Why Is Moses' Life Saved by His Wife Circumcising His Son?

QUESTION: Why is Moses saved by Zipporah circumcising his son in Ex 4:24-26?

On the trip, at an overnight campsite, it happened that the Lord confronted him and sought to put him to death. 25 So Zipporah took a flint, cut off her son’s foreskin, and threw it at Moses’ feet. Then she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood,” referring to the circumcision. (HB)

ANSWER: No matter how you slice it, this passage is a little strange!  We seem to be plunged into some kind of weird spat that lacks any description of prior context, and without detail of important preceding action that might tell us what this is all about.  So even the best scholars are left with a fair amount of speculation to fill in those blanks.  This answer will therefore have plenty of speculation, but a core lesson is still very clear.

We begin to make sense of it, if we consider a few of the bare facts of the story:  Moses has had two sons.  They are clearly several years old by this point, and yet they have never been circumcised.  Why not?  This is a critical question but it's never answered in the text.

Moses is a Hebrew, and circumcision is what they do – it was a command given to their forefather Abraham and all his descendants (Gen 17:9).  Some have speculated that the Jews, living under Egyptian oppression, weren't allowed to for hundreds of year, so Moses also didn't do it.  But this cannot be true since there is no mention of a society wide neglect of this sign of the Abrahamic covenant for hundreds of years.  In fact, we do know the Hebrews neglected this rite when the freed slaves lived through the desert wanderings for forty years (Joshua 5:5).  But that very verse also notes that the previous generation that first came out of slavery were all circumcised.

So it might have come from family pressures, from Zipporah and/or Jethro (his father-in-law).  They were Midianites and thus probably ‘outsiders’ to circumcision.  Zipporah`s harsh reaction in 4:25 seems to indicate that the whole thing is arcane, disgusting, strange or unnecessary to her.  But Moses is not an outsider to circumcision; he must know it's a required sign of his participation in the Abrahamic covenant with Yahweh – the God his mother no doubt taught him about, the God he met personally in Midian at the burning bush.

Therefore, there is an implicit disobedience being exposed in this story.  And that begins to explain the seeming blindside God gives Moses as he travels from Midian to Egypt to challenge Pharaoh.  What if this is no blind side at all?  What if this is the culmination of a long standing tension between Moses and God and perhaps also between Moses and his in-laws?  What if Moses has not circumcised his sons, to please his in-laws ahead of pleasing God?  A God whose character and laws he is going to represent to the world in very short order!  And yet he, the law giver, hasn’t obeyed the first, most simple law!?

It’s like a preacher getting ready to go on a church planting tour and he’s never been baptized himself!  Or he’s never explained the gospel to his own family! 

Now, the weird thing is, Zipporah knows God is about to take his life for this offense.  So Moses' predicament can’t be a private revelation known only to himself.  Somehow, Zipporah knows that Moses is on death’s door.  And she also seems to know immediately what will turn away the curse.  This is interesting because it probably mitigates the horror we feel that God "sought to kill" the very man he, moments ago, chose graciously to be his instrument of liberation.  We should ask, how does she know Moses life is in danger?  How does she know it's God who is threatening that life?  And how does she know what to do about it?

I would suggest, all this implies that God had not made a verbal confrontation with Moses (as he had at the burning bush), but that perhaps Moses had become deathly ill on the journey.  The English says "God confronted him" which sounds like a harsh, physical fight, or a private threat.  But the Hebrew word simply means "came in contact with" - pagash.  So "confront" is not a bad translation, but I think we can put out of mind any kind of physical fight like the one between Jacob and the Angel.  There's no record of any words spoken in this confrontation.

Instead, a circumstance like a deathly illness would clearly be interpreted by them both as the hand of God and not some random event - especially since they were on such a great mission directly from God.  So perhaps Zipporah might have asked Moses why God was seemingly against them.  It might have been that Moses might then have confessed the problem:  “I haven’t done the simplest act of obedience to the Lord and his hand is against me.”

There's a subtle but important difference if we view the events unfolding like this.  To read that God sought to kill Moses, seems like God would off him for what we think of as a minor misdemeanor, meanwhile jeopardizing the much more important mission of liberating the Israelites without a care for either.  But what if the situation was more like Jonah?  The storm is a threat and directly allowed by God, and it was potentially deadly.  And Jonah knows it's deadliness is directed at him (Jonah 1:5).  It looks to Jonah and the men of the boat that God has come to kill the negligent prophet.  But no matter what it looks like in the short term lens, we know God has great plans for Jonah and the deadly storm will not end in death, and killing Jonah was never the point.

So likewise, here in Exodus, if circumstances came about which were potentially deadly, and were interpreted as discipline from God, the ancient author might look at the potential end (death) and speak of it as the end God was seeking.  But in reality it merely would be the threat of death which God wanted, in order to bring about change in Moses, before his great calling could come to pass.  The end of the story proves the threat of death was God's true aim, not to actually kill the man he has just commissioned.

So, if you are Zipporah and the threat of the death of your husband is before you, and he, (or you by some revelation) are told that disobedience in circumcision is the cause, you might feel manipulated!  Especially if it's your resistance to the rite which you know is the reason Moses hasn't performed it on his sons.  "You're going to die unless we do this repulsive thing?  Great!"  But now, what choice does she have?  So in anger she does the deed – is none too happy about it judging by her comment in verse 25!

You might ask why, if Moses knows the problem, can’t he fix it himself?  Well, this is another reason to presume a deathly illness has fallen on him that they interpret as God's death threat: if he’s literally on death's door, he can't do it himself… so she has to.  Then, she brings the evidence and throws it at his feet with her comment about him being a "bridegroom of blood".  In other words, “you have become a husband who required of me a strange, bloody sacrifice to keep you alive.”  The threatening plague (or whatever it was) lifts, Moses is healed, and off he goes to his greater mission, having finally (by force!) taken care of business at home – his first mission.

Now, regarding her phrase, “bridegroom of blood…” one scholar I read had a much softer and more romantic interpretation.  He also speculates that Moses has somehow come under a curse, an illness perhaps… but he says that it is Zipporah alone who is given insight from God as to the reason for this plague or curse of imminent death.  She is therefore heartbroken at the potential of losing her husband, and also that there is a standing offense against God in their home!

So, resolutely, she circumcises their son, and she touches Moses feet with the foreskin to associate the act with the father.  Not in spite or anger (the more natural reading), but rather as a request to God to graciously accept it as coming from Moses whose responsibility it should have been to do it.   All of this is an act of servanthood and love on her part.

But what about her comment, “Bridegroom of blood”?  This interpreter said it was a way of saying, “you were on death’s door, you were lost to me, but now, by this blood, its like you were given to me all over again, my ‘bridegroom of blood’.”  In other words, it's a reference to her gratitude in getting Moses back from the dead, "From Blood (Death), a Groom!".  Or yet another way: her marriage was threatened with termination but it's renewed through blood and she’s relieved and happy to have her husband back.

This second view is a much nicer way to read Zipporah’s attitude, certainly!  She’s a loving wife who hears God, takes action, and saves the day and is thrilled with her husband’s recovery vs. begrudging rescuer not at all thrilled with her man.

But either way, the passage has this to say:  Moses has clearly been disobedient about 'first things first'.  So you can see that this strange little story contains a profound lesson for ministers of the gospel needing to attend to their first ministry before they ever seek to venture into their larger Kingdom callings.  As Paul says to Timothy, when examining potential elders – make sure their "house is in order" first.

Don't The Conquest Passages Mean Non-Combatants (Women & Children) Were Slaughtered?

QUESTION:  Hi Rick.  In your recent message you said that there were no woman and children killed when the Jews defeated a city.  How do you explain then in Joshua 10 and 11 for example when scripture states in several places that "everything that had breath" and "every person in the city" was destroyed?  Looking forward to hearing back from you. 

RESPONSE: I'm so glad you came to AC3 this weekend!  Also grateful for your question, let me see if I can clarify.

My research leaned on Paul Copan, in his book, "Is God a Moral Monster?" and the work of Old Testament scholar Richard Hess and Philosopher William Lane Craig.  Copan makes the claim that the specific and repeated phrases used to recount the conquest, for example in Josh 10:39, "He destroyed everyone in it, leaving no survivors" is not unique to the Bible.  He suggests this is indicative of Ancient Near East hyperbolic ways of speaking effusively about military victory.  Related, Hess talks about what archaeology shows regarding the nature of the cities like Jericho and Ai, that they in fact were military garrisons, and not centers with large civilian populations.

So based on that work, I suggested the possibility that while the commands are to destroy everything in the Land, this amounted to destroying everything that remained in the land, as the Israelites "drove them out".  And it is a striking note of the conquest narratives over some 20 chapters that there is not one mention of women or children being killed.  So Copan doesn't argue with the descriptors in Joshua 10 and 11, "there were no survivors" and "he completely destroyed everyone in the land" - he just makes the point that we are not bound to believe that those who were destroyed MUST have included non-combatants.

Something I didn't include was that in Joshua 11:19 the author says that no one "made peace with Israel" except Gibeon, which suggests that while they were to "make no covenant" with the inhabitants, terms of expulsion were nevertheless offered and in most cases not received.  Given Israel's success, Gibeon's fear and desperate attempt to save their own necks shows that any who remained to stand against this onslaught were only those fully prepared to stay and fight to the death.  Remember I said the phrase "drive them out" outnumbers the phrase "destroy totally" by 3 to 1 in the conquest narratives.

The bible further confirms some kind of treaty was possible, when it says God hardened them against such possible peaceful expulsion, so that he might execute judgement against them, Judges 11:20.  Also, confirming the suspicion that non-combatants fled and hid and were not part of the destruction is the fact that when you open the book of Judges, directly after the conquest, there are Canaanites everywhere!  (Judges 2:2-23).

While acknowledging these factors, I also said we still have to deal with the commands to kill "ALL", whether or not they entailed the actual killing of non-combatants.  So I endeavored to also cover that much harder problem when I discussed the "divine command" theory of moral duty.  It was not wrong to destroy all in the land because God commanded it but would have been, if he did not.  The question then is, are these commands consistent with God's love and justice?  And there I said they were, given the eternal stakes involved.

I think you might be helped by a deep dive into the topic.  William Lane Craig, despite evidence that non-combatants were not involved, sees full justification for the conquest even if all the verbiage of "men and woman", "everything that breathes" was literally carried out.  He does that in this Q & A post:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited/

If you go there, please click on the other link embedded, where he gives a longer answer to the question of God's justification to command to slaughter of innocents.

To read a summary of Copan’s paper on this, go here:

http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=63&ap=3

Here is a video of Dr Richard Hess on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI4d-6oqmNc

Is the God of the Old Testament different than the God of the New?

QUESTION: How do you reconcile the Old Testament to the New Testament picture of God? Specifically I'm reading Deuteronomy 28 and the God of this book just does not seem anything like Jesus. In verse 63 it even says he will get pleasure from it... It just seems so different than Jesus and everything he was about.

RESPONSE: This is a very common issue when reading the Bible.  There’s this seeming difference in God's character between the two covenantal periods.  Specifically, the Old Covenant God of Moses is full of wrath, the New Covenant God revealed in Jesus is full of grace.

There are two main things to say about this apparent discrepancy.

1. When we look more deeply, the differences are not as glaring as they first appear.  In other words, when we look inside, everything that is revealed about God's character in the Old Testament is still seen in the New, (and vice versa) even if there's a different emphasis.
2. The different emphasis in God's attributes fits with a well-established pattern of "progressive revelation".  Which is to say that God does not reveal all of himself or his plans at the earliest stages of his interactions with the chosen people.  God's revelations progress in content and depth over time, so we should never, from our position here in the "last days," consider the earliest revelations to be complete or interpret them in isolation from the later stuff.

In dealing with Deut. 28 specifically and this list of blessings and curses, we are getting insight into God that consistently runs across both Old and New testaments.  The holiness of God is revealed inside this moral order: obey and be blessed, disobey and be cursed.  As in physics, so in ethics:  for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The message is simple:  attune your life to moral reality, just as you do to physical reality.

You might think that outlining (repeatedly) the specific consequences reveals a harshness in God, but would we think a parachuting instructor was harsh if he detailed the graphic results of failure to obey his instructions?  Would we think his lengthy, redundant, legal waiver meant that he was being mean?  No, once we understand the stakes involved, the graphic warnings are actually seen as a kind of mercy.

This teaches us that not only is God a merciful parent (laying out consequences up front), but also God is just, and holy for he follows through with discipline (every curse mentioned here ACTUALLY HAPPENED!).  Also, the stark warnings reveal that God is fair, because God is treating them the same as the nations they would be displacing in the Land.

The point is, what the Jews are learning about God here is not diminished by the arrival of Jesus Christ.  This is Jesus' Father:

• no respecter of persons or nations, impartial and fair (Deut. 10:17).  
• whose rules are not arbitrary but based in his good, fair, and loving character.  So his law is built on love, forbidding unfettered self-interest, protecting the weak, foreigners, children, orphans, widows (10:18-11:1).  
• who chooses his children not based on their pedigree but because of His love! (7:13).  
• How is this inconsistent with the God revealed in Jesus' gospel which teaches us that God adopted us out of no goodness in us, but purely by unmerited favor (Eph 1:3-6)?

Christians did not stop believing in this Lawfulness, and Holiness of God just because Jesus revealed God's grace in a supreme way.  Look at Galatians 6:9 - "do not be fooled, God is not mocked, a man reaps what he sows."  In fact, the Cross makes no sense apart from these characteristics of justice and holiness revealed in the Law.  As much as the Cross shows off God's grace, the pain of it also reflected the terrible, ultimate punishment for sin.   No, the cross is God's grace AND justice together (Rom 3:26).

So to my first point:  there is justifiable wrath in the New Testament (Romans 1:18, 2:5, 5:9) and in the teaching and actions of Jesus (Matt 3:7, Luke 21:23, John 2:15), which is consistent with the picture of God we get from Moses.  Also there is amazing tenderness and grace in the God of the Old Testament which is consistent with Jesus (Hosea 2:14).

The consistent picture of God is simply that God is completely "other" - holy and perfect and hating sin.  Also there is one consistent picture of sin separating people from people and people from God and ultimately diminishing human life and leading to terrible outcomes; in the Old and New Testament.

To underline this, remember that the picture Jesus paints of the sinner apart from his Grace, is probably worse than the picture Moses paints of his People who are disobedient!  The Old Testament warned of people being pillaged and suffering greatly for disobedience, and yes death for many... but for Jesus, the disobedient will suffer eternal death (Luke 12:5)!

And look at the curses of Deut. 28, and how it paints the disobedient as groping, blind, oppressed, robbed, hungry, and powerless.  This isn't a contradiction of the New Testament, rather, it sets it up beautifully!  For how can we see the sacrifice of Jesus as a Rescue unless we can see in our own disobedience, the same kinds of helplessness God predicts for disobedient Israel?  We too were disobedient and wrecked and helpless when Christ came into our lives.  This is painting one consistent picture of human nature, and God's nature.

But perhaps you still struggle with the language Moses uses - in the language of Deuteronomy, it looks like God is sort of deliberately inflicting suffering on them (and gleefully!).  Yet who is the one who ACTUALLY decides to invoke the consequences God warned about?  The people do!  See, Moses didn't care to separate the primary cause from the secondary cause in his language, which makes it seem to us like God is more callous than he actually is.

Imagine primary and secondary causes like this:  I set up a booby trap in my home for robbers.  I say to you, don't go in there, you'll get smashed by my trap, it's for robbers.  Then you go in anyhow.  And guess what?  You get smashed!  Who smashed you?  Well, in a sense, I did, I set up a trap to smash - it was MY trap after all, so clearly I caused it.  But truth is, YOU caused yourself to be smashed, because I warned you away, and you went in anyway!

It's just like that here in Deut. 28.  It feels really rough because God says, I'M doing curse X, Y, or Z.  But God's actually simply allowing natural consequences to flow, rather than deliberately inflicting arbitrary terror.  In fact, God is only a secondary cause of the curse, we ourselves are the primary cause of the cursing.  In the New Testament Paul will put it like this, "God hands the disobedient over..." (Romans 1:28) so He releases them to do what ought not to be done, and then they suffer according to their choices.

So God's holiness, and his judgment on sin is consistent throughout the Bible.

Ok, now my second point.  There is progressive revelation here.  Yes, we can see judgment and wrath in the New Testament and even at the heart of Jesus very mission to save because it borrows the same language of God cursing the disobedient sinner to separation... (See John 3:36).  HOWEVER, in Jesus we get no sense of God “delighting” in the judgment which you pointed out (Deut. 28:63).  So do we have reason to think this may be not the whole story on God's attitude?  Yes, because of what ELSE is said about God LATER in revelation history.

For example:

Ezek. 18:23-24: Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” This is the declaration of the Lord God. “Instead, don’t I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives?

Because of progressive revelations, we can see Deut 28:63 as hyperbole.  We can see this in the context of the sarcastic, dramatic way that the ancient Middle Eastern mind would think and talk, not as proof of God's callousness.

If we take all Scripture as one, we rest assured, God is not happily cursing his people.  We don't interpret one verse in isolation or in violation of another.  So we learn from LATER revelation that God must have been speaking in Deut. 28 like an exasperated parents speaks.

In fact, I have said something similar to my kids - "If you don't put your bike away, I am going to run over it someday and I won't even be sad, I will not shed a single tear, I will just happily take that thing down to the dump!!"  Saying such a thing, doesn't mean I wouldn’t have empathy for my kids or wouldn’t feel their pain at loss - even if it was all due to their choices.  I would have empathy still, and so does God.  We KNOW this, because Deut. 28 isn't the only thing God ever said to us.

Also, when it comes to progressive revelation, how did this all play out AFTER he laid down the law?  In fact subsequent history shows, God laid out these curses, but then rather than invoke them at the first sign of disobedience, tolerated the worse kind of violations of his law for centuries before they finally reaped the harvest they had sown.  And in this demonstration of God’s patience we see yet another consistent insight into God's character which spans from Old to New Testament.  For the God revealed in Jesus also said:

2 Peter 3:9:  The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

So if you look deeper you will see not only the consistency in the Bible’s picture of God’s character, but also how all Scripture must be interpreted as a whole.

Was Sodom Destroyed In a Natural Disaster Like Pompeii?

QUESTION:  I was watching a documentary the other night on Pompeii and it was interesting because I had just read about the destruction of Sodom and Lot... I was wondering if this was the same story... But then they mentioned that Pompeii happened in 79AD so that's obviously not it... but it seems like the way that Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed even.  Just curious if there was any history on this. Is there a good source to look up artifacts and things that have been found or proven?

