Fulfilled prophecies play a central role in the New Testament. Matthew and Luke use passages from Isaiah and Micah to explain the events of Jesus’ birth narrative. All four gospel writers take predictions from Isaiah and other prophets and employ them to define His ministry. In John 12, John explains the unbelief of the crowds by claiming that Isaiah predicted it. So too, the stories of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection are studded with citations of prophecies that Jesus and His enemies fulfilled.
To Christians both 2000 years ago and today, these prophecies are powerful evidence in support of our faith. As meteorologists prove on a regular basis, it’s very difficult for human beings to predict what is going to happen even next week. When, however, a man foretells an event that happens centuries in the future, it shows both that God has intervened in history and that the man is speaking for God.
Not surprisingly, then, the authors of the New Testament are at pains to indicate when a prophecy by Jesus or one of His followers is fulfilled. In John 2:19-22, John explains Jesus’ facially bizarre claim that He would tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days as a prediction of His death and resurrection. In Acts 11:28, Luke notes that Agabus’ prediction of a worldwide famine was fulfilled.
More subtly, there are many instances in the gospels when prophecies are confirmed by subsequent events. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus predicts His death, burial, and resurrection three times during the last part of His ministry, then dies, is buried, and is resurrected. In Acts, Paul is told by Agabus that he will be imprisoned, then is imprisoned. Again, examples abound.
It makes perfect sense for Christian authors to do this at every opportunity. Every time they can write that Jesus predicted something and it happened, it confirms that Jesus is the Son of God. Every time Luke can establish that Paul, Agabus, and all the rest did the same thing, it shows Jesus’ authenticity and theirs.
However, there is one fascinating exception to this rule. In the gospels, Jesus probably spends more time predicting the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans than any other event. Some of the prophecies are cloaked in apocalyptic language, but others are quite plain. In Luke 19:43, for instance, Jesus says to Jerusalem, “For the days will come on you when your enemies will build a barricade around you, surround you, and hem you in on every side.” Pretty straightforward!
The prophecies of Jesus concerning Jerusalem were indeed fulfilled, 40 years after His death. This is a huge piece of evidence confirming that Jesus was a genuine prophet. Thus, we would expect Luke, for instance, to point out that Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled as he pointed out that Agabus’ prophecy was fulfilled. This opportunity was not lost on the ante-Nicene Fathers, several of whom noted in the second and succeeding centuries that Jerusalem was destroyed according to the word of Jesus.
However, Luke never says a word about it. Neither does Matthew, Mark, or John. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the Scriptures that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.
I see two possible explanations for this. The first is that the Evangelists are idiots. After painstakingly highlighting all these other fulfilled prophecies, they simply missed their chance to confirm Jesus’ divine origin by pointing to His correct predictions of Jerusalem’s fall. I find this hard to credit. Whatever else one may think about the Gospels and Acts, they clearly are not the work of idiots.
The second is that the Evangelists failed to make this rhetorical point because they did not have opportunity to make it. They couldn’t write about Jerusalem’s destruction as a fait accompli because when they were writing, that destruction hadn’t happened yet. Like the general resurrection that Jesus predicts in John 5, it was an event they anticipated, not one they celebrated.
If so, the dates for at least the Synoptic Gospels, and probably John as well, are all very early, before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. If this in turn is true, all of the Evangelists are writing within 40 years of the bulk of the events they record—well within living memory. The gospels, then, are not the accretion of decades or centuries of folkloric tradition about Jesus. They are nearly contemporaneous records that deserve to be treated as reliable historical accounts, and that has a host of implications.
2 Corinthians 6:14 is one of those passages that seems to lend itself more to discussion of what it doesn’t mean than what it does mean. Everywhere I’ve been, brethren have been adamant that it does not mean that it’s wrong per se for Christians to marry non-Christians. I agree, but that still leaves us asking what kind of relationships we’re supposed to avoid.
Most commentaries will say that the metaphor in the text (“Do not be unequally yoked,”) has to do with putting a strong ox and a weak ox in a yoke together. The strong ox will pull harder than the weak ox, and the wagon will go off course.
Notice, though, that there are two elements here that make the situation problematic. First, there has to be a yoke. The two parties have to be joined in some way. Second, there has to be an inequality between them. Logically, I think this has to mean that the unbeliever has more influence over the Christian than vice versa. After all, we generally call a Christian influencing an unbeliever for good “evangelism”.
This does not apply to every marriage between a Christian and an outsider, but it does apply to some. If you are considering marrying a non-Christian and you know in your heart that eventually they will lead you to fall away, you should not marry them! On the other hand, I know plenty of Christians who have been married to unbelievers for decades. That’s probably not the wisest decision, but if the believing spouse still is on course for heaven, clearly the yoke has not been unequal.
I think this principle also can be applied profitably to the political realm. Recently, I’ve seen a number of Christians warning against conflating “black lives matter”, the slogan, with “Black Lives Matter”, the political movement. Semantic disputes aside, the former is a conviction that every Christian should share. Do black lives matter? Yes!
However, Black Lives Matter does not merely stand for the inherent value of black people. It also stands for expanding abortion rights (behold, here is irony!), normalizing transgender behavior, and various other unrighteous goals. The concern is that a Christian might be led by their godly convictions into an association that will influence them to accept or at least wink at ungodliness.
This seems to me like an example of unequal yoking. After all, no individual is going to exert more influence on BLM than BLM is going to exert on them. The only question is whether yoking has occurred. Has our connection with BLM become so strong that our allegiance to it overrides our allegiance to Christ?
I do not, of course, speak with reference to BLM, which is too radical to be appealing to most brethren. Instead, this is a danger that arises whenever we join ourselves with any political party. There are none righteous, no, not one!
For every godly policy a political party promotes, there is another that is ungodly. For every morally upright political leader in a party, there is another who is a scoundrel. If we become so filled with a partisan spirit that we ignore the ungodliness and excuse the scoundrels (while loudly pointing out the ungodliness and the scoundrels on the other side), we are unequally yoked.
This is not to say that we cannot hold political convictions or vote. However, we must maintain a wary detachment while doing so. Even as we cast a ballot for one side or another, we must not put our hope and confidence in them. Politics can’t save the world, but it can cost us our souls.
It is easy for us to separate ourselves from the parts of the world that disgust us. When it comes to the parts of the world that allure or even inspire us, separation becomes more difficult. However, it also is then that separation becomes most important.
I’ve stayed out of the online debate about how churches should respond to the coronavirus, and whether churches that assemble are more righteous than churches that don’t (or vice versa). As far as I am concerned, this is a marvelous opportunity to honor the great Scriptural principle of congregational autonomy. If we all mind our own business, Facebook will be a quieter, happier place.
However, I did see an argument advanced that I thought was worthy of further consideration. Somebody online, I don’t remember who, opined that continued suspension of services was a problem because many Christians would get out of the habit of assembling and never come back. I don’t think that’s true. From what I see, the vast majority of Christians assemble because they want to, not out of habit. Those who stop assembling because of coronavirus isolation probably would have stopped assembling soon anyway.
The argument does reveal, though, a lamentable tendency among brethren—a mistrust of other Christians’ moral capacity and goodwill. We can’t trust them to figure out the right thing to do, or to do it if they did figure it out, so we have to figure it out for them and manipulate or coerce them into doing it.
I think this is what is behind, for instance, the “conservative” conception of modesty. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul instructs Christian women to be modest, supplies a few examples that have to do with costly rather than revealing clothing (not normally a preoccupation of brethren today), and then leaves it to the sisters to determine what modest dress means for themselves.
However, some today are not content to leave modesty where Paul left it. From the Scriptural principle, they draw their own conclusions about appropriate hemline height and neckline depth, using some truly obscure passages (Exodus 28:42, anyone?) to bolster their arguments. To them, these conclusions have the same force as, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and woe betide the woman who shows up at church with a 23-inch skirt instead of a 24-inch skirt!
