord with his own eyes, was not lacking evidence of the resurrection. First of all, he had the unanimous testimony of ten apostles whose character he knew perfectly well (not to mention the women who went to the tomb and other disciples who had seen Jesus). Moreover, he himself knew that Jesus had predicted his crucifixion and resurrection in advance, and he had all the Old Testament texts that Jesus had interpreted for the other disciples, and which they could explain to Thomas. Thomas is not an example of someone withholding belief in the absence of evidence; he shows himself rather to be a stubborn unbeliever who refuses to believe in spite of the evidence.

Thus, when Jesus says, “Blessed are those who have not seen,” he is not approving any blind leaps of faith, but accentuating the gift received by those who, by grace, see clearly to recognize the Word of God and receive it.

The truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a “spiritual truth” floating in some other plane of existence, disconnected from the world of our senses and our reason. The message handed down to us is that God has intervened in the world: he was born into an ordinary family, he walked in our streets, he ate food, he spoke with people like us who saw him, heard him, and touched him. His enemies killed him, but he rose from the dead, and he showed himself alive to his friends—not in a mystical vision, but tangibly, in flesh and bone. They told the story of what they experienced, and we have their testimony in written form in the New Testament, in documents whose historicity can be defended by numerous arguments.

It is understandable that an atheist like Alex does not accept the apostles’ testimony, but we should be clear that this rejection is entirely due to his atheistic presuppositions and cannot be attributed to some deficiency in the testimony itself. The thesis of a mythological development of the story of Jesus simply does not fit the facts.

Reading

To prepare for my conference in January (on the reliability of the New Testament), I finally read Hidden in Plain View by Lydia McGrew. I recommend it with all my heart; the argument she develops is very accessible and quite powerful. I’m now reading Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, which is also excellent. For my audiobook, I started Moby Dick. It’s satisfying to listen to a story where the author takes his time when you live in a world that’s always in a hurry.

Chessboxing

You have to see it to believe it:

~

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2 Peter 1:16

~

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.1

It is the Noble Eightfold Path that defines Buddhist practice with the aim of attaining enlightenment and the end of dukkha. By bringing all eight elements into balance, a Buddhist can make progress by harmonizing with reality in order to extinguish craving. To do this, one must not only see rightly (aspects 1–2), but also lead an ethical life (aspects 3–5) and develop spiritual practices, especially meditation (aspects 6–8).

Buddhist ethics are found in aspects 3–5 of the Eightfold Path: right speech, right action, and right livelihood. These three dimensions of ethical life are further explained by the Five Precepts: (1) No killing, (2) No stealing, (3) No sexual misconduct, (4) No lying, (5) No mind-altering substances.2 These rules demonstrate the Buddhist awareness of that morality which is embedded in every human heart. There is a human intuition that this standard of conduct is imposed on us by an external reality. This moral code remains in Buddhism even though the holy God who grounds it is no longer there. The universe of Buddhism is not fundamentally personal, but impersonal, which leads to a problem: Although morality is intrinsically personal, Buddhism does not have a personal God to be its foundation.

The system of karma does not correspond to human moral intuition, because our knowledge of good and evil is independent of consequences, whether they be in this life or in a future one. Even if the consequences of murder were good and those of generosity were bad, our moral judgment of these actions would not change. Furthermore, there are other actions with negative consequences that are not immoral. If I get tricked into giving money to a scammer, the fact that I suffer from it does not make the act itself immoral. In a mechanical universe without a personal God, the categories of moral and immoral lose their meaning. This means that the Buddhist acknowledgement of morality testifies—against Buddhism—that man is made in the image of God and is accountable to Him.

As for the ritual aspects of the Eightfold Path, although the idea is to seek enlightenment and not to worship a god, the human intuition for worship still manifests itself. Hagen claims, “Nor is a buddha someone you bow down to,”3 but many Buddhists do exactly that!4 And despite Buddhism’s insistence that enlightenment is attained through one’s own efforts, a core practice is to verbally “take refuge” in the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma (the teaching), and the Sangha (the community).5 In some branches of Buddhism, people seek the favor of various beings, through devotion, to help them make progress on the road to enlightenment.6 The justification for reverential practices in Buddhism is unclear (hence Hagen’s claim about bowing). The face that they persist nevertheless testifies to the biblical truth that humans were made to worship the God who is worthy of all honor and glory.

Salvation

The Buddhist doctrine of the Eightfold Path testifies to human awareness that we belong to a God to whom we are accountable and who deserves our worship. The error in the Buddhist approach is to see these practices as the means of transformation rather than the result of it. There is an overestimation of human ability for each individual to transform himself. There is no savior for the disciples of Buddha as Jesus is the savior of his disciples, but the exhortation of the Buddha is: “Be a light unto yourself; betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth. Look not for refuge to anyone besides yourselves.”7

The solution offered by Buddhism is that each individual ought to transcend attachment and craving to attain enlightenment, but this idea assumes that human corruption is a superficial aspect of our nature that we can rid ourselves of on our own. The Bible sees more clearly that it is the heart itself that is corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9), and that man is “dead in his sins” (Ephesians 2:1). A person in this condition cannot escape what he is by his own efforts. In order for a man to transcend his corrupt nature and achieve glorification, the transcendent God must intervene to change him by power that comes from without.

In the Bible, the path of salvation is not a recipe for the dead to raise themselves, but a Person—Jesus Christ—who is the way, the truth, the resurrection, and the life (John 14:6, 11:25). He is the one who transforms our hearts to give us the ability and the will to live as we ought, to worship God in spirit and in truth, and to lead a life that aligns with his holiness. So, it is not through what we practice that the transformation is achieved, but it is because of the transformation given that our practice is conformed to God’s will. In this way, the doctrine of Christ the Savior incorporates and surpasses the doctrine of the Eightfold Path.

~

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.1

The good news of Buddhism is the Third Noble Truth: the possibility of the end of dukkha. It is possible to put an end to one's craving, and thus put an end to the experience of dukkha. This also means escaping the cycle of rebirth into a state that transcends ordinary existence, a state called nirvana.

The biblical worldview affirms, in fact, that the end of dukkha is possible, and that such will be the experience of those united with Christ. However, the way this end of dukkha is understood is totally different. Whereas in Buddhism thirst comes to an end by being “relinquished” and “renounced”, the Bible's promise is that our thirst will be satisfied.

Buddhist teaching sees that there is nothing in this world capable of satisfying the deep thirst of the human heart; so it teaches that this thirst is itself the fruit of ignorance, and that it can be extinguished by enlightenment. C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, argues in the opposite direction:

The Christian says, ‘Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.2

Lewis argues that our thirst is there to tell us something we need to hear. Just as physical thirst is an indication that the body needs water, spiritual thirst is an indication that our soul needs something. It's not the thirst itself that's the problem, but the lack that causes it.

What's more, the biblical worldview is more consistent about the end of dukkha because it describes history as linear rather than circular. The Buddhist conception of the universe as following a continuous cycle with no beginning is not obviously consistent with the finality of the idea of nirvana. The tension can be seen in the classification of the end of the universe as an “unanswered question”: “This question is left unanswered partly as it is an open question if this beginningless world series will ever have an end, once all beings attain Nirvana (A.V.194).”3 The Bible, on the other hand, presents the journey of creation as a story with a beginning and an end, a happy end in fact: God's perfect and eternal reconciliation with the new humanity in union with Jesus Christ.

Theosis

There is a parallel between the Buddhist and Biblical worldviews in the transformation of nature of those who reach the end of dukkha. Buddhism speaks of enlightenment; the Bible proclaims the glorification of the saints. What's more, for both worldviews, this transformation for the many is the consequence of the transformation of one man

The Buddha's awakening makes him a matchless being in the Buddhist universe. He is more powerful than Brahmā, the king of the gods,4 and finds none higher than him to honor.5 And yet, the Buddha was born an ordinary man. Buddhism has therefore a very high consideration of what human nature is capable of. The Bible affirms this lofty view of humanity, first in the fact that humans are made in God's image, and ultimately in the Incarnation where the Son of God takes a human nature to himself.

In Buddhism, the Buddha's awakening does not itself bring about the awakening of others, but because of his teaching, the way is paved for others to follow him into the same condition that he achieved. In the Bible, on the other hand, Christ's glorification in the resurrection extends to believers because they are united with him spiritually. The apostle Peter goes so far as to say that believers become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).

However, these important parallels in eschatalogical hope highlight all the more the profound difference. The Buddhist does not seek enlightenment in order to be in communion with the Buddha, but to escape from dukkha. The Christian, on the other hand, also wants to escape dukkha, but by being united with Christ and reconciled with God. The Christian is running toward God, not just away from pain.

Nirvana

There is also a surprising amount of overlap between the description of Nirvana in Buddhism and the attributes of God in the Bible, as Peter Harvey points out:

Nirvana is beyond and outside time, so in a sense is eternal, like God. Both are also perfection, and a kind of source of true happiness. Both are a Beyond, difficult to describe in words, which can somehow be reached by people in this world. Nirvana is the unconditioned that can come to be known and experienced by conditioned beings, and God is a creator that can be known by created beings. While Buddhist meditation aims to experience Nirvana, Christian contemplation seeks to know God.6

The concept of nirvana testifies to human awareness that our proper finality is the eternal God. The difference is that the formal rejection of God’s existence means that Nirvana is only known by what it is not. According to the Buddha: “It is hard to see this state, namely, the stilling of all volitional activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, non-attachment, stopping, Nirvana. (M.I.167).”7 Since Nirvana is the extinction of thirst, not its satisfaction, there is no good, positive thing to say about it. Nirvana is not a state of joy, but rather a state that transcends joy. It does not satisfy the desires of the heart; it makes them cease.

