Is The Prohibition Against Cross Dressing in Deut. 22:5 Still Valid?

QUESTION: Is Deut 22:5 prohibition on cross dressing no longer a law for Christians since Jesus came and fulfilled the law?  

Deuteronomy 22:5:  A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. NIV

RESPONSE:  You correctly understand that the ceremonial Law of Moses is no longer binding on God’s people.  In fact, the cross lifts all the duties of the Law as a means to be made right with God.  The moral duties, however, remain as a guide for Christian discipleship.  The question for this passage then is, does it fall completely within the ceremonial law which has been abrogated by Jesus work, or is there some moral content which remains that aids Christian maturing?

To find out let’s remember that all the Law is about “being holy as I the Lord am Holy” – and “holy” has a sense of separation as well as moral purity.  So very often, the ceremonial restrictions of the law are about maintaining separateness while there seems to be no moral content to the command itself.  But because a LACK of separation would LEAD to impurity, the two are tied together.

For example, the Israelites were not to shave their heads above the ears (Lev 19:27).  There is no moral content in this command – it’s about hair!  This is ceremonial law with no ongoing responsibility for the Christian believer.  Ah, but if we know the context of ancient Canaanite pagan worship, we see God doesn’t give the command without any moral concern whatsoever. 

In Canaan, many of local priests would shave their heads in devotion to Baal.  So the hair command is about maintaining strict separateness so that Israel will not be like those who worship false gods.  And when we think about all the moral issues that went along with that worship (adultery, family breakdown, disease, prostitution, infanticide), suddenly the weirdly restrictive rules are given a moral imperative.

It’s the same with Deuteronomy 22:5.  A little bit of research reveals that almost every pagan culture has practiced some form of cross-dressing in worship rituals.  Theodore Burgh, in his book “Listening to the Artifacts” said that in ancient Mesopotamia, transvestites, men dressed like women, played and danced in the cult of Ishtar, performing erotic dances and pantomime.

In Canaan religion, their god Baal had a consort, the goddess wife Asherah and worshipers would engage in ritual prostitution with male and female cult prostitutes at hillside shines.  This was to encourage these gods to mate and make the earth fertile.  The Bible indicates that these cult prostitutes has specific dress (2 Kings 10:22; 23:7) for such ceremonies, as they played out the orgies of the gods.

So, the command against cross dressing likely had this in mind.  It was meant to keep Israel away from all practices that had anything to do with pagan worship – which, as mentioned above, led to every kind of evil that destroys people, children and society.

Since we don’t live in Canaan where such pagan rituals thrive, what is there to take from such a command?  First, this command confirms that there is male and female dress codes in all cultures and all times.  Second, this gender dress-coding is independent of the actual styles or modes of dress.  Which is to say that what exactly constitutes male and female dress is a culturally bound thing, but having differences in male/female dress is universal. 

For example, we can’t just think of pants as male, and dresses as female (as my grandma used to think).  Ancient peoples wore robes, both men and women, which to us all look like dresses or skirts, but somehow they knew the difference between male and female robes.  Dress codes change constantly, but everyone in all cultures knows when someone is trying to dress like the opposite gender.

Now, if we don’t follow the dietary restrictions of the Law, should Christians ignore this concern for gender distinction in clothing?  

When it comes to sex and gender Jesus taught us that the lasting moral designs of God are embedded in the creation account… which supersede Mosaic restrictions and permissions (Deut 24:1).  There we see God’s sexual design infused into the duality of human gender, male and female.  He makes us distinctly bifurcated into two and yet both are made in his Image.  So the difference is as sacred as the Image itself.  When Eve is made from Adam, we see God in their diversity – but then this very diversity is blended into a communal oneness of marriage when the “two become one flesh”.

All of this is holy. 

• The Image,
• The separating of the Image into Two,
• The blending of the diverse image bearers into marital oneness again.

This all is holy because it is like God.  God is a unity of diversity.  So any world where one or all of these three things are diminished or denied is a world of weakened human flourishing.  Because it’s a world where the beauty of God’s unity-in-diversity design is marred.

Ironically, the modern doctrine of gender fluidity destroys the beautiful complementarity between the genders, while at the same time invoking the sacredness of gender to do so!!  How?  Well, the message today is that you can pick your gender.  But when you express a different gender than the one assigned to you at birth, everyone knows exactly the mold you must fit into in order to be that gender!