RESPONSE:  So as you found out, Pompeii is in Italy and Sodom and Gomorrah in Israel, about 1400 miles apart, and about 2000 years apart in history.  They do sound similar in the apocalyptic destruction that rained down on both cities.  In the case of Pompeii, being much younger and in the shadow of a still active volcano, there hasn't been any debate about what happened or when. 

Sodom and Gomorrah on the other hand, have been debated as mythical cities for a long time.  In part because the modern scholars tended then (as now) to treat the Bible in the case of historical unreliability to be "guilty until proven innocent".  Also, there was no "smoking gun" in the area of Sodom, that is, no volcano present to explain the supernatural description of chaos and annihilation.  There was no obvious natural cause of "fire and brimstone" in the Dead Sea Valley.

But all that would change as the science of archeology progressed.  Digs in the Dead Sea revealed several candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah, called "cities of the Plain".  I've been here, it is one of the lowest places on earth - 1400 feet BELOW sea level, unbearably hot, and yet lush, because the Jordan river runs down a massive fault line in that deep valley watering the otherwise arid place.  So many cities cropped up here during Abraham's time.  Scientists finding all these remains have finally settled on a couple of very probable candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Old cities usually are built on top of older versions of themselves in many strata, like a layered cake.  So when you find a mound and start digging, you are going on a trip through time the farther down you go.  In a strata that relates to about 3000 BC, in a city also named Numeira, they found a bunch of things that make them think this is Biblical Sodom.  Among other bits of evidence, the whole city shows signs of advanced, intense burning.  Skeletons are scattered everywhere, the gates are burned etc.

I'll let you read their case for yourself, it's VERY involved, but also very interesting:  Bible Archaeology Article on Sodom

Now, as to the HOW this happened, I assume as you do, that this judgment of God was likely some natural destruction, the timing of which was seen to be God's hand of judgment.  But what did God use, since there's no volcano?  Well, recall that this is a rift valley.  Earthquakes happen here all the time.  Also, recently (like in the 1970's) they discovered combustible petroleum materials under the valley floor, natural gas, sulfur, bitumen and oils.

So one theory is that a severe earthquake happened, and this unleashed combustibles into the air.  If they were lit by lightning or surface fires, you would have your hellish scene of fire from heaven, as gas was thrown into the air, lit, and burning material fell on the cities consuming them completely.

Now, one other detail you probably noticed.  Lot's wife turns back and is turned into a pillar of salt.  There's no need to insert a magical transformation at this point.  The Dead Sea where Sodom is located, is the SALT sea.  I swam in it, it's so full of salt that you CAN'T sink in it.  That means anything that gets put in it (including a person, if they didn’t decompose first) becomes "saltified".  Check this out:

It would have been a very Hebrew way of speaking metaphorically to say Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt.  But also highly accurate, because if you died in this Dead Sea disaster, your body would have been first covered in debris, and then permanently encased in Salt.  She likely didn’t believe the first tremors were going to ruin everything, didn’t just “look” back but actually turned back and re-entered the city, only to be consumed in the judgment God brought.

Has the Prophecy in Isaiah 19:25 Happened Yet?

QUESTION: 

Isaiah 19:25 The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.”

Hi Rick, I'm reading the book of Isaiah...in chapter 19:24-25 it sounds like part of this prophecy already occurred but verse 25 in particular - that has never happened? Is what was called Assyria...isn't that now where Iran/Iraq are? 

RESPONSE: 

Great question.  Yes, Assyria then basically covered what is today eastern Syria and Northern Iraq.

Finding the historical location of fulfillment for these prophesies is more difficult than the geographical location, however.  There’s been some general consensus that the judgment part of the prophecy of chapter 19 has some historical fulfillment.  Looking into Isaiah’s context, Egypt at this point (750 BC) was a shell of its glorious former self under the Pharaohs.  It was mostly ruled by Ethiopians, which explains the connection to chapter 18’s prophesy. 

After Isaiah’s time we could say that his vision (19:4) to see them “delivered into the hands of harsh masters, and a strong king to rule” was fulfilled many times over:  in many kings in the succeeding centuries.  

• Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (Assyrians), 
• Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian), 
• Cambyses and Alexander the Great (Greek) 
• all these ruled Egypt as fierce tyrants. 

So Egypt’s judgment as described here has definitely been fulfilled.

More context:  the temptation in Isaiah’s day was to see Egypt as a potential ally against Assyria.  So God is saying here DO NOT TRUST Egypt – she will be unreliable, God is going to crush her.  And do not be worried about her either, she will fall and fail you – and eventually adopt OUR ways, not the other way around.  Unfortunately, Israel would struggle all the way through to king Josiah and his sons with trusting Egypt when they shouldn’t.

So the judgement piece really came true, but what about the salvation piece of this prophesy, from 19:16-25?  Were there ever five cities in Egypt that "swore allegiance to Israel’s God"?  Was there ever a "Jewish altar in Egypt" for worship, did God miraculously "send a Savior" to deliver the Egyptians, and was there ever a "highway connecting Jerusalem, Egypt, and Assyria"?

Some suggest that the prophecy was fulfilled after the exile when a group of Hebrews fled to Egypt, settled in four Egyptian cities (Jer 44:1) and later built a temple in Leontopolis around 170 BC.  The problem with locating the salvation parts in that part of history is that all the Jewish settlements in Egypt were mostly by Jewish apostates who rejected the Lord or worshiped Him along with pagan deities.  Also, there was no highway connecting Egypt with Assyria during this period, unless we mean a highway of destruction!  

The prophesy is clearly envisioning a future where Egypt not merely has some outposts of true religion, but rather pervasively KNOWS the Lord in a real way, speaks the same language as God’s people, are faithful to Him and a good ally and fellow worshipers of the One True God (vs 22). This is more than we could say ever happened before Christ.

So another approach sees these words fulfilled after the spread of Christianity to Egypt.  And that makes better sense that Isaiah sees a “savior to rescue them” (vs 20).  This sounds like Messiah, and in the late Roman period and into the Byzantine era, most of Egypt was heavily Christianized.  But honestly, I don't anything that has happened in Egypt in the Christian era comes close to matching the lofty and quite shocking beauty of this vision of the fertile crescent: all One, all adopted as God's people, totally at peace and unified under Israel’s God from the Nile to the Euphrates (Iraq)?  Hasn't happened yet.