The Bible, on the other hand, offers a positive vision of the cessation of dukkha. There are indeed cessations: “Death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more for the former things have passed away,” but these cessations are the consequence of a positive reality: “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes…” (Rev 21.3-4). It is in this intimate, tangible presence of God that the saints will experience as they in turn reflect God's glory. In this way, the doctrine of glorification incorporates and surpasses the Buddhist doctrine of the end of dukkha.

Read part 4:

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
1 Corinthians 8:6

“Clear as day,” they say. “Paul says that there's only one God: the Father. That must mean that Jesus isn't God.”

And yet, we ought to ask if that logic really holds up. If “one God, the Father” means that Jesus is not God, are we going to interpret “one Lord, Jesus Christ” in the same way? If Jesus is the only Lord, does that mean that the Father is not Lord? It seems pretty unlikely to me that Paul's intention was to teach that the Father is not Lord. So, if the fact that there is only “one Lord, Jesus Christ” doesn't exclude the Father's Lordship, it must also be true that the phrase “one God, the Father” doesn't exclude Jesus' deity. On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a powerful Trinitarian text.

Let's go back a bit to understand the context. In this chapter Paul addresses the subject of food offered to idols. On the one hand Paul affirms the theological basis for those who believe they can eat these foods, but on the other, he criticizes their practice as a potential stumbling block to their brothers and sisters in the faith. In verses 4-6, Paul confirms that the gods represented by pagan idols do not exist; he refutes the multitude of gods and lords among pagans with the biblical fact that there is only one God and Lord:

4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

It's true then that Paul is affirming monotheism, but the contrast is not between the divine Father and the non-divine Son, but between the multitude of pagan gods and the uniqueness of the God of Israel. Yahweh alone is God and Lord, and if Paul attributes one of these titles to the Father and the other to Jesus, it's because both are, in some way, the same Yahweh.

This reading is confirmed by two texts from Deuteronomy evoked by Paul's words. Firstly, there is a link between 1 Corinthians 8:5 and Deuteronomy 10:17, since they are the only two verses in the whole Bible that speak of “gods” and “lords” in the plural.

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Same as in 1 Corinthians 8, there is here one God, one Lord, who is set in opposition to many gods and lords. Yahweh alone is the one God and the one Lord. And so the “one God, the Father,” is Yahweh, just as the “one Lord, Jesus,” is Yahweh.

In speaking of one God, one Lord, Paul evokes another more famous verse from Deuteronomy:

Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.

It needs to be understood that in the Greek translation read by the Corinthians, the word Yahweh was translated as Kyrios – Lord.1 When they would read Deuteronomy, they read:

Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

In this declaration of monotheism, the Israelite reminds himself emphatically that for him there is one God, one Lord. 1 Corinthians 8:6 repeats this statement, refuting the existence of Greek gods by affirming that for us there is “one God, [...] one Lord.” “Lord” is therefore a divine title just as “God” is, and far from denying the deity of Jesus, Paul dramatically affirms it, saying that the one Yahweh of Deuteronomy, the God worshipped by Christians, is the Father and the Son.

On one level, Yul Brynner died of a broken heart, or more precisely, a heart that ripped itself in two. With half of his heart he was a traditional king of Siam, proud of his own culture and his place in it. But with the other half of his heart, he wanted to be European. He was just as attached to the idea of being scientific and forward-looking as he was to traditional values and heritage. He thought that he could hold on to both of these at the same time, but the inherent contradictions led first to puzzlement (“There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know”) and eventually to the fatal crisis when the moment of decision was forced upon him. In this moment, unable to commit to one way or the other, his heart was snapped in two.

On another level, his death is inevitable because he is the king of Old Siam, and Old Siam itself is dying. A New Siam, fundamentally different in its worldview and values, is coming into being and bringing to an end the Old Siam. Yul Brynner himself instigates this transition; he is the father of the New Siam, but he does not belong to it. He is the last king of Old Siam, and he cannot outlive his own kingdom. New Siam needs a new king, formed from youth with the values of the new worldview. Even as Yul Brynner takes his last breaths, his son begins his reign by abolishing the practice of prostrating before the king.

There’s a lesson here about the inherent coherence of worldviews. Yul Brynner wanted to import some modern science and European learning, without realizing that in so doing, he was also bringing in a fundamentally different view of human dignity and equality. He wanted his children to speak English, and what he got were children who were thinking “in English” on such questions as slavery and royalty. It turns out that worldview commitments and values do not come à la carte. Ideas are rooted in a worldview, and when you take a flower that you find attractive, you tend to get more than you bargained for.

For example, you might think you’d rather live without the God who claims authority over your sex life, but that also means doing away with the image of God that makes you anything other than an “ugly bag of mostly water”.1 Or you might think you’d prefer karma to sin, but eventually you discover that you’ve got rid of redemption as well.