If a man wishes to be a woman, he mustn’t simply declare it.  He knows instinctively what he needs to do to express that gender: soften his skin, surgically shave his brow and chin, acquire breasts, wear softer, more colorful clothing, soften his voice, grow his hair long and paint his nails and face.   In other words he must conform himself to instinctual patterns of femininity.  “Gender is a social construct,” we hear, therefore the line between male and female must be very blurry indeed.  But if we wish to cross that line embrace this ancient gender archetype!

Well, Christians believe that these gender archetypes are so enduring and inescapable precisely because they relate to our spiritual makeup.  Thus masculinity and femininity are sacred because they both, in complementary ways, express the Image of God.  That’s why Christians treat them as inviolable and resist transgenderism (even if we readily acknowledge and have compassion for that real and troubling psychological condition).  God speaks through Nature and human nature is clearly built on male and female, therefore we Christians don’t presume to challenge that or erase what is inerasable.

But it’s not surprising that when cultures suppress this truth, sex starts to become a free for all (see Romans 1).  Ideas have consequences, and if a society carries the idea that sex is not designed and carries no implicit higher meaning, then whatever makes you feel good sexually becomes our only guiding principle.  In such a world, unlimited sexual experimentation would not only be allowed, it would be encouraged because we are now the gods who get to invent meaning.  We get to take this accidental outcome of Nature (sex) and express it however we want (even while we bow to these inbuilt gender archetypes!).

So, we may not live where priests cross-dress to incite sexual intercourse that spills the bounds of committed, monogamous, heterosexual love - but given our current doctrines on gender, perhaps we do live in Canaan after all!  To this extent, Deut 22:5 may not be binding on believers, yet it hints strongly at the beauty and inviolable duality of human gender from Creation.

Now let me be clear:  this doesn’t mean Moses should be used to dictate any particular modes of dress for male or female Christians today.  Styles are very culturally relative and similar modes can have male and female versions.  Even so we affirm gender distinction, expressed in our clothing, built on the sacred masculine and sacred feminine and the dance of Oneness between them.  This duality reflects God back to us so beautifully, Christians cannot go along with  any way of thinking or dressing that intentionally tries to blur it.

How Old Were The Disciples?

QUESTION:  About the disciples, the question seems to come up often about how they could have written 30 or more years after the crucifixion of the Christ. However, since men started to work at an age that today would be considered inappropriate perhaps as young as 12 - perhaps approximating their ages would provide an answer. So how old were they? (Not exact ages of course.)

RESPONSE:  This question has a surprising answer, as you rightly deduce.  The disciples, likely, were very young.  The question you seem concerned with is how the disciples could be alive and writing about the events of Jesus as late as 95-100 A.D. (as in the case of John).  Even the other authors of the New Testament, like Matthew, Peter and Paul, seem to be (based on common assumptions) too old to be writing when they do, in the mid 60’s and beyond – especially given life spans at the time.

Why do we assume this?  Because we’ve been far more formed by Bible movies

Peter - Movie "Risen"

than by the Biblical data on hand.  Watch almost EVERY Jesus movie ever produced and see how they paint the disciples of Jesus as mostly older than Jesus.  Jesus, everyone agrees, was about 30 years old during his ministry, based on Luke’s explicit aging in 3:23.  But after that, the consistent picture of the

Peter: Movie "Passion"

disciples is of an older Peter and James with long beards, some gray hair, or balding heads, clearly middle aged, and clearly older than their strapping young Rabbi.

Thomas: Movie "Son of God"

Now, there is no indicator in Scripture of a specific age for any disciple, but the clues from the Gospels and from a little research into 1st century Jewish culture tell us that this idea, depicted over and over in movies and pictures, is almost certainly wrong.

Let’s go to the Mishnah, the oral interpretations of Torah (law) at the time of Jesus.  It shows a very regimented educational/life path for young boys in Judaism:

 “At five years old [one is fit] for the Scripture, at ten years the Mishnah (oral Torah, interpretations) at thirteen for the fulfilling of the commandments, at fifteen the Talmud (making Rabbinic interpretations), at eighteen the bride-chamber, at twenty pursuing a vocation, at thirty for authority (able to teach others)."

So, in the time of Jesus, almost all Jewish young men were married, and usually by age 18.  But in the Gospels, Peter is the only disciple known to have been married (Matthew 8:14-15).  No other disciples’ wives are ever mentioned.  So this tells us that the disciples may have all been under 20, with some as young as 15.

What bolsters this case is the educational pathway of that time.  Education for the Jewish child concluded at the age of 15.  But just as every parent today would be proud to have a son or daughter do much more education to become a high-status medical doctor or professor, Jewish parents would desire their boys to be selected for Rabbinic training. 

If you were 15 and done with your basic training in Torah, a boy who was bright enough, (or whose parents were rich enough) would find a rabbi to take them on as a student.  You’d have to show proficiency and it’s assumed many students had very large portions of the Law and Prophets committed to memory.  Paul’s case may have been like this, where an extremely bright Jewish student from Tarsus, is sent by his rich parents to Jerusalem to study under a great Rabbi (Gameliel).

If your son didn’t merit this honor, they would enter the workforce by their mid-teens, and in almost every case, apprentice under their fathers in the family trade. 

So this explains a few things we see in the Gospels. 

One, it means that if most of the disciples are apprenticing at their trades when called, as in the case of James and John working in the family fishing business, they must have been older than 15.  But, because they are also unmarried, likely not older than 20.  Peter is the exception to this, but because his brother Andrew is not married, and they’re working with James and John (Luke 5:10 - perhaps their two families have a joint business venture), it stands to reason they are roughly the same age.  It would be odd to have a brother twice as old as you, for example.

Two, because we find them working in trades at the time Jesus calls them, none of the disciples likely were “star students”.  After their formal education was complete, they were not taken for mentorship by any local Rabbi.  And so, being passed over as teenagers, they are perhaps shocked to be considered worthy of apprenticeship with a traveling Rabbi who was beginning to gain a reputation at that time. 

The great honor of being chosen for Rabbinic training, especially after being passed over, would compel most Jewish boys to jump at the chance to leave blue collar work behind (Luke 5:11).  The fact of their being passed over for classic training explains why after the resurrection, the Chief priests note they're level of education.  They clearly hadn’t passed muster for special Rabbinic training, but having been with Jesus for 3 years, and seeing him alive again, gave them special qualifications:

Acts 4:13:  When they observed the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed and knew that they had been with Jesus. HB

Three, it explains why Peter is painted as the spokesman for the disciples – he’s the only one married, so therefore probably the oldest.  But, as I said, we don’t have to infer that he was THAT much older, since his brother Andrew is still unmarried and he works with close friends James and John, also unmarried.  So positing an age for Peter of no more than 25 is very plausible, in stark contrast to the 45 - 55 year old Peter in most plays, movies and other depictions.

Four, the Mishnah explains why Jesus didn’t start his ministry until age 30 even though his mission of redemption by death could have been accomplished at any age.  Why not go through with it sooner?  Well, no Rabbi would take disciples until age 30, and no disciples would seek out a Rabbi younger than that.  Additionally Jesus had to take students to steward the Church when he was gone.  So really, Jesus begins at the very moment it was possible to begin - when it was culturally appropriate to assume authority and take on disciples.

Now, the only other disciple besides Peter who might have been outside his teens was Matthew, who likely needed to be an established adult to be an independent contractor with the Roman government as a tax collector.

But think of other indicators of the youthfulness of the disciples:

In Matthew 11:25, Mark 10:24, Luke 10:21, and John 13:33, Jesus calls his trainees “little children” or “little ones”.  As the Incarnate Word/Son of God, we think Jesus can make a paternal reference to any human and it would be fitting… and yes it would.  But let’s not void Jesus human nature and the nature of his patriarchal cultural.  Older men, were treated with respect as fathers.  Calling his disciples “children” may indicate they were mostly – gasp! – children! Or at least much younger than their Master.

Also, John and James' mother Salome wanted to arrange where her boys would sit with Jesus at the Kingdom table.  Imagine this scene if the brothers were grown men (Matthew 20:20-24)!  But if her boys were teenagers when chosen, it would explain her lack of resistance to them leaving the family biz ("finally we’ll have a doctor in the family!") and her maternal pushiness on their behalf.  Remember also that Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder” because they were probably either loud or bold, characteristics of youth.

Here’s something else.  In Exodus 30:14-15, we read that every male over the age of 20 was to pay a tax to maintain the “Sanctuary” or Temple.  In Matthew 17:24-27, we read that when questioned about this tax, Jesus instructs Peter to pay this tax – but only for “me and you”.  But all the disciples are present (“they came to Capernaum” vs 24). We might reasonably conclude that the others were under age 20 and did not need to pay.