So I would settle on a third view:  the salvation part of the prophecy awaits fulfillment during the future period of peace brought in by Christ in the 2nd coming.  Read Isaiah 2:1-4… this is the grand picture of the future peace which the prophet sees coming to ALL the earth.  And Isaiah begins that vision with same words as the prophecies in 19: "in that day".  I think then chp. 19 is supposed to fit into this grander vision as a specific sort of microcosm of the whole picture.  Inside the future where “ALL the nations will come to the mountain of the Lord” and “walk in the paths of the God of Jacob” (2:3), will be this specific peace between Egypt, Israel and Assyria (19:23.24).

To even imagine it in Isaiah’s day was scandalous.  It would be very similar if I said that one day, Jesus Christ will be acknowledged everywhere, but then went on to say, “even in the Levant and Syria Jesus will be claimed as Lord and worshiped as God in the heart of Mecca!”  Christians believe that will happen when Christ comes again - but to non-Christian ears it's shocking to even imagine it!  It feels weird to print it!  That’s how this prophesy likely hit Isaiah’s countrymen’s ears.  A highway of peace between our dreaded enemies to the north to our enemies/unreliable allies to the south?  Co-adoption as God's people with Assyrians and Egyptians?  Unthinkable!  But that’s what’s coming, says Isaiah.

Yet not through some great negotiator or leader - only through the “Lord Himself” making himself known to the Egyptians (21) so that again implies 2nd coming.

That's why I would say this is for the future, because of its size and scope.

In Luke 1:10-11, Why Does Gabriel Appear on the Right?

First, let me review the setting.  

Zechariah is a priest, and he’s fulfilling his Temple duty, as chosen by lot.  Basically, they would draw straws, and each eligible priest would get to serve one of many duties in the Temple on a rotation (there being more priests than duties).  This was held to be a great honor.

The Bible says he was  serving during the “hour of incense” which refers to the time of the lighting of the incense in the holy place.  If you look at a diagram of the Temple, 

that was just outside the “MOST” holy place, which no one ever went into except the high priest (only one of those) and that once a year.  So he’s in that outer room, and with the larger crowd being gathered outside when the incense is lit, it means likely a Sabbath day, and they’re all there for service.  The priest goes in to light the incense on the Altar of Incense as a symbol of the prayers of God’s people.

So that's the physical setting.

Zechariah's in there and no one can see him because he’s in the Temple alone in front of the altar.  The bread table is on the right of the altar, and the menorah (the seven branched lamp stand) is on the left.  

Luke then says, Gabriel is revealed, between the altar and the bread table.  Why there, on the right side of the Altar?  Well, the text doesn’t say, but in Jewish thought the right side is always the side of favor; of blessing.  Consider Matthew 25:33, when Jesus separates the human race on Judgment day.  The blessed go on “his right”, the cursed, to the left.  

This is just a carryover from the symbolism of the Psalms that talk about God’s mighty “right hand” (Ps 20:6; 89:13).  In a world where most people are right handed, the right hand came to symbolize power.  As most people favor their right hand, so the right became naturally associated with favor. (They were not politically correct enough to consider how this might offend "other handed" people!)  Gabriel's message is clearly one of blessing and favor not only for Zechariah but for all of Israel, so this fits. 

Now, since the text doesn’t actually say why Gabriel showed up there, this is one of those little details in Scripture that gives it the ring of an eye witness account.  I mean, truly, why exactly IS Gabriel mentioned as appearing on the right of the Altar?  Luke doesn’t answer the question.

Well, it’s likely that this is simply how Zechariah remembers it happening; a little firsthand nugget of detail that Luke found as he researched the story carefully (Luke 1:1-4).  It’s the same way with other weird details that are unexplained, like John 21:11 that mentions the exact number and size of fish caught (153/large) with no explanation why!  The point of such detail may have some symbolic significance, but where one is not explicitly given, the most obvious impact of such details is to tell us:  this really happened because real eye witness memories often contain seemingly minor details of things that hit us.

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!

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.

Doesn't Predestination Mean We Have No Free Will?

QUESTION:  There are many verses that indicate there is no free will, however I was raised to believe in free will. Now I am at a loss to explain why I believe. The doctrine of predestination seems so contrary to free will.

RESPONSE:  First of all, I don’t think it would be fair to characterize the doctrine of predestination as contrary to free will –  not even for those who hold to Reformed Theology.  Even for very strict Calvinists, the idea that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell is not mutually exclusive of the idea that people choose to go to heaven or to hell freely.  They would hold that somehow, people are choosing exactly what they really want, while at the same time, God has predestined and chosen that fate for them from before the creation of the world.

So also no person who believes in free will denies the doctrine of predestination.  As you said, many verses talk about this concept, to deny it would seem obviously heretical.  So all Christians hold two ideas in tension, free will and predestination… and a perennial debate for centuries has been, how to put them together without violating Scripture, logic or both. 

Some verses (ones I’m guessing you are referring to) seem to affirm a kind of predestination that violates free will.  But do they really?  Read in context we begin to understand what predestination means – specifically what it does NOT mean:  predestination in Scripture is not a default affirmation of DETERMINISM, which DOES undermine freewill.   That is, Determinism is essentially the same as Fate, the idea that all things play out according to a pre-written script and real freedom is illusory.

Let's deal with 3 of the texts that deal with predestination and I think you'll see we have reasons to doubt that these passages really do "indicate there is no free will" as you fear.  Let's begin with:

Ephesians 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.”  

Here it looks like God chooses everything ahead of time.  But some have read this verse with deterministic lenses for so long that they miss what exactly it is that God has chosen ahead of time.   Paul doesn’t say, “God chose who will be in Christ.”   Rather he says, “God chose us in Christ to be holy and blameless in his sight.”  The thing God has predetermined from before all time, is the end state for all the elect who are in Christ.  That thing which he has predetermined is that we be perfect and set apart.

To help understand this, imagine if I give a sermon and showed a movie clip to illustrate my point.  You could say I predestined that people who came to church that day would see the clip.  Let’s say 4 months ago I planned and chose the clip.  But the showing up in the building, was a matter of someone else’s choice, not mine.  Or maybe it was a joint effort.  Let's say I asked people to come, advertised the event, and influenced them to be there.  But they decided to agree with that call, or not.  But once here, it is MY choice and unalterable purpose that all who are in the building, will experience that clip.

Now it should be pointed out that a few verses later (11) Paul seems to come back to freedom-denying predestination when he says the elect are chosen by God ahead of time, "We were also chosen to belong to him. God decided to choose us long ago in keeping with his plan...".  Does he mean some are chosen and by implication, others are "unchosen"?  Well, all over Scripture the "Elect" refers to God's chosen people.  But at some of the places where it sounds like God chooses these Elect, it also sounds as though the Elect are those who choose God. (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

And twice when the Bible mentions God's choosing us, it also mentions his "foreknowing us" - giving us indication that the choosing is in concert with His omniscience - his seeing us in advance (1 Peter 1:2; Rom 8:29).  This suggests some kind of concert between our choosing and God's choosing.  And again, in Romans 8:29, we see the foreknowing and the choosing in advance are towards a purpose or end state (conformity into the image of Christ), not a choosing of some and an "un-choosing" of others, without regard for their faith.

When talking about what it means to be chosen, Jesus himself gives a parable to understand how God's choosing  works.  In Matt 22 Jesus says the Gospel banquet invitation goes out to everyone.  Not just to the expected or worthy, but to the outsiders and the unworthy too.  Everyone.  And in the parable, it's the response to the invitation that determines if one becomes one of the chosen or one of those cast out.  Jesus’ own conclusion is this: 

"many are invited, few are chosen." (Matt 22:14).

This is in keeping with the overwhelming theme in Scripture that God in some sense "chooses" everyone.  That is, He calls and woos all, and His love is universal, his love is impartial, and his love desires all to be saved (e.g. I Jn 4:8; Duet 10:17-19; 2 Chron 19:7; Ezek 18:25; Mk 12:14; Jn 3:16; Acts 10:34; Acts 17: 27; Rom. 2:10-11; Eph 6:9; I Tim 2:4; I Pet 1:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).  To take Eph 1 texts about God's choosing us to imply that God predestines some to salvation others for damnation without regard for their faith forces you to radically bend these other texts or ignore them altogether.

Another key text used by Determinists is John 6:44

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,"

It is of course, obvious biblically to say that for a person to choose Christ, God must be involved in their broken will, to enlighten and to draw.  But this doesn’t violate their free will, nor does it affirm a Fatalistic universe.  Nor does it assume that if a person DOESN’T come to Christ that the Father never loved them or drew them.  It simply means that God is among the free wills operating in the world, and one of the things he freely does is draw people and gift them with the ability to respond to his offer, and without his help, none would respond.

But does this verse mean (as Determinists would argue) that God will never "draw" or woo or call people to reach out for him, who do not ultimately choose grace?  In fact, we're told Jesus has “mercy” on the rich young ruler and calls him specifically to discipleship and salvation.  But that man turned away.  Jesus also looks at Jerusalem in a stirring lament and says, 

“how I longed to gather you… but you were not willing.”  (Matt 23:37)

In the Determinist world, God never really drew the rich young ruler nor all the lost in Jerusalem and they were destined for hell from before all time.   Well, this doesn’t jive with the text.  Jesus is clearly drawing Jerusalem – but they are freely rejecting the gift of God’s offer.  If this rejection was not just seen, but PLANNED by Jesus from before all time, why is He crying over their damnation?  In the Determinist view, it is Jesus after all, who MADE them to reject him!  This again doesn’t fit the facts of the text.

A final key verse used to under-gird Determinism is Romans 9:14-15

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

 The entire chapter of Romans 9 is seen by many as a blueprint for understanding God’s Sovereignty in salvation.  God chooses unilaterally who is saved and who is not.  And if you happen to raise the issue of logic (“how can God rightly condemn a person whom he predestines from all eternity past to be hardened?”) then you are simply told God has mercy on whomever he wants.  If you press the matter further and say, “but that’s not fair”, you are slapped on the hand and told, “who are you talk back to God?” (vs. 19).

At first this all seems to be persuasive for a Deterministic view.  But then we step back and see Paul’s overarching argument from Romans 9 thru 11, and that argument is not about individual salvation, but about God’s faithfulness to the nation of Israel, and their role in salvation history.  The question being answered in Romans is, why have the Jews by and large rejected their Messiah?  This is a disturbing question that caused many Jewish Christians to wonder if God’s Promises to Israel had failed.

Paul's argument then is to establish that the Jewish rejection of Messiah, and God's subsequent picking of a covenant people from among the Gentiles is not unfair or a failure or out of pattern.  Paul is reminding his Jewish audience in Romans 9 that God has always chosen nations for service based on his own choice and not on inherent goodness in them or their pedigree.

He proves this by reminding them that God did not choose ALL Abraham's descendants as his covenant people, but only those of "the promise"; sons of Isaac.  And then afterwards, God chooses Jacob and not Esau.  But this is not referring to individuals for salvation, but nations for service.  The quote from Malachi "Jacob I love and Esau I hated" is specifically about the nation of Edom, not one man, Esau.  So Paul is arguing that God has a right to pick any people he wants for such service.  In both Isaac and Jacob, God picks them unexpectedly, out of birth order, and both are rascals, which shows God's mercy and lack of concern for human works or family background.

What he's saying is simply that the Jews should not be shocked that God is now including Gentiles into his covenant people.  Why not?  He delights in showing mercy to whomever he wants, and this is his established pattern of upside-down grace.  But this is about broad people groups, not individuals.  If it were about individuals, we have to imagine that God is saying here that every Edomite and every Moabite and Ishmaelite was eternally condemned because God didn't choose them when he chose Isaac and Jacob.  No, it simply means that they were not chosen or preferred for service as Israel was.

The strong reprimand then, "who are you talk back to God..." is reserved for those who question God's right to pick Gentiles based on their faith (he makes that clear in a second), and who are upset that God is not (as he never was) impressed with Israel's works or her genetics.

What should cement this case is simply that Paul concludes his own complex reasoning with a simple thought.  So we should let him speak for himself and not impose Determinism on his thinking, when he is very clear that that's not what's driving this argument.  He wraps by saying,

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal..."

This is incredibly important.  If the Deterministic view was right, here we should expect Paul to summarize by saying, "so then we see that God sovereignly chooses who is saved and who is damned randomly and mysteriously and don't question him."  Instead, Paul says God's picking and granting righteousness is not arbitrary or condition-less at all.  It is based on the condition of faith which God has always been looking for, and not on a genetic pedigree from Abraham, or even meticulous law observance.   In other words, in the end, Paul appeals to free will, not Determinism.