In the same way, you might like this or that aspect of Jesus. You might like the Sermon on the Mount, or the way he elevated women, children, and the poor. But Jesus will not be taken à la carte. The same Jesus who said “Let the little children come unto me,” (Mt 19.14) also said, “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (Jn 8.24).2 We can’t go in two different directions at the same time. Either Jesus is Lord and we follow him with all our heart, or he’s not we go our own way. And either way, it’s this decision that sooner or later decides all the rest. “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mk 8:35).

“And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.”1

The cause of the dukkha that inflicts us is our craving or desire. We want to have things we cannot have, and so we suffer. This causes not only suffering or dissatisfaction in this life, but also the phenomenon of rebirth, whereby we are locked into a cyclical existence marked by dukkha.

As for this craving, its root is ignorance. As Steve Hagen explains:

It’s imperative to recognize that our dissatisfaction originates within us. It arises out of our own ignorance, out of our blindness to what our situation actually is, out of our wanting Reality to be something other than what it is.2

This link between ignorance and suffering is not foreign to the biblical worldview. God exclaims through the prophet Hosea: “My people perish for lack of knowledge (Hos 4:6).” It's true that our misconceptions of the world hurt us. We have a thirst that we seek to satisfy in a host of idols, none of which can quench our thirst. And the Buddhist is right to reject these idols to which the human heart naturally turns:

What would answer the hollow ache of the heart? Money? Fame? Sex? Learning? Power? Life in the fast lane? Life in the slow lane? Luxury apartments in Paris and Manhattan? A quiet cottage by a running brook? Perhaps you can sense already that none of these specifics will do the trick. Indeed, whatever object we pick can at best only temporarily still some particular yearning. The underlying ache of the heart remains omnipresent and unquenchable.3

According to Buddhism, the reason we act as we do is because we are ignorant of the nature of reality.

Individuality

The most important aspect of this human ignorance is ignorance of our own nature. Each of us believes that he is an individual with an existence of his own, but this impression of an individual existence is denied in Buddhism. According to Hagen, “We tend to think of ourselves as persons or individuals—separate entities persisting through time. But we aren’t. What we call a person, the Buddha referred to simply as ‘stream’.”4 This understanding is an aspect of the doctrine of “dependent origination” or “conditioned co-arising.” In the words of the Buddha: “When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn’t, that isn’t. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.”5 The idea, then, is that everything that exists is in a great stream of cause and effect, where all is transient and impermanent. People have no fixed identity because they are always in the process of becoming, always the momentary result of upstream causes, always in the process of giving way to downstream reality. The human intuition of being an individual that endures in time is therefore erroneous and a source of dukkha. According to Hagen, “It’s by holding onto this notion of self—and we hold it most dear—that we live in defiance of Reality. This is the means by which we suffer, and suffer greatly. It hurts to defy Reality.”6

This teaching is so counter-intuitive that human language cannot even accommodate it.7 It's not self-evident, but rather a logical consequence of a conception of the universe without a transcendent God. When the Stream encompasses all of reality, there is no point of reference for individual people. But the transcendent God who is outside the Stream doesn't change, and he is the fixed reference point for all his creatures. He can choose to create people, and he gives them a stable identity that doesn’t depend on their constantly changing nature. It is the fact that the Transcendent is a personal God that grounds the individualized existence of other persons.

Transcendance

This Buddhist understanding of human existence has its origins in the Buddha's response to a philosophical debate of the time on the existence of the eternal soul (ātman). The Buddha's triumph was to see that the correct answer was neither “yes” nor “no”. His approach is called the “Middle Way”, and it refuses to cling to the “extremes” of human conceptions, “frozen views”, of reality.8

This idea of the Middle Way is a constant thread running through Buddhist teaching, even to the point of asserting a Middle Way between existence and non-existence.9 There's this desire to transcend the categories of our experience in this world, this intuition that truth is greater and more multifaceted than our human concepts. According to Hagen, “The world of experience simply isn’t frozen. Reality won’t be condensed into concepts.”10

This is where the absence of God really makes itself felt in the Buddhist worldview. There’s this search for the transcendent, which can never be found, because the starting point is the non-existence of the one who is the Transcendent. Where God should be, there is a blank spot on the map that can only be defined by what it isn’t. So, for example, the description of nirvana offered by the Buddha is entirely negative, a list of everything that nirvana isn’t:

Monks, there exists that sphere where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither the sphere of infinite space, nor infinite consciousness, nor the sphere of no-thingness, nor the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor the other world, nor both sun and moon. And there, monks, I speak neither of coming nor of going, nor of staying, nor of falling away, nor of arising [in a new rebirth]; it is really unsupported, lacking in continued temporal existence, and objectless (Ud. 80-1).11

Transcendence can never be found because the absence of the Creator God entails the absence of the distinction between Creator and creatures, which is what really defines transcendence Not knowing the God who is the fountainhead of existence, the Buddhist correction for human ignorance ends up being just another form of ignorance.