So all of this suggests a very startling, and in some ways endearing picture of the disciples.  They're boys!  Mostly older teenagers, young Jewish bachelors, and not blue-chip Harvard stars either.  Nevertheless, they are honored to be taken for apprenticeship by a Rabbi perhaps more than 10 years older than they.  Don’t our hearts go out to them more as they struggle to grasp all that Jesus is saying to them?  Don’t we cheer for them more as these young 20 year old's buck a corrupt priestly system and boldly declare a New Kingdom on planet earth?  Don’t we have more patience with their blunders and pride?  As a father to 2 young men in this age bracket, I tear up with pride thinking about the stands they have made for this same Kingdom, and how Jesus is pleased to choose and use the likes of these (Matt 11:25).

And as to the plausibility of them being young enough to still be around to write about all this in the 60’s – 90’s, there is no problem at all.  Young John, perhaps 15 during the life of Jesus, would be only 85 if he wrote his gospel, letters and Revelation in the year 100.

Should Christians Always Bear the Burdens of Others?

QUESTION: Hey Rick! questions...... I feel like I tend to be the "white knight" in a lot of relationships in my past... some find their way to codependent relationships with me and others are just a season and then the person can mend their wound and walk on their own. I feel like I always thought this was the Christian thing to do because we are called to "bear with one another and help when people ur weak or hurting". I feel like maybe I'm wrong in this. I've been challenging my thinking in this area. Thoughts?
p.s. I've been reading "boundaries" by Cloud and Townsend. LOVING it! 

RESPONSE: Well, glad you found that book already because I would send you straight to “Boundaries” if you hadn’t. I can’t add much more to that good message…

Except to underline the importance of finding the balance between saving and serving.  Only one saves, Jesus. We are called only to serve. And the Bible says serving is sometimes best done by bearing a burden and other times by stepping back from developing dependency on you as the "White Knight".

The best Scripture to underline this balance is Gal 6:1-5 -

Brothers, if someone is caught in any wrongdoing, you who are spiritual should restore such a person with a gentle spirit, watching out for yourselves so you won’t be tempted also. Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. But each person should examine his own work, and then he will have a reason for boasting in himself alone, and not in respect to someone else. For each person will have to carry his own load. HB

The most obvious question about this passage is the juxtaposition of two similar words in 5 short verses.

What’s really cool is when you look at two Greek words which are translated here as “burden” (verse 2) and “load” (verse 5). The old KJV, with its very limited vocabulary, translated them both with the same English word, "BURDEN". And that sort of created a dichotomy or contradiction for Christians. How am I supposed to carry my brother's burden but then we’re all supposed to carry our own burdens?

The answer is that these are two different KINDS of burdens.  The first is the word for that kind of burden that is a crisis that no one can carry by themselves. The root idea is “weight”.  Something too heavy for one person to bear.  The second word (vs 5) is for that kind of burden that is more like cargo or freight. Something we all have to carry day to day.

So the impact of these verses is this: “help carry the burdens for each other that are too heavy to bear alone, and let no one expect others to carry the responsibilities and duties that are his alone.”

Now, this will take discernment to implement for surely it’s a sliding scale which burdens fit into which categories. For children, it’s a moving target. What was a burden too heavy to carry this year, will be responsibility they must carry themselves next year.  Parents are wise to see that their “interventions” in burden-bearing are moving gradually less and less as the child ages.  (This is, I think, more demanding a call to moms than dads!)

But then, with friends, seasons of loss, grief, crisis or tragedy put them into a mode where some of the simplest responsibilities which they ought to always take on themselves (making food, finding shelter) are too heavy for them, and the law of Christ calls us to step in.

So, use discernment.

But what this passage says in no uncertain terms is that is it NOT a blanket Christian response to others in any kind of need, that we rescue, help, pick up after or save. Yes, compassion, and servanthood should be our calling cards, but sometimes “helping hurts” (the title of a GREAT book!) – so we are called by Scripture to avoid that, for “love does no harm to its neighbor”.

Does the NIV Mistranslate "Homosexual" to Attack Gays?

Question: Why does the NIV use the word "homosexual"?  I've heard the original word doesn't mean anything like "homosexual".  Is this evidence of a scheme of translators trying to attack gays through mistranslation?  What DOES the original text say regarding homosexuality?

Answer: Thanks for the question.  To begin an answer, I’ll cut and paste a portion of our white paper on homosexuality that deals directly with word meanings in the relevant passages.  You can email me and I'll gladly send the whole doc.

"I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV)

There is again, no special place given to homosexuality.  It is the same as any other sin. 