The charge of God being arbitrary or unfair is in fact the root of Romans 9-11 - but not unfair because he picks who is saved and no one can talk back to him.  Ironically, the Jews would probably like that line of thinking, assuming God has always picked them and anyone who questions that favoritism should be corrected!  

However, Paul clearly doesn't want to play into that hand.  Rather the charge he's dealing with from a Jewish faction is that God is unfair because he allows the Gentiles into the Kingdom and he at the same time has hardened (some of) the Jews.  See, the Jews would see God's hardening of them, the law keepers, and the granting of mercy to the Gentiles, the sinners, as very arbitrary.  Paul is arguing the point in Romans 9 that this is perfectly consistent with what God has always done.  This is why Pharaoh is brought into the argument.  Now, you Jews, Paul is saying, have taken Pharaoh's role.  God hardened him BECAUSE OF HIS UNBELIEF (Ex 8:15).  He hardens those who harden themselves.

So just as Paul concludes that the picking of the Gentiles was NOT arbitrary, so the hardening of the Jews was also not arbitrary.  They pursued righteous by works instead of by faith (9:32).  So this hardening was perfectly consistent with the criteria of faith which God has always worked with. He gives mercy in response to faith and he hardens in response to unbelief.  It’s not the other way around.  People don’t have faith as a result of God having mercy on them, and people don’t have unbelief as a result of God hardening them.

We we doubt this is Paul's point, we just have to note his Isaiah quote, 

"see, I have placed in Zion ... a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him [not the one whom I predetermine prior to their belief] will never be put to shame."

And later we’ll find out that even God’s hardening in response to unbelief is not determinative because all they have to do is stop their unbelief, and God will change his plans for them (11:32).

So predestination is agreed to by all Christians, but what does that idea mean?  We’ve seen that it doesn’t have to mean that God has fatalistically planned all things out and removed free will in the process.  It’s more likely that it means God sees us in advance, and sees those who would believe in him, and since God calls all to reach out for him (Acts 17:27), and desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), we can say that those who respond in faith, complete his salvation offer and BECOME the chosen.  

God has predestined, and planned for this Chosen People to be holy and like Christ, and nothing will stop that plan from being executed.

Does Colossians 1:15 Mean Jesus Was a Created Being?

Question: Colossians 1:15 says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Is this saying that Jesus is a created entity? To be firstborn indicates that someone or something bore it, that the thing doing the bearing existed prior to the thing being born. Is it possible that Jesus and the Holy Spirit, while being fully God as well, we`re created by God initially?

Answer: Good question! I think, however, that to be created by God, means that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) could not be fully God.  So what should we make of this term, firstborn?  Well, it is somewhat confusing and this is one of two key passages most often used by Jehovah's Witnesses to try and disprove that Jesus was in fact, fully God.  The JW's know that if Jesus was a created being, he CANNOT be God, so they teach that "firstborn" must mean "first created thing."

They presume that Jesus is the archangel Michael; a great being, but not God. To press their point, they actually add to the text of the Bible in this passage. In their special translation (the New World Translation) they actually add the word "other" 6 times in this passage, in order to emphasize that Jesus was just one of many created things:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him." NWT

Now, their logic is correct, (if firstborn means first-created then Jesus cannot be God) but their understanding of that word "firstborn" is not correct and thus their diminishing of Christ from full Godhood is heretical, for three reasons:

First, their taking the liberty of adding the word "other" shows an inherent weakness in their interpretation. They have to tamper with the text to avoid the clear meaning of the ENTIRE passage in context: if ALL things were created through Jesus, (as the text actually says) then clearly Jesus was not one of the created things!

Second, while that Greek word "firstborn" contains the word 'born' inside it, we would be mistaken to infer that it must imply Christ had a beginning, like a 'first born' human child.  In New Testament Greek, the word was often understood to indicate preeminence of rank, not chronological origin.  

Some scholars see in the word an allusion to the ancient custom whereby the firstborn son in a family was accorded the rights and privileges the other children didn't have. Thus the firstborn was uniquely the Father's heir and representative. The emphasis then has nothing to do with a 'beginning' for the son, but rather is about rank, responsibility, rights and reflection of the Father. As further evidence that Paul means to communicate the supremacy of Christ and not the "origin" of Christ with this word, he goes to great lengths after verse 15 to emphasize that Jesus was responsible for the creation of EVERYTHING: invisible and visible, all spiritual powers, all worlds, all seen things in the universe we live in. He "existed before everything began and in him all creation holds together" (17). This is not a created being - clearly - since he is RESPONSIBLE for creation!  

He cannot be responsible for all Creation and also be a part of it, just as God cannot be Creator of the Universe and also a part of it.  This also echoes a psalm of David: “I will also make him My firstborn, greatest of the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:27). And elsewhere, Israel is called God’s “firstborn” (Ex 4:22) - clearly not “first in a series”, rather preeminent.

Third, this entire passage is Paul's treatise on the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. He is specifically comparing the greatness of Christ against the greatness of angels which the Colossian teachers falsely taught the Church to venerate (2:18). And this underlines just how egregious it is for the JW's to call Jesus an angel, when the whole flow of this chapter AND Hebrews 1 is designed to tell Christians that Jesus is NO angel, and no mere human nor merely another one of many exalted powerful creatures. Rather, he is "the image of the invisible God," (Col 1:15), and, "the Son is exact representation of His being" (Heb 1:3).  As if to put the matter beyond all doubt, Paul loses all restraint and says one chapter later, "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body" (Col. 2:9)

In fact, Paul's use of "firstborn" in one sense matches Jesus own statement about himself in John 3:16 where is described as "begotten".  Again we might think begotten implies a time when Jesus was created, but in fact the real distinction is between something BEGOTTEN versus something MADE.  A man begets what is like himself, a son, but he makes was is unlike himself, a house or a painting.

That's why of all the analogies to apply to Jesus's relationship to God, the one he gave himself, "Son" is still the best.  Jesus is of the same stuff as the Father, begotten, not made.  It's true that while equal with the Father, Jesus's sonship says that he proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit being the "Spirit of Jesus" and the "Spirit of God" must proceed from the Father and Son.  They are separate persons as the New Testament shows, but that doesn't mean they were created.

So ANOTHER biblical metaphor will help understand how Jesus could be begotten but not made. The Bible says Jesus is "the Word", the Father then must be the Thought or Mind.  One proceeds from the other, but from all eternity, if you have one, you have the other.  As CS Lewis said, "Jesus is what the Father has to say, but there was never a time he wasn't saying it."

