So….I have been out exploring on Google, and decided to Google “die for a lie”. Of course the first two posts are negative responses to the disciples. So I decided to peruse the blog posts, and came to the conclusion that they missed the mark on their analysis. The same analysis is basically being used by any number of atheists and includes the following arguments:
1. That there is no historical evidence that those listed in The Gospels as having seen the resurrected Christ even saw the resurrected Christ.
2. If they were not given the option to recant, then they did not die for a lie.
These two points are what a number of Atheists will use to try to define the argument in a way that is not based in truth.
That there is no historical evidence that those listed in Acts as having seen the resurrected Christ even saw the resurrected Christ.
As always, I will be operating under the fact that every word in the Gospel’s and Acts is 100% reliable, historical, fact (because it is).
I have always looked at Acts as the sequel to the Gospels (metaphorically speaking, not the literal sequal). The Empire Strikes Back to the Star Wars. The Spiderman 2 to Spiderman 1. The….well you get the idea.
Towards the end of the Gospels, Christ has been crucified. The Disciples have fled. Peter has denied Jesus three times and fled. The disciples were on the verge of giving up, they were hopeless. Any number of descriptions can be used here. The key is that the disciples thought that Christ was a King. No matter how Jesus tried to emphasize it wasn’t what they thought, they believed him to be an earthly King. When he died… they did in fact wonder… So what happened? Basically this same group who were despondent upon the death of Christ turn around and begin preaching that he was in fact God and had been resurrected as the book of Acts gets going.
So let’s put this into context. These men had witnessed His arrest. Some of them scattered after that. At least one of them witnessed his actual crucifixion. All of them knew about his death. So what would convince these men to go preach the deity and resurrection of Jesus? Not only that, but what would convince them that they needed to preach this in the face of beating’s, flogging’s, imprisonment, and ultimately… death?
The actions of individuals are always motivated by events. That is human nature. So the more appropriate question… what event took place that caused these men to go and spread the word? Acts says it is one event. Not just the resurrection of Jesus, not the empty tomb, but Jesus appearing before them in the flesh.
Now, in some of these posts I saw online there were comparisons to the people who died for Heaven’s Gate. You remember… the cult that committed mass suicide?! David Koresh is another popular tie-in here for Atheists. The Atheist wants you to believe that these people died for a lie. They would be correct in their observation. But their observation is under the auspice that the Gospel accounts and Acts are not 100% truth.
Here is the primary difference between the disciples and Heaven’s Gate. The disciples would have known that the whole thing was a lie. Think about this for just a second. Jesus had said that he would die and be resurrected three days later… If Jesus had NOT revealed himself to them… would they have gone and preached the resurrection? NO! They would have known that the whole thing was a hoax. Would they have perpetuated this hoax to become famous or rich? History (Acts specifically) shows that this most certainly was not the case. As a matter of fact only death, beatings, and imprisonment awaited these men. For the atheists’ analogy to hold true either the cult members would have had to have foreknowledge that allowed them to know definitively whether or not their leaders were who and what they claimed. The facts are that these unfortunate souls were not afforded the opportunity to see the claims of their belief system crumble.
On the other hand, the Disciples’ actions are the definitive proof that something happened to turn them from cowards to the very definition of courage. That event was documented in the Gospels, and in Acts. It could only be one thing, Christ himself in the flesh.
If they were not given the option to recant, then they did not die for a lie.
An Atheist will use this as the foundation to say that the Disciples did not die for a lie. Instead they say that there is no historical proof that ANY of the martyrs were given the opportunity to recant prior to being martyred. I say, that they absolutely were.
The presumption of the Atheist is that a Christian must be brought in, questioned and THEN be afforded an opportunity to back out on their previous claims – recant the story of Christ. I would ask… why were they arrested in the first place?
To illustrate look at the persecution of Christians by Saul.
That persecution was more like a man hunt. How do they avoid the man hunt… simply stop preaching the word! Think about it. These people were dying horrible deaths for being associated and accepting the label of Christ. If it was a lie all they would have had to do would be to stop preaching, stop associating with other Christians, etc… THAT ALONE is an outright recant of Jesus and His resurrection. But that did not happen- Which makes this all the more incredible!!! At any given time these people could have said… I am tired of ALL of this, I don’t want to die… and simply walked away.
So what can we take from this… A very real event occurred that spurred these men into action. That took them from despair to screaming about Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem. That event had to have been real, and not some conjured up story that a group of men made up. Remember most of the original disciples died a horrible death because of this event. In addition… at any time they could have simply avoided it by denying they were Christians. These men did not die for a lie. They were perhaps some of the most courageous men in the history of the world.
Here’s what one of those very men wrote just before he died for his faith: “I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
We are not called to be John McClane
There is a dialogue taking place in churches after the shooting in Sutherland Springs. This conversation is focused on church security and protecting members of the congregation. Many in church leadership are calling for a review of how churches can provide a more secure environment. The topic of security is not new and has continued to gain momentum since the Charleston shooting in 2016.
That emotion is easy to understand. We are seeing a trend of churches being attacked, and with the last one in Sutherland Springs, they are becoming more deadly. So much so, that there are now calls for armed security at churches. Is this how we are supposed to respond to persecution, or attacks? Are we called to beef up security, train ourselves for a violent response, or to be armed while we are at church?
The reality of Charleston and Sutherland Springs is that there is no way the shooter could have been stopped unless there was someone armed and on the premises when the firing began to happen. As churches continue to discuss security, this will become plain to all and should leave any rational or logical evaluation with this conclusion. But is that what we should do as Christians? Are we responding to these shootings in the way the world would react or the way that Christ would respond? Fortunately for us, the New Testament offers significant testimony to followers during times of persecution.
I know that this will more than likely not be popular in an America that is pro second amendment. I know this will not be popular in a culture that has been taught that we have every right to defend ourselves, and our families. I know that this will not be popular in a western Christian culture which doesn’t know how to respond to this type of murderous persecution biblically. But I also know that the Bible does not call for an armed response to threats to our or our family’s persons. In fact, it calls for just the opposite. In fact, there are over 70 different verses in the New Testament describing our response to OR THE BENEFIT OF persecution. There is not one instance, IN ALL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, that calls for better security or armed protection of believers. Here are a few examples.
Romans 8:35-37 – Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
1 Peter 4:19 – Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
Romans 12:17-21 – Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it[i] to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
1 Peter 4:12-19 – Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
So what do we take from this? Reading this, and the many other scriptures it would appear that we are called to just…suffer. This is so contrary to everything in our culture which would have us crawling through air vents to take out would be shooters. Does that mean that we are just to stand there and take it? There is no instance in the New Testament where believers took up arms to stop persecution. In fact, the one documented incident of a Christian fighting back resulted in his actions being rebuked by Christ himself. Of course, I am referring to Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane.
In all of the documented instances of Paul, Stephen, or other nameless Christians being persecuted, there is no instance where Paul says to take up arms to protect yourself in church.
As the dialogue continues into church security, I hope that church leadership takes into consideration those who were persecuted in the New Testament. I hope that the church does not cave to the trappings of the American culture, but instead caves to the rewards of a kingdom mentality. We are citizens of the kingdom first and must act according to those ethics, rather than American ethics.
So the conversation shouldn’t be about added layers of security. Instead, the discussion should be whether we dare to remain biblical in the face of persecution.
Share this:
Like this: