Did Jesus Have Siblings?

Question: Did Jesus have siblings?
ANSWER:  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all record that Jesus had siblings.  Obviously because of the virgin birth, they would be half siblings, fathered by Joseph and not a special act of the Holy Spirit.  But all the gospels speak of Jesus having siblings:

 Mk 3:31-32 Jesus' mother and brothers arrived at the house where he was teaching. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. There was a crowd around Jesus, and someone said, "Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you." NLT 

See also Matt 12:46-47; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12.

I shouldn’t give too simple an answer here, however, because there has been much controversy over this very question.  Some have wondered if these siblings mentioned are “half” or “step”.  The Catholic church has maintained for some time that Mary had no other children besides Jesus - that in fact she was a "perpetual virgin" and therefore, never had sexual intercourse ever, not before or after Jesus' birth.

If Jesus was the Son of God, without sin, the church came to ask, how could he have been born of a sinful woman?  So the church gradually (over many years) starting to think that Mary never sinned - that in fact she was born without a sin nature as a special act of grace.  This is called the "immaculate conception" - contrary to popular Protestant misunderstanding, it refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'.

Then what do Catholics make of the clear passages cited above that tell us Jesus had siblings?  They usually call these his step-siblings by Joseph's marriage prior to Mary.  However, there is no biblical evidence of such a marriage or that these were step-siblings.  Also arguing in the opposite direction is the fact that each time they are mentioned they are always hanging around with Mary and she seems to be in agreement with them to rein in Jesus early in his ministry (Mark 3:21).  This lends to the more natural assumption that they were HER children and not Joseph's by a prior marriage.

The problems if we accept Mary’s perpetual virginity are manifold:  

• One, it doesn't reflect the biblical text which never mentions Joseph's alleged first marriage but does explicitly mention Jesus brothers and sisters.
• Two, the idea has served historically to denigrate human sexuality.  IE, why does Mary's specialness (or sinless nature, if true) require that she never had sex?  Is married sex sinful?  
• Three, it’s a needless theological contrivance since the logical problem of how a sinful woman could give birth to a sinless Son was already solved in the Virgin Birth - that was the TRUE immaculate conception!   We have loads of biblical support for that miracle, but no historical support whatsoever for the Immaculate Conception so called.

So that's a longer answer revealing the long controversy that lies behind your question which you may or may not be aware of.  However, at the end of the day your question does have a simple answer - the Biblical data says repeatedly, yes!

Are the Images in Revelation Literal or Symbolic?

QUESTION: In the book of Revelations it describes the throne of God and in detail about the 4 beasts and all that other stuff. Is that a literal vision of the throne or is it possible that it's different and that that was just an example of authority that God has over creation?

RESPONSE:  In apocalyptic literature (such as Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation) the message is explicitly being communicated through dreams and visions, which are by nature highly symbolic.  So the short answer to your question is yes they are symbolic.  This is obviously so, for in many cases the prophet himself knows that he is seeing only symbols of coming realities, not the realities themselves and he is perplexed by them.  Daniel for example doesn’t understand the ACTUAL meaning of his vision about 4 beasts in Dan 7:15-18.

"I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.  "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.’ 

So here we have it… the beasts are not ACTUALLY, literal beasts.  They are symbols of nations/kingdoms that are to come.  Therefore, when John sees similar beasts in his Apocalypse, of course we are to understand that God is not predicting the coming of ACTUAL beasts to terrify the earth.

The LaHaye “Left Behind” books leaned toward a literal understanding of almost every vision in Revelation which to me based on verses in Daniel alone is very misguided.  For example, when rendering Revelation 9:17-19 which talks about mysterious horses which have lion’s heads and emit smoke and sulfur… LaHaye imagines actual, demonic horses roaming the earth killing people.  Why would these beasts be literal, and the beasts of Daniel and earlier in Revelation be symbolic?  That doesn't make sense.

One more example.

Rev 17:9-11 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king.

So again, here the author who is bringing the prophetic vision explicitly tells us that he is talking in SYMBOLS.  Sometimes, the symbols may mean more than one thing and he tells us what they are – the beast is a King.  The seven heads are kings.  They are also seven hills – which is certainly a symbolic reference to Rome, known to John's audience and world history as "the city built on seven hills".  The woman then, is some kind of false religion or system that calls for the allegiance of the nations and she sits in Rome.

This is not to make the interpretation of Revelation to sound like an easy thing.  It’s not.  But your basic instinct is dead on:  these are symbols and codes – non-literal representations of historical realities that are present or coming.

The visions of the heavenly court are likewise probably symbolic descriptions of real things.  There are really angels that worship God day and night.  The description of these beings in the heavenly court are meant to capture some aspect of them, like their power, submission, transcendence, sight, truth, love, wonder, spiritual nature etc.  

Now, I am less certain that John's descriptions of the heavenly court are purely symbolic, because there he has been explicitly caught up to heaven, in another dimension of space and time entirely, whereas the other parts of Revelation deal with history, nations and life in our dimension.  Like with Ezekiel's wheels, John may be describing the scene as he actually saw it playing out literally in heaven, but his words are still filled with similes and metaphors because he's struggling to find words to describe the immense, unutterable glory of God.

What Do You Think of Rabbi Cahn's book "Harbinger"?

This book was recommended to me by two people from church in the last few years, so I did finally pick it up.  I admit I was skeptical, since the title page tells me upfront this will be:  “the ancient mystery that will hold the secret to America’s future.”  I get very twitchy about Christians nailing down a message for one specific country (in this case America) from Scriptural prophesy. 

Look, when people give warnings about America from biblical prophecy I think that’s fine as a generic application of God’s dealings with Israel for ANY culture/nation.  The Bible shows God’s good nature, his concern for law and justice and the prophetic parts show that he’s bringing world history to an epic conclusion.  Also, biblical prophecy overall shows how God uses all the nations to advance his will and that he cares about all the nations, even the ones that are not named Israel – yes even the ones that are in rebellion against him.

So, if Cahn would take these principles and apply them to America, to show how God judged and treated Nations that were like this or that nation in Scripture, in terms of their values and overall attitudes etc – then that’s a valid application, in my mind.  In that sense it might also be appropriate to say that as America carries on in the spirit of Ancient Israel (or Babylon, or Nineveh), not getting the gracious warning shots across our bow, we will suffer for our defiance and blindness in similar ways as they.

In Harbinger, Cahn has done some of this.  However, I think he takes it too far and misapplies Isaiah’s prophesy by making it far too specifically about this one country at this particular time.  Let me explain:

Cahn’s entire premise actually is borrowed (I’m not sure if he ever gives credit for this).  His book is essentially an expansion of a sermon I have in my files by David Wilkerson entitled “Towers Down, Message Missed.”  He preached this right after 911, and in his talk, Wilkerson gave a blistering critique of the American response to 911.  The whole message was build on Isaiah 9:10 which says:

Isa 9:9-10  All the people will know it — Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria — who say with pride and arrogance of heart,  10 "The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars."

He felt that that great tragedy was God’s stirring call for America to repent.  And in the aftermath, he noted that there was no real repentance from America’s increasing hostility to the Christian faith, to Christian values and to the gospel overall.  In fact, he said (accurately I believe) that the response was the opposite of such repentance (the temporary spike in church attendance not withstanding).  It was rather to retrench ourselves in our current path of excess and immorality, and to pridefully defy any rebuke that God might have intended with that terrible slaughter, and instead commit ourselves to rebuild, recover, and be even greater than we were before.  Wilkerson cited this same passage as his text.

To give context, Isaiah is speaking to nations who are facing the onslaught of the expanding Assyrian empire around 750 BC.  The northern kingdom was always more cosmopolitan and urbane and wealthy than their hill dwelling brothers in Judah, but their connections to surrounding culture brought the corruption of excess and immorality.   One prophet calls Israel’s upper crust the “fat cows of Bashan”.

When Assyria made incursions into the northern kingdom of Israel, they did not at first obliterate the country.  They took the northern regions but left Samaria (the capital) alone (2 Kings 15:29).  It is likely these events that prompted the response Isaiah notes in 9:10.  “The bricks have fallen” – meaning, many of our towns may have been decimated by Tiglath-Pileser, but no matter, we’ll come back from all this – and better than ever.  That’s the meaning of “dressed stone” and “cedars”… the replacement items are of much better quality than the original.  Isaiah is saying their refusal to see God’s hand of discipline in the invasion constitutes unbelievable arrogance.  And he specifically criticizes their unbounded, blind optimism to be undeterred in the face of their immanent doom.

Well, it’s not hard to see how well the American experience after 911 fits with Isaiah 9:10.  We too we hit hard by an invading army.  And we too responded with an upbeat message of rebuilding.  We too mostly ignored the setback as any kind of Divine discipline or warning.  And of course now the Twin Towers have been replaced by the even taller, 1776 foot Freedom Tower.

Now here’s where it gets controversial.  Many saw the attack, not as a reason to turn to God, but as a reason to turn away from God, saying if God were real such evil things wouldn’t happen.  Others saw it as some sort of vindication of American values – if evil people hated us this much, we must be pretty good indeed!  

Of course Christians did mostly adopt a simple view that there is evil in the world that resists good, and this resistance doesn’t always indicate divine discipline or God’s displeasure.  True.  Without a known prophet like Isaiah around to interpret such events, it’s hard to connect with any authority the evil actions of evil people with a good God.  But let us not forget that the prophets did in fact do this often.  God called the pagan and wicked king Nebuchadnezzar, “my servant” (Jeremiah 25:9).  Not because God wills evil, but because he allows it and USES it for good purposes.  So I have no problem in principle with associating the Isaiah passage with American responses to 911.  It could be just as applicable to Germany after WWII.

However, if the author treats America as a sort of “second Israel” and sees that we have a special tie to these prophecies because somehow America is uniquely “God’s country” as Israel was, then I think it’s off the tracks.  America is not God’s means of redemption, or his sole plan for getting the message of Christ out to the world, and America is not the special object of God’s affection.  The Church however, does fill all those roles – the Church stewards the hope of Christ, the hope of the world.  If America blows its moment on the world stage, that’s bad for America, people will suffer, but the Church lives on, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Now, I would agree that America has its place in the history of nations, some more or less righteous than others, and like them, will receive from God her just desserts.  therefore, it’s good for America to broadly be friendly to godly values, and to have godly leaders etc.  But if she does not, this doesn’t defeat the Church or God’s End Times purposes.  No post-Christ nation has anywhere the role in God’s plan that pre-Christ Israel did.  That nation’s role was to show God to the nations and bring in the Christ.  Other nations sometimes helped God’s people (eg. the Persians under Cyrus), and sometimes persecuted them (eg. the Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes).  Likewise America might be like Cyrus and that’s good for the Church.  But America itself is not the Church – like Persia it CONTAINS God’s people who live in her, in exile.

America will come and (if today’s events are an accurate harbinger) it will also someday, go.  If it repents, like Nineveh did, it might go a little longer.  If that’s the author’s point, I think it’s a good one.  If he’s suggesting America is the modern day Israel, I think he’s gone too far.

Does The Bible Predict Global Warming?

QUESTION:  Does the Bible say anything about global warming or should we be concerned?  Is a scenario like in the movie “Soylent Green” possible?

ANSWER:  This is an interesting question that has some speculative answers.  So first let me mention what is uncontroversial: the Bible is a creation friendly book that encourages good environmental stewardship.  The earth and creation in general are called “good” by God several times (Gen 1:12, 18, 21).  And our dual mandate is to rule and subdue the earth (Gen 1:28) and to tend and care for it (Gen 2:15).   God is a benevolent manager and being made in His image, that’s the pattern we’re to imitate with the environment he gives us to live in.

Then sin comes along and junks up this plan and the result is not only that we fall out of harmony and uninterrupted fellowship with God and each other, we fall out of harmony with the good earth God made (Gen 3:17-19).  Our sin has consequences for the natural order and now it’s in open revolt and we have often become users rather than managers of earth. 

That’s not controversial, biblically speaking (contrary to those who assume the Bible encourages environmental pillaging), and there are examples of our fall and behavior leading to environmental damages recorded in biblical history long before our time, and mourned by the prophets.  For example:

Hosea 4:3 Because of this [sin] the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying. NIV

So our current problem is really nothing new – the scale may be larger is all. 

Now your question has a prophetic element to it and this is where it gets speculative.  I gather that you wonder if the bible predicts environmental disaster for our future through global warming.  And if it’s not mentioned in biblical prophecy, then we needn’t concern ourselves with it, perhaps?

If that’s the force of the question I would warn that whether or not global warming plays into biblical scenarios of the future, we ought to be as zealous as ever about the creation mandate.  Any part of our use of God’s good (but broken) earth that is unsustainable is by definition, BAD management.  Christians who take scripture seriously should work for sustainable stewardship of the only home we’re probably ever going to live on.

Having said that, there are some bible scholars who think that Scripture does refer repeatedly to a future where environmental devastation is predicted by prophets to play a key role in our future.  Specifically there’s a reference to “fire” judgment, with the source of the problem being the sun, so it’s not a physical fire on earth:

Rev 16:8-9  The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.  They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God…NIV

Whether this is global warming or our sun beginning to die or some other judgment that this is a metaphor for, is debated.  But there it is.  In fact, much of what the bible prophets write about the time of coming judgment looks like environmental devastation.  One example is the repeated reference to sun and moon.  Jesus himself said:

Matt 24:29 "Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' NIV

Other similar references are Ezek 32:7-8, Joel 2:10-11, Joel 2:31, Isa 13:10, Matt 24:29, Luke 21:25, Rev 6:12, Rev 8:12.  These verses all predict a day of a darkened sun and a red moon and they were written by 6 different authors over a period of 700 years!  Speculating on what this means, we already know what sort of phenomena would cause celestial bodies to dim and the moon to appear red:  increased haze in the atmosphere.  Pollutants, green house gases, even water vapor through evaporating oceans.  The effect you see of a red moon rising on the horizon is a result of the light having to travel through more atmosphere and particulate matter to reach your eye, thus the dim, reddish glow. 

It may be possible that the Bible predicts a future when this effect is magnified and causes global devastation.   Is this simply divine judgment or human intervention?  It could be both.  It is entirely consistent with God’s methods of discipline that he would simply make us lie down on a bed of our own making.  It’s how God judges us now.  (Rom 1:28).  He “gives us over” to selfish ways and suffer the consequences for those decisions to not go God’s way.

If we continue to forget this, it would not be shocking to find ourselves someday reaping a terrible harvest for the seeds of earth mismanagement we’ve sown – and that this may play into final judgments that precede “the Day of the Lord”.

In the meantime, even if our future contains such horrible destruction from pervasive disobedience to God’s creation mandate, it is for God to know those times and dates and it’s for us who wish to love God  to obey God’s creation mandate no matter what.  Sustainability is a very overused word, but it is the right word to define proper usage of resources from God’s good earth.  Any environmental management that cannot be sustained indefinitely, is by definition rapacious, gluttonous, and greedy because it steals from the future well-being of others so I can live better today.  (The federal budget has been managed by this exact same selfish outlook for many decades.)

“Soylent Green” is a movie that tackles overpopulation.  That scenario is not really addressed in Scripture.  There is actually massive depopulation predicted in the book of Revelation (Rev 9:18, Rev 14:20).  That may or may not assume an enormous starting population.  Problems with the food supply are discussed vaguely in Revelation, but those seem to relate to the policies of totalitarian regimes, not too many mouths to feed (Rev 13:17).

Ironically, the 1966 novel that the movie “Soylent Green” was built on predicted 40 million people crammed into NY City by the year 1999, which obviously hasn’t happened.  So grim predictions of apocalypse through overpopulation are still a ways off.  And in places like Germany, Spain, France, Japan and Russia, the governments wringing their hands and paying their citizens to have kids because they're in negative population growth situations (minus immigration).  And of course the true antagonist of the movie is really less about too many people as it is the horrifying acts of tyrannical, unaccountable governments - spoiler alert: "Soylent Green is people!!!"

So we can’t know for sure what role global warming plays in God’s future visions of judgment.  We CAN commit in the present to manage the earth well no matter where this is going.  While there’s debate about how much humans are causing global warming, it seems to me that reducing, reusing and recycling should be uncontroversial, good management principles that enhance sustainability of our earth – and enhance financial solvency which is something that cannot hurt our over-leveraged pocketbooks.

Would the Existence of Aliens Prove Fatal to Christianity?

QUESTION: Does the possibility of Extraterrestrial Life pose a threat to religion, Christianity or any of its fundamental beliefs about the natural world?

RESPONSE:  Thanks for articulating a very often-asked question.  To answer, we have to first discern what the fundamental principle in religion or Christianity is which excludes the very possibility of this universe containing other life forms.  In other words, what doctrine or Scriptural precedent precludes the existence of Alien life, such that the discovery of Aliens would be fatal to Christianity?

Before answering that, it's interesting to note that Christians have ALWAYS believed God created AT LEAST one other sentient, intelligent race in the universe.  Of course I am referring to angels.  So for Christians, the questions “do Aliens exist” and “are we alone in the Universe” have always been settled with a “yes” and a “no” respectively.

Aliens!

Angels, contrary to medieval art, are not deceased humans with harps on clouds, or fat babies with bows and arrows.  Angels are powerful beings of pure spirit. Most bible scholars would agree their creation predates both the earth and the appearance of humans on it.  The bible records angels sometimes appearing as humans – but in their nature they are nonhuman, non-corporeal, intelligent, morally free, sentient beings.

Despite this long-held belief in angels, the Alien question is thought to be fatal to Christianity for two reasons, one because it’s assumed to undermine the biblical narrative of human centrality and worth, and two because it’s assumed to undermine the biblical narrative about creation.  So let’s take these in turn:

Let’s call the first “the assumption of anthropocentrism” – the belief that the man-centered Bible must preclude other races on account of humanity’s unique relation to God.  If we accept this, and if Aliens were to be found, the Faith must collapse. 

But why should this be true?  It’s a false dichotomy.  Any parent with more than one child instantly sees it as such.  A parent can have more than one child, but the existence of another child does nothing to diminish the love, care and plans the parent makes for the first.

Even so, without denying the specialness of humanity to God, nor the eternal plans he made or the lengths he went to to save it, Christians can still affirm that God may have other races which are equally special to him, and for which he has equally wonderful and long term plans. (Lewis explored these possibilities in his science fiction books, Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.)

What about Aliens and the uniqueness of the Incarnation?  Well, again if we believe God is dealing intimately with the “alien race” of angels without ever being incarnated as one of them, why couldn’t this be true of some other biological alien race?  Perhaps the redemption of the cross is universally applicable (literally!) and the discovery of Aliens would be further cause for mission.  This is speculative, but there’s nothing in the mere existence of those beings that is fatal to Christian theology about the cross.

Further, I’m not troubled that we get nothing about such Beings from the Bible.  Which is important to state, because inside this anthropocentric objection is another assumption: if Christianity really were true, it would give revelation of this fact to us.  And yet the Bible is silent on Aliens, ergo their discovery would be a Christianity defeater. 

But this objection fails for two reasons:  clearly, up to now, no Alien life has been found!  So it still may be that humans are God’s only going concern in the entire universe.  Two, even if Aliens were found, the Bible never claims to give us all knowledge of the universe, but only such knowledge as is necessary for our salvation.  Galileo’s famous dictum here applies, “God was interested in telling us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Yes, the Bible affirms that humans are special, alone on earth we are “made in the Image of God.”  And it’s also true that Angels are seen serving/helping us as if that were their purpose (Heb 1:14).  And it’s also true Jesus said we matter more than the “many sparrows”. 

But should we assume by this that no other life forms are special to God?  Or that God has no workings with them and purposes which have nothing to do with us?  Far from it.  Over and over the Bible says the animals have great value to God, as he extols all the ways (some of which unknown to us) that they reflect his character and qualities.  (Job chp. 38-40).  And when God tells Jonah that he has pity on the city of Ninevah, laboring under sin, he mentions it’s cattle as part of the city he cares for!  In addition, Angels at times seem to be God’s primary concern, when even our redemption is painted as God’s act of warfare and glory directed at that race of exalted, powerful creatures (Eph 3:9,10; Col 2:8).

So with other intelligent, sentient life, and with other non-image bearing biological life – in both cases Christian scripture already tells us such life merely existing and having value to God is not mutually exclusive of humans having great worth, even preeminent worth on this world.

The irony is this:  the person who raises this objection usually means to take a stab at what they think is the inherent anthropocentrism of Christianity, not realizing that the Bible beat them to it:

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars,    which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?  You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.  Ps 8:3-5

But now the second assumption in this question is that Aliens would undermine Christian teaching about creation.  This objection really is just an offshoot of the creation/evolution objection.  Specifically this person assumes that the discovery of the size/age of the universe, combined with the theory of how life evolved on earth by mutation/natural selection means, A) the universe is teeming with life, and B) the Bible’s creation account has been falsified.

Regarding the truth of the Bible’s creation account, John Lennox gives a compelling Christian view of creation in 7 Days That Divide The World.  There he notes that the same way Christians eventually saw how Scripture accommodates a heliocentric solar system, we should also see the Bible’s creation account can accommodate long ages and the vast size of the universe.

So the only real problem is not aliens but unguided evolution which supposedly is making aliens all over the galaxy. 

But this objection is starting to backfire.  Even the most ardent Darwinian scientist will tell you that the theory is weakest at the point of the creation of the first self-reproducing cell.  There is currently no working materialist model of how life first arose on earth.  Why?  Assuming mutation/selection really works to create new structures and life forms (an unsubstantiated assumption as science is discovering), before there were ANY life forms, what does mutation/selection work on?  If life evolves by saved copying errors in DNA, what about before there was DNA?  Life from non-life is a massive mystery and we’re rapidly moving past the era when science naively thought time and the chance shuffling of chemicals could do the trick.

So ironically it’s at the point where the theory of life’s origin is WEAKEST that the proponent of Alien life has to be the most confident in it.  Exactly where we have no laboratory confirmation of how it happened on earth, we have to believe that life came from non-life literally millions of times “out there”.  Where does this confidence come from?  Not from the science, but from people's hopes or assumptions.

So while the discovery of other life in the universe wouldn’t be fatal to Christianity, the LACK OF DISCOVERY of other life in the universe may be fatal to materialism!  For the materialist, evolution should be “easy”.  It should be something that just happens, by chance random processes wherever the conditions are right.  And so the universe ought to be teeming with life.

S.E.T.I. Antenna Array

And that is what the early Alien Seekers assumed.  The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) was a gov’t funded group of such seekers that spent millions of dollars looking for the radio signals of life forms which they assumed had to exist in the thousands if not millions.

But more discoveries put a damper on the Alien euphoria, not just the increasing failure of chemical theories of pre-biotic evolution, but also the multiplying factors necessary to support life.  Carl Sagan in the 1970’s presumed only 2 were needed so that if a planet had the right star and was the right distance from that star – wham-o – you’d have life spring up out of non-living chemicals eventually and inevitably.

Today, the factors have jumped from 2 to 200 and counting – making earth a very special place indeed.  This doesn’t even begin to touch the finely tuned nature of the universe as a whole.

So while the assumption is that the existence of Aliens is fatal to Christianity’s narrative about creation, it appears that if they do exist, they will only exist by the same intelligent design as designed us, and inside the same finely tuned universe we inhabit.  Needless to say, the discovery of an intelligently designed co-inhabitant of this finely tuned universe would not disturb my Christian faith in the least.