Why does this matter?  Well, the sufficiency of the Redemption hangs on the truth of Jesus identity.  If Jesus was a created being, he cannot carry sin, for any finite being cannot be the infinite satisfaction for God's just demands offended in creation's fall (Innocent lambs weren't good enough to cover sin - Heb 9:23 - why would angels be?).

Also, any intermediary substitute who is NOT God cannot resolve a broken relationship with God.  We say Jesus is a substitutionary sacrifice, and so he was, a substitute for US.  But he was not a substitute for God!  If he is some created thing, he cannot represent God's interest in the cosmic conflict with fallen man, just as you can't send an employee to offer vicarious forgiveness to your daughter when she messes up.  You have to go in yourself.

If the fullness of the Godhead rests in Christ (Col. 2:9), then and only then can it be true that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." (2 Cor 5:19)

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

QUESTION: I'm continually amused by people who build their life on a person we don't even know existed. And please don't cite the Bible as evidence, it's a story written by insiders long after the fact, without anything we could consider fact. The whole thing is biased, and suspect as history. You'd think if Jesus was everything it claims I'd love to see at least SOME reference to him elsewhere, but there's not.  The best we can say is that Jesus is a person alleged to have existed.

 RESPONSE: I`m pleased by your commendable openness to correction from real, empirical evidence.  In fact there is evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible and of a quantity and type that make this case something of a slam dunk.  Given your openness (and assuming you will verify what I`m saying represents the real state of the evidence) I look forward to changing your mind on Jesus!

For starters, I don`t think it`s fair of you to make sweeping invalidation of the whole New Testament as an historical source simply because it`s biased, or polemical or that contains the supernatural.  "Mein Kampf" is biased and erroneous in places, but it is not for that reason completely void of historical facts.  The great majority of history as we know it was written without much consideration for "objectivity" - that includes a ton of stuff that you would consider historically true, such as "Gaulic Wars" by Julius Caesar.

So the Gospels can`t, in one fell swoop, be invalidated as historical sources simply because they are "sermons". They are... but Luke/Acts for example, contains tons of verifiable, falsifiable historical information that any real historian would pay attention to, no matter what Luke`s agenda is. Yes, he writes of many account that you might consider untrue because they are miraculous, but no scholar thinks Luke is writing mythology. He lodges his story in time and space with incredible precision, naming names, citing places and events that can be verified.

To rule this out as a valid historical source simply because there`s an account of some non-physical phenomena in it, not very scholarly. By this criteria you would rule out much of recorded history. Verifiable and falsifiable content in the Gospels include the names of Roman rulers, Herod, Pilate, Philip; geographical facts about towns and places, religious facts about 1st century Judaism, facts about structures in and around Jerusalem that have been confirmed by archaeology - Herod`s Temple, the 5 sided portico at the pool of Siloam, the pool of Bethesda, the sheep gate, the Hulda gates, Caesarea, the existence of Nazareth etc, etc.

These are unquestioned facts.

But, we don`t have to only rely on the Gospels alone to confirm the mere existence of Jesus. Here`s a list of sources:

The Gospel of Q: We don't have an existing fragment of Q but many believe this collection of sayings, teachings, and stories about Jesus was transmitted orally and was first written down by Jesus` followers long before 50 - they form the base material for the Synopics (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

Epistles from the New Testament: Liberal theologians believe that some of these were written as late as 150 CE, but ALL scholars believe that Paul authored Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans and 1&2 Thessalonians prior to his death in the mid 60`s.  This is another source.

The challenge here is to have a more scholarly view of the Bible. That is, you ought not to see the Bible as ONE SOURCE for the existence of Jesus (that can be all swept aside in one move) but as at least 5 to 8 sources which all have to be independently evaluated.

Paul is an independent witness from the Gospels and Paul is even earlier than the Gospels. That Paul was a man writing in the middle of the first century is considered unquestioned fact by every reputable scholar.  He confirms the physical existence of a man named Jesus repeatedly, writing during a time that witnesses could verify his claims - certainly the most basic claim that Jesus actually LIVED would have been beyond dispute. Paul also mentioned that a fellow Christian, James, the brother of Jesus, headed up the Jerusalem Church. Paul alone is a strong indicator that a man named Jesus had lived in the early 1st century.

The Gnostics: This early Christian movement (strong from 100-200 CE) was composed of Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians. They had non Orthodox views, but they believed that a man "Jesus" was imbued with the "Christ" essence in the 1st century.

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. He wrote a book, Antiquities of the Jews circa 93 CE. He described Jesus` as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate:  "About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful deeds, and a teacher of men who gladly receive the truth.] He drew to himself many [both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. He was the Christ]; and when Pilate, on the indictment of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so, [for he appeared to them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things about him.] And even to this day the race of Christians, who are named from him, has not died out." The passages in parenthesis may be the result of a later Christian forger who appended the text to confirm the Bible`s story. But even if you take those out, Josephus, a trusted historian, unquestionably claims that Jesus existed. Other Roman historians:

TACITUS: who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE) "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration. Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome..." 

 SUETONIUS: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE.  He wrote: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is sometimes said to refer to someone other than Christ (since the name is misspelled) but in fact this confirms exactly what Luke said - that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome around that time. 

 SUETONIUS: "Punishment [by Nero] was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." 

 PLINY: In questioning Christians brought to trial he discovered (120 CE?)... "They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called on to deliver it up..." 

 LUCIAN: Greek writer and satirist (150? CE): "...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world...Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." 

 Jewish literature: The Talmud (from 2nd Century CE) states that Jesus lived. They confirm his miraculous deeds and attribute them to demons.

In the book, "Case for Christ" Dr Edwin Yamauchi summarizes what we can know about Christ even if there were NO New Testament:

1. Jesus was a Jewish Teacher
2. Many people believed he performed healings and exorcisms
3. some people believed he was the Messiah
4. he was rejected by the Jewish leaders
5. he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
6. despite his shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread in Rome by A.D. 64, and
7. all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshiped him as God.

I think you`ll find it`s a minority opinion among scholarship (believing and non-believing) that Jesus didn't even exist. The question that is truly controversial is, given that Jesus did exist, who was he really, what did he teach and what did he say he came to do? I hope you`ll now consider those important questions.