I believe that those who make such arguments sincerely believe that they have to, that without such explicit, concrete application, the women of the church are foolish and ungodly enough that they won’t reach the right result on their own. Here too, I disagree, not merely with the result, but also with the mode of thinking behind it.
Fundamentally, the churches of Christ exist because of the conviction that individual Christians are competent to understand and apply the Scriptures for themselves. If we don’t think that’s true, if we believe instead that most brethren are not willing and able to figure out what pleases God on their own, we might as well give it up and join the denomination of our choice!
What’s more, when church leaders insist on doing all the thinking for their people, even if the sign out front says “church of Christ”, within, a denominational spirit predominates. The Bible is no longer the authority. The church leader is.
Second, those who are so skeptical about others would do well to turn their skepticism on themselves. All of us have our moments of foolishness and ill will. All of us grapple with the temptation to determine our conclusion first and twist the Scriptures to fit. When we disagree with someone else’s conclusion, then, rather than seeking to impose ours on them, we first must humbly re-examine our own thinking. Even after we have done so, we must accord their views the respect we desire for our own.
I recognize that to some, this vision of Christianity will seem unbearably chaotic. You will end up going to church with people with whom you disagree. On the basis of their different conclusions, they will say and do things that make you uncomfortable. Where is the 1 Corinthians 1:10 unity in that???
We must remember, though, that Jesus prayed for His people to become one rather than expecting them to start that way. Greater unity in local congregations must come from below, as we grow in understanding and love for one another, rather than being imposed from the top.
Top-down unity, though appealing, is brittle. It relies on church leaders silencing or driving out those who disagree, which doesn’t sound much like John 17 or 1 Corinthians 1 either. Instead, we are called to believe the best about one another, speak truth in love, and be patient. That way, over time, those who are in error will be called to grow beyond their mistaken conclusions.
Maybe we will be the ones who will do the growing.
Over the past few months, a couple of progressive friends of mine have challenged my critique of the LGBTQ agenda by saying that my views would change if I knew someone in those categories. If I knew someone who was gay, if I knew someone who was trans, I wouldn’t say such things about them.
My initial response was to dismiss the argument. After all, I do know people who are gay, trans, etc., and I still write the things that I do. Whatever my motivations, I’m pretty sure ignorance and bigotry aren’t on the list.
However, I think there’s more to consider here than that. Though I believe that a Christian’s closest relationships should be with other Christians, we also should not isolate ourselves from the world. That’s a Pharisaical approach, not a Christlike one.
Indeed, Jesus came to earth in the first place to dwell among sinners. If He was willing to eat with tax collectors and prostitutes, we also should not shy away even from those whose conduct seems to us to be least consistent with God’s will. What’s more, knowing them should change our perspective on them and those who are like them.
First, it should teach us compassion for them. Every human being is created in the image of God, and that does not change, no matter what sins they practice. The better we get to know someone who is gay or trans, the less we will see the label, and the more we will see the human being.
Second, it will help us see the ungodliness of treating them badly, and I think both sides of the culture wars fail to approach this subject honestly. On the one hand, progressives are inclined to label anyone who repeats the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as a homophobe and a bully. That’s an ad-hominem attack designed to shut down any discussion of God’s expectations for sexual morality, and it’s frequently untrue besides. It advances the conversation in much the same way that a concrete bridge abutment advances the progress of a car.
On the other hand, conservatives are so used to being called homophobes and bullies that they dismiss the existence and ungodliness of genuine homophobia and bullying. It is never, ever right to treat someone else hatefully, regardless of who they are or what they have done, but so-called Christians have justified tremendous cruelty against gay and trans people in the name of Christ. The best way to avoid such cruelty is to know and love its potential targets.