Original Sin

By losing sight of the distinction between Creator and creature, Buddhism also loses sight of the separation between the holy God and his sinful creatures. This is the fundamental flaw in the Second Noble Truth: ignorance, which is a source of suffering, does not suffice as an explanation of the human condition. For one thing, ignorance itself needs some explanation. Where does this ignorance come from? Why do people tend to see things wrong? How did our vision get to be so corrupted? Secondly, and more importantly, there is another, deeper reason for suffering. It's just not possible to reduce all of the wickedness in human history to simple ignorance. Where does hatred come from? Where does the pleasure of hurting others come from? What explains the perversity of the human heart?

The Bible reveals what's missing from the Second Noble Truth: the concept of rebellion. Man was created for God, to find fulfillment in a relationship with his Creator, but because the first man rebelled against the Creator, human nature became corrupted to run away from the God who we still long for. It’s this corruption of the heart that is at the root of human wickedness, and it is enmity towards God that causes people to seek idols in an attempt to quench their thirst for God.

As long as the rupture between God and man is not taken into account, as long as we fail to recognize that the thirst we have is for God, we will not be able to understand the cause of dukkha. For this reason, the doctrine of original sin incorporates and surpasses the Buddhist doctrine of the cause of dukkha.

Read part 3:

At some point, you would start to seriously doubt that it was really the same author behind all three volumes. How could the same author have completely lost the narrative thread between the second and third volumes? And yet that's exactly the experience of a Christian reading the Qur’an. In the Bible, there's a narrative thread that begins in the Old Testament and continues in the New Testament, but the Qur’an seems to be entirely ignorant of this overall story arc.

The tale of God and his people

That overarching story of the Bible begins with God's creation of heaven and earth. This creation is initially “very good”, but when the man disobeys his Creator and eats the forbidden fruit, sin enters the world. From that moment on, there is corruption and death on the earth, and the man and his wife are expelled from the Paradise of Eden and deprived of God's presence. The big question in the story of the Bible is how can the relationship between God and man be restored? That process begins with God choosing one man, Abraham, to found a people who will become the people of God, through whom God intends to bless the whole world. Abraham's family moved to Egypt, and there they became a very numerous people, but enslaved by the Egyptians. God hears their cries, and intervenes to save his people and to judge those who stubbornly resist him. God gives this people his law, and brings them into the land he promised to their ancestors. Despite all these blessings, the people of Israel are constantly unfaithful to their God, and he is compelled to discipline them with judgments that become more and more severe, until he sends the Babylonians to take his people away captive in a foreign land. 70 years later, God graciously allows them to return to their own country, but it's clear that they still have the same hardness of heart, and the question remains: what is the solution for sin? How does God plan to save his people once and for all?

As all these historical events are playing out, God sends prophets with revelations of a coming figure, a savior for God's people. He will be a prophet who reveals God in a new way, a king who will make God's people live in peace and security, and, mysteriously, a man who will suffer and die for the sins of the people.

Here the Old Testament ends, and the reader is left in suspense: how will God fulfill all the promises he made in this first volume of scripture? The answer given by the New Testament is the sending of Jesus, God the Son, into the world. Just as God dwelt among his people before in the Tabernacle, Jesus comes to dwell among God's people, showing them his glory. The people reject him, and he is crucified by order of the Roman prefect. But on the third day, he is raised again and appears alive to his disciples. He makes them understand that by his death he has taken upon himself the punishment for the sins of his people, and by his resurrection he has conquered death once and for all. He then sends them out to proclaim this good news throughout the world, because everyone who places his faith in Jesus is united to him and becomes an heir of eternal life. Then Jesus ascends in glory to the right hand of God, where he sits as a victorious king until the time determined by God, when he will return to destroy his enemies and establish his kingdom on the earth. Then sin and death will be no more, and God will live among his people forever.

A book which confirms?

This story is not completed by the Qur’an. Despite references to creation, final judgment, and past prophets, the Qur’an shows no familiarity with the overarching plot of the Bible. The logic of the Qur’an is that God constantly sends messengers to various peoples to remind them that He is the only God worthy of worship. Almost without exception, his messengers are rejected by their people, and the story ends with the salvation of the prophet and the destruction of the non-believers. It becomes apparent that the story told of every prophet of the past is modeled on Muhammad's own experience. Their message was the same as his and if he is rejected, it's not surprising because it that’s what happened to them too. Totally absent is the idea that God has a plan to save his people from sin and death, a plan that is unfolding through all the centuries of the history of the world. What's more, the New Testament, unlike the Old, doesn't leave the reader waiting for a third volume.1 Christians aren't waiting for a prophet to come and complete God’s revelation. The one we’re waiting for is Jesus himself to come and fulfill his promise and finish the story that began in Genesis chapter 1.

Abonnez-vous maintenant

Like all the other prophets, Jesus was sent to call his people back to the worship of the one true God, and like Moses, he received a written revelation to transmit: the Gospel.