However, is Paul even talking about homosexuality per se, or something else?  He uses two key Greek words.  The first, “Malakos” here translated ‘male prostitutes’ means literally “the soft”, sometimes translated as “effeminate.”  This is a reference to men and boys who allowed themselves to be used homosexually.^[1]  Or “men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners”^[2]

The second word "Arsenokoitai" is a compound word, "arsen" which means “male” and "koitai" which means "bed" or "lying" - a word with clear sexual connotations.  So the straightforward meaning is men who bed or lie with other males.  Or “a male homosexual, or sodomite.”^[3]  Another lexicon defines the word as “one who lies with a male as with a female.”^[4] Strong's concordance defines the word as simply “a sodomite.”^[5]

I cite several lexical sources here for some authority on the meaning of these two words, since much ado has been made of their translation.  In fact, a lot of very late scholarship uses the ambiguity and uniqueness of these words to suggest that they do not refer to homosexuality at all, or at least not to homosexual practices per se.

Arguments are made by liberal scholars that “arsenokoitai” refers only to male prostitutes or that “malakos” refers perhaps to a slave boy kept for homosexual purposes – a common Greek practice (the implication being that Paul has nothing to say about male on male sex in general.)

But upon inspection, the two words side by side leave little doubt that Paul’s meaning is that homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong, not merely wrong because of the age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money between the participants.

In fact, “malakos” has a corresponding Latin term ("molles") which Philo uses to describe effeminate males who desire penetration by men.  Apparently Philo’s (and other ancients') problem with such men did not center on their exploitation of others, age difference, or acts of prostitution, but rather, around their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them by God/nature^[6].  And if this term only refers to boys (or girls) abused sexually by older men as claimed, one wonders why they are on the list of the "wicked" at all, and not the exploiters alone.

"Arsenokoitai" is likely a word invented by Paul ^[7].  It appears nowhere in literature before this usage in 1 Corinthians.  But that doesn’t mean Paul’s meaning is unknowable.  The structure of the word (man + bed/lying), clearly links it with the Mosaic restriction in Leviticus 18:22 – “do not lie with a man as with a woman.”  In fact, the Greek version of the Old Testament in use by early Rabbis used the exact same terms to translate the Hebrew.  In Paul's Rabbinical circles these very words were used to stress God’s absolute prohibition on homosexual behavior, in contrast to the very lenient attitudes of  the Greco-Roman period^[8].

We can sympathize with those who suggest that any translation (such as the NIV) which render these words using “homosexual” may be misleading.  Clearly “homosexual” is a loaded modern term (unavailable to Paul in the 1st century) and it doesn’t convey the literal meaning of the words Paul uses.  In our context the word “homosexual” often carries a heavy connection to modern understandings about orientation. Thus a person may feel this passage is condemning something beyond our control  whereas these two words are actually condemning sexual practices not orientations. 

Perhaps other, better English words might be used to render Paul’s terms, but it would be hard to be as explicit as Paul without being vulgar.  He could hardly be more clear about what he's condemning: the two roles involved in male homosexual sex:  The first (malakos) gives himself to be used by the second (arsenokoitai).  Those who engage in such practice, willfully repudiating God’s good creation design, along with ALL those involved in ANY unrepented pattern of sin (see the expansive list), are not eligible for the Kingdom."

So like many other instances of translation, "homosexual" is a fair but imperfect rendering of Paul’s meaning into English.  It might be that the evolution of attitudes about homosexuality requires more precision - not to conform the meaning to modern sensibilities, but to better communicate the meaning to changing modern sensibilities.

For example, as stated in our paper, if "homosexual" is taken to include the psychological condition of homosexual orientation, then that does mean that "homosexual offender" (NIV) is not a good translation.  In fact, if that's how people take it, "homosexual" is misleading and harmful.  Reason being it would convey that to be homosexually oriented is the offense in God's eyes, and yet no Scripture ever addresses orientation. Paul here addresses behavior.  And the behavior being addressed is clear, even if the Greek words have some ambiguity.

So, if we wanted to get more literal and stay away from any allusion to orientation, we could easily ditch the term "homosexual" (since Paul surely didn’t know that term).  A very rough paraphrase of "malakos" might be: "a man who acts like a woman in sex acts".  The second word is best understood simply as "those men who sleep with other men."  Of course you can see what that gains in accuracy it clearly loses in economy.