Third, it will reveal our commonality with them. In my interactions with people in the world, I always try to keep Hebrews 5:2 in mind. There, it says of the Levitical priest that he was able to deal gently with the ignorant and misguided because he himself was beset with weakness. We always must view the sin of others through the lens of our own sin.
I know what it’s like to be tempted. I know what it’s like to give in to my own evil desires. As long as I keep my own failures in mind, it becomes very difficult to climb up on my self-righteous soapbox and give those wicked sinners over there what-for. On our own merits, we’re no better than anyone else, and the better we get to know people, the more apparent that will become to us.
Finally, forming connections with gay and trans people will motivate us to share the gospel with them. This is not the fruit of moral indignation, but of compassion, gentleness, and love.
Satan is not a kind master, and his handiwork often is evident in the lives of gay and trans people. Statistically, LGTBQ people have a much higher risk of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and even suicide. Anecdotally, most whom I’ve known have not been happy, not particularly because they were persecuted, but because they couldn’t seem to make life work.
Such problems, significant as they are, pale in comparison to the problem of sin and separation from God. Gay and trans people are no greater sinners than I am, but that only means that they need the grace of Jesus as much as I do. I feel bound, then, to speak truth in love, to them as much as to everyone else, not because I think that everyone will listen, but because I hope that some might.
Throughout this year, most of us have been bemused by the varying claims made about COVID-19 by various scientists in various countries: “Coronavirus isn’t a big deal.” “No, wait, it’s a HUGE deal!” “Well, maybe it wasn’t such a big deal after all.” “It can only be spread by person-to-person contact.” “Actually, it can be spread by surface contact too.” “Really, surface spread doesn’t happen very much.” “Singing in groups is deadly!” “Singing in groups is probably OK.” “Chloroquine might help.” “Chloroquine is POISON!” “We don’t actually know whether chloroquine will help or not.” And so on.
To anyone who pays attention to the human race, the above confusion probably isn’t very surprising. Scientists are people too, and people err in their reasoning all the time. We like to reach strong conclusions by extrapolating from inadequate data. We all have biases, and those biases affect our reasoning, sometimes dramatically. Pressure from our superiors can shape our results as much as the evidence does (Chinese doctors and scientists, holla!). All of those factors, plus many more, whether working singly or in combination, produce mistakes.
I don’t say all of these things because I am anti-scientist. Indeed, I am pro-scientist, just as I am pro-the rest of the human race. Indeed, I acknowledge that I myself have made mistakes. I remember both times vividly!
That was a joke, by the way.
It should lead us, though, not to put too much faith in the conclusions of scientists. For some reason, many of them feel like “I don’t know and can’t tell,” is an unacceptable answer, so they opine with great certainty in areas where a little self-skepticism would teach them to be anything but certain.
Take, for instance, the vast body of scientific opining about the origins of the universe, life, and humankind. We have real trouble figuring out COVID, a disease that we can observe right now and study experimentally. How likely are we to be able to interpret correctly fragmentary evidence about events that many believe happened millions or billions of years ago?
How about bias? The chloroquine narrative has been driven by bias against a certain American president who has adopted chloroquine as his very own anti-COVID wonder drug. It led scientists to embrace some fatally flawed findings because they led to the conclusion that said president was wrong. Is it possible, just barely possible, that scientists who are committed to a naturalistic view of the universe (which necessarily excludes God) are predisposed to reach conclusions that justify their worldview?
How about pressure to conform? The scientific establishment is staunchly Darwinian. Dissenters who openly point to evidence for creation get denied tenure or get fired altogether. Indeed, they often become the target of vicious personal attacks from their peers. Could it be that scientists who like to eat and be on good terms with their colleagues will, whether consciously or unconsciously, toe the party line?
I will admit that unlike everybody else on Facebook, I am not an expert in virology. However, I do spend some time trying to understand people (as any Christian should), and when I see virologists making the mistakes that people make, I am not surprised. I also am not an expert on the fossil record, but if paleontologists as well made the mistakes that people make, that also would not surprise me.
Indeed, I only would be surprised if they didn’t.