5:46 And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

The Qur'an relates many details about Jesus that are in harmony with the New Testament accounts. Jesus was born of a virgin, he is the Messiah, he had disciples, and he performed many miracles. At the same time, there are a number of curious additions that seem to depend on pseudepigraphic gospels or other later legends. The account of his conception and birth in Surah 19 shows the mixture of biblical and non-biblical elements:

19:16-33 And mention, [O Muḥammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east. And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel [i.e., Gabriel], and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allāh." He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy [i.e., son]." She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?" He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.'" […] Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister [i.e., descendant] of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste." So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?" [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allāh. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakāh as long as I remain alive And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant. And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."

The conclusion of this story introduces the first major difference between the Jesus of the Qur'an and the Jesus of the Bible: the Jesus of the Qur'an is not the Son of God:

19:34-36 That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute. It is not [befitting] for Allāh to take a son; exalted is He!1 When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. [Jesus said], "And indeed, Allāh is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path."

This refutation of the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity comes back multiple times in the Qur’an:

4:171 O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allāh and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allāh is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as Disposer of affairs.

5:116-117 And [beware the Day] when Allāh will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allāh?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

The second major difference between the Bible and the Qur’an on the subject of Jesus is that the Qur’an also denies his death on the cross:

4:157 And for their (the Jews) saying, “We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God” — though they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. Those who differ concerning him are in doubt thereof. They have no knowledge of it, but follow only conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Christian Response

As for the crucifixion, it's ironic that the Qur'an states that those who believe in the crucifixion “have no knowledge of it” and that they only “follow only conjecture.” In reality, the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is accepted as a fact of history by an overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, atheists - in short, almost anyone who isn't a Muslim. But because of this one ambiguous verse, it's the Muslims who come up with a whole variety of conjectures to explain what happened when Jesus “appeared” to be crucified. Some claim that God made another man look like Jesus, and it was this man who was crucified. Depending on the interpretation, it was Judas or one of the other disciples, perhaps a volunteer who sacrificed himself for Jesus. Other Muslims prefer the swoon theory, according to which Jesus was indeed crucified, but survived his crucifixion.

The Qur'an does not clarify, but confuses for Muslims something that is clear to Christians. This confusion seems to have its source in the author of the Qur'an's ignorance of the Gospel message. This verse which denies the crucifixion actually targets certain (imaginary) Jews who boast of having killed the Messiah. For the author of the Qur'an, it is unimaginable that non-believers would succeed in defeating God's messenger, and so it is not possible that these Jews could have crucified a prophet such as Jesus. Apparently he simply didn't understand that, in the Gospel, Jesus' crucifixion is his victory over sin, and his resurrection his victory over death. The Qur'an has no conception whatever of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world by the sacrifice of his own life. The result is that the author of the Qur'an criticizes something which he does not understand.

This same essential problem appears in the Qur'an's criticism of the Trinity. What is criticized in the Qur'an is not at all a correct representation of the Trinity of the Bible. The Bible teaches that there is only one God, and that this God exists in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s necessary distinguish between the essence of God, which is unique, and the divine persons, of which there are three. Christians do not believe in three gods, nor that God the Son was procreated by the Father, but these crude ideas are the ones refuted by the Qur'an.

So when God asks Jesus, “Did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allāh?’” (5:116) the issue is three gods, not a triune God. And when Christians are exhorted, “Do not say ‘Three’” (4:171), the Qur'an's correction is “Allāh is but one God.” But Christians don't deny that God is one God, we affirm it!

Worse still, when the Qur'an argues “How could He have a son when He does not have a companion?” (6:101), it's clear that the author didn't understand biblical teaching at all. But if the author of the Qur'an didn't know what the Bible says and what Christians believe, even those beliefs are wrong, it's not possible for that author to be God. The Qur'an's errors about Christian beliefs disqualify it from being a revelation from God.

Image By Khalili Collections / CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO, CC BY-SA 3.0 igo, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=117159720

Now this, monks, is the noble truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha, separation from the loved is dukkha, not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.1

The first observation of the Buddhist worldview is the existence and universality of dukkha. From birth to death, all human life is affected by this suffering, frustration and dissatisfaction. As the Preacher of Ecclesiastes says: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Ec 1:2).”

There is in Buddhism this awareness that the world is not as it should be, or as we would like it to be. Dukkha is a problem. Dukkha is what's wrong. Man's desire is to escape from, or put an end to, the experience of dukkha. This observation of dukkha ties in with the biblical truth that the world we inhabit is fallen. We’re surrounded by suffering, frustration, dissatisfaction, and things do not work the way they should. It's not that this problem affects certain aspects of life or the world, but this corruption is universal.

The Bible explains that this dukkha is the consequence of the separation between God and man due to the Fall. Human beings along with the whole world suffer from the absence of God. In this way the Bible offers a more profound explanation of the problem of dukkha than Buddhist sources. When Peter Harvey asks, “Is Buddhism ‘pessimistic’ in emphasizing the unpleasant aspects of life?”,2 the Bible's answer is both “yes” and “no.” On the one hand, no, the Buddhist concept of dukkha is not even pessimistic enough because Buddhism underestimates dukkha. Buddhism does not see the roots of dukkha in sin, and therefore the proposed solution is inadequate. On the other hand, yes, the Buddhist concept of dukkha is too pessimistic because it denies the existence of the God who is outside the universe, and who is not affected by dukkha.

The difference in the starting point changes everything. Buddhism's first truth is the existence of dukkha, but the Bible starts with the good God and his good creation. Dukkha doesn't appear until Genesis 3, and when it does, it’s as an intruder, a foreign element in God’s creation. Thus, the Bible explains that dukkha, although it is the experience of every human being, is not natural. Buddhism, on the other hand, does not make dukkha an unnatural reality, since it has been part of the warp and woof of the universe since eternity past.3

Justice, personal and impersonal

In Buddhism, we speak of dukkha, not sin. This language reflects the fact that there is no Supreme Judge in the Buddhist worldview, and that the consequences for human actions, whether bad or good, are mechanical and impersonal. “Karmic results are seen simply as natural results, arising from a kind of law of nature.”4

This view can be attractive, as it avoids the unpleasant image of an avenging God, as well as certain difficulties such as the problem of evil.5 But the problem with this view is that morality and justice are intrinsically personal. Stealing your neighbor's things isn't bad because the consequences are bad; stealing is bad because it's an offense against persons, the most important of whom is God. When a bear kills a man, it's a tragedy, but when a man does it, it's murder. This distinction, which is natural to people made in God's image, has no place in the Buddhist worldview, where there is no holy God to provide the foundation of moral reality.

And so the Buddhist account of dukkha reflects the reality of the fallen world, but until dukkha is understood as essentially separation from God, this concept is incomplete and incorrect. The Bible gives an account of the origin of dukkha, explains its foreignness in God's good creation, and deepens our understanding of it by highlighting the sin that underlies it. Thus, the biblical doctrine of sin incorporates and surpasses the Buddhist doctrine of dukkha.

Read part 2:

2:41 [O Children of Israel] believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me.

4:136 O you who have believed, believe1 in Allāh and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before.

The Qur’an specifically mentions the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), and the Injil, that is, the Gospel.

5:44-47 Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. […] 46 And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. 47 And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allāh has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

5:68 Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord [i.e., the Qur’ān]."

Muslims are divided over the precise identity of the Gospel in the Qur'an. It is described as a written revelation that was given to Jesus and was in the possession of the Christian community at the time of Mohammed. As there are four books that are called gospels, none of which was written by Jesus, there is a certain amount of confusion. The most likely is that the Qur'an is talking about the entire New Testament, which was called the Gospel by early Christians before it was known as the New Testament. What is very clear is that this Gospel is the particular Scripture of Christians which can’t be anything other than the New Testament or a part thereof.

Sent down to confirm

According to the Qur'an, the message of God brought by each new Scripture does not change. Rather, on several occasions we read that God sends down the Qur'an to confirm previous Scriptures (as the Gospel also confirms the Torah, 5:46 above).

3:3-4 He has sent down upon you, [O Muḥammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before, as guidance for the people.

2:101 And when a messenger from Allāh came to them confirming that which was with them, a party of those who had been given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allāh [i.e., the Torah] behind their backs as if they did not know [what it contained].

The Qur'an sees itself as the continuation of a chain of revelation from God that runs through the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It does not claim to institute a new religion in opposition to Judaism or Christianity, but rather to reaffirm the true monotheistic faith held by Jews and Christians.

The problem is that the Qur'an does not essentially agree with the Bible, especially the New Testament. According to the Qur'an, Jesus is not the Son of God (9.30), nor did he die on the cross (4.157). The very heart of the Good News of the New Testament is denied by the Qur'an, even as it claims to confirm the New Testament. This is a flagrant contradiction which is sufficient proof that the Qur'an is in fact not a revelation from God.

Corrupted scriptures?

Muslims who are aware of the fundamental differences between the Qur'an and the previous Scriptures tend to assert that the latter were corrupted after their initial revelation. The Qur'an therefore restores the original message of the other books. Q2.79 and Q5.48 are often used to support this thesis:

2.78-79 And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except [indulgement in] wishful thinking, but they are only assuming. 79 So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allāh," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

The problem with 2.79 as evidence of Scriptural corruption is that there is simply no reason to think that this verse is talking about the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. We're dealing with people who write false revelations, but there's no indication that these false books are the Torah or the Gospel. On the contrary, the people responsible for these forgeries “do not know the Scripture.” They’re not Jewish or Christian scribes who purposely change the text of the Bible because of their unbelief. Rather, it's people who invent new “revelations” out of thin air in order to sell them for “a small price.”

5.48 And We have revealed to you, [O Muḥammad], the Book [i.e., the Qur’ān] in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.

Some Muslims say that this verse indicates that the Qur'an is given as the criterion over previous Scriptures. They claim that the Qur'an serves to distinguish between those parts of the Bible that have been corrupted and those parts where the original revelation remains.

One difficulty with this interpretation is that it contradicts the Qur'an's repeated assertion that it confirms previous Scriptures. Confirmation and correction are not the same thing, and if we were supposed to understand that the Qur'an confirms the other Scriptures in part, this is not what the text says.

What’s more, it's not clear that “criterion” is an accurate translation of the Arabic muhaymin. According to James White:

We have not been able to find any contemporary lexical evidence that muhaymin means “corrector.” It refers to a guardian, and if anything, this would seem to mean it is to act as one protecting, not correcting, these texts.1

Other translations opt for this interpretation such as that of T. Usmani: “We have sent down to you the Book with truth, confirming the Book before it, and a protector for it.” A. Maudui, Yusuf Ali, and the Study Quran also have “protector”, while Pickthall has “watcher over.” The commentary of the Study Quran explains:

The Quran is further described as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous scriptures, meaning that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper, and guardian (see the commentaries of al-Tabari and al-Zamakhshari). "Protector” (al-Muhaymin) is also one of the Names of God in the Quran (59:23).2

This theory of the corruption of the Bible therefore does not come from the Qur'an itself, but rather exists to explain the approval of previous Scriptures in the Qur'an despite the irreconcilable differences between these books. It’s an attempt to save the Qur'an from an obvious contradiction, but not a doctrine that comes from the text of Islam’s holy book.

The Preservation of the Bible

The theory of Bible corruption is also refuted by the facts of the New Testament manuscript tradition. Today, we possess some 5,700 manuscripts of New Testament texts. The oldest date from the 2nd century AD, less than 100 years after the documents were written. Despite the many small differences between all these manuscripts, there is no difference that changes the message of the New Testament books. There is no New Testament manuscript in which Jesus is not the Son of God or which denies his crucifixion.

It should also be noted that the transmission of the New Testament text was a free transmission. This means that there was no authority, either ecclesiastical or civil, controlling the text of the New Testament (unlike the Qur'an). The various documents were written in different places, and copies were quickly distributed throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. As the text was preserved and recopied in several places, there was no one person or group who had the opportunity to introduce changes in all copies of a New Testament book. The consequence of these historical realities is that the theory of the corruption of the Gospel by Christian scribes is a theory that flies in the face of all the evidence. On the contrary, in God's providence, we can have the highest level of confidence in the Scriptures we have received.

Am. ch 1 - Give thine ear, and hear what I say, And apply thine heart to apprehend; It is good for thee to place them in thine heart, let them rest in the casket of thy belly; That they may act as a peg upon thy tongue.

Pr. 22:17-18 - Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply your heart to my knowledge, for it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, if all of them are ready on your lips.

Am. Ch. 6 - Remove not the landmark from the bounds of the field ... and violate not the widows boundary.

Pr. 23.10:11 - Do not move an ancient landmark or enter the fields of the fatherless, for their Redeemer is strong; he will plead their cause against you.

Am. Ch. 7 - Toil not after riches; If stolen goods are brought to thee, they remain not over night with thee. They have made themselves wings like geese. And have flown into the heavens.

Pr. 23:4-5 - Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist. When your eyes light on it, it is gone, for suddenly it sprouts wings, flying like an eagle toward heaven.

Am. Ch. 23 - Eat not bread in the presence of a ruler, And lunge not forward(?) with thy mouth before a governor(?). When thou art replenished with that to which thou has no right, It is only a delight to thy spittle. Look upon the dish that is before thee, And let that (alone) supply thy need.

Pr. 23:1-3 - When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what is before you, and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite. Do not desire his delicacies, for they are deceptive food.

There are others, but this is a sample of the more interesting ones. These parallels suggest that one of the two sages was inspired by the work of the other. Not all scholars agree whether it's Amenemope borrowing Hebrew proverbs or whether it goes in the other direction,1 but the majority opt for the latter.

Would it a problem for our understanding of the Bible as the Word of God if, indeed, some biblical proverbs had their origin in Egyptian wisdom? My answer is no, this possibility fits perfectly with the theology of the Bible.

According to the Bible, all human beings are created in the image of God, and all humans have a certain measure of wisdom and discernment to understand the world around them. We all have a certain awareness of God (Rom 1.19), of his moral requirements (Rom 2.14), and a wisdom for living in this world, wisdom that ultimately comes from God (Isa 28.23-29). It's not surprising, then, if Egyptians have insights that God's people can benefit from; it would actually be surprising if they didn't.

Of course, the wisdom of Amenemope is shot through with paganism. Without God, the best of human wisdom always turns to folly (1 Cor 1.20), but since the whole creation is destined to be redeemed (Rom 8.21), and since the treasures of all peoples will have their place in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21.24), the jewels of Egyptian wisdom, washed and purified by the Spirit, can find their place in the biblical revelation.