So while the use of "homosexual" is debatable, what is not is that any accurate transference of these terms into English cannot escape referring to homosexual practices per se.  The context is clear this can't be a reference merely to pedophilia (Paul did have that term available to him - chose not to use it) or temple prostitution (when the Bible wants to address that, it does so explicitly, not implicitly – Deut 23:17-18).  Instead we have here a simple reference to all male homosexual activity (Romans 1 deals with female homosexual activity.)  It is clearly condemned as sin - not conforming to God's good design - along with other things like greed and slander.

But the hope of redemption for all "the wicked" is made perfectly clear.  You can put Yours Truly on that list, of those who were in that category until they were "washed, sanctified and justified".  What amazing hope for all!
<sup>_____________________________________

[1]</sup> Arndt, William R. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1957, pg 489.
^[2]  Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?, pg 10.

^[3]Ibid, p 109.

^[4]Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg 75.
^[5]Strong, James, Strong’s Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, Riverside Book and Bible House, pg 16.
^[6] Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?, pg 10
^[7] Ibid, pg 10.
^[8] Ibid, pg 10.

Was Nostradamus a Prophet?

QUESTION: What’s your take on Nostradamus?  Was he a prophet?

RESPONSE:  First, we should ask what a prophet is.  Every culture and worldview system has its predictors of the future, because there’s always a market for prognostication.  Why?  Well, if you could truly get accurate knowledge of the future, it would have a lot of handy applications:  Comfort, direction, betting advice.

But being a Jewish prophet was different than your run of the mill shaman, witch-doctor, soothsayer, tea-leaf or palm reader.  They all claimed to know the future through trances, or reading the flights of birds or the entrails of animals or the position of stars.

Thus the pagan had no objective basis for confidence, it was all mystery and fatalism.  The Jew on the hand shunned necromancy, and spiritism of all kinds because only if their omniscient, eternal God was real, was real prophecy a confident possibility.

Thus Isaiah will say:

Isa 8:19-20: When they say to you, “Consult the spirits of the dead and the spiritists who chirp and mutter,” shouldn’t a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Of course, the Jewish approach to prophecy means God is in the driver’s seat.  He reveals what he wants, not what WE want.  And God’s purpose in revealing the future was always for courting or building relationship with us.  Meanwhile, the pagans thought clairvoyance was about reading the predetermined script of Fate, for no larger purpose than personal gain or banal curiosity.

Despite all these differences in the source of prophecy, the real proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Which mode of prophecy has proven trustworthy?  Here too we see a difference in biblical prophecy, because the Jewish Scriptures are not at all fuzzy about the accuracy standard:  100%.

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22).

A lot of “prophets” (I’m looking at you National Enquirer) would have lost all credibility (and income) if we applied this standard.  This standard made the ancient Jews a thinking, non-superstitious people.  Fear of the occult was pervasive back then, but God specifically wants to allay these fears with a simple standard:  prophecies, in order to be verified, must be specific and detailed enough to be shown undeniably true.

Now, with this standard in mind, how does the Bible fare against Nostradamus?  I’ll list just a few predictive prophesies made by Bible prophets that were fulfilled.  Then we’ll see how Nostradamus compares.

• Ezekiel 26 predicted, 250 years in advance, how Alexander would conquer Tyre.
• Psalm 22:16 would predict that the Messiah would be pieced in hands and feet – clearly alluding to a mode of execution (crucifixion) that hadn’t been invented when the prophecy was made.
• Predicting Messiah would not decay in the tomb (Ps 16).
• Predicting Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14).
• Predicting Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
• Predicting Messiah would be a Nazarene (Isaiah 11:1), and many others.

Of course Jesus shows up fulfilling all these predictions, but then he ALSO makes prophetic predictions himself – the most startling of which was predicting the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple within a generation of his life.  In 70 AD the Roman general Titus leveled the city fulfilling Jesus word to the letter. (Luke 21:5-6)

Now, let’s turn to Nostradamus.  Is there anything like this kind of detail with specific fulfillment?  What follows is a few examples that show either Nostradamus is so vague and unclear that his accuracy could never be assessed confidently OR when he is very specific and clear, he is proven false.

For example, this passage is believed by some to foretell the 9/11 attacks:

"In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror. The sky will burn at forty-five degrees. Fire approaches the great new city."

The problems with this “prophecy” are numerous.

• First, this isn’t taken from a single section, but rather it’s a collection of statements culled from different sections to make a more cohesive sounding prediction that is made to match an historical event.
• Second, terror coming from the sky matches 9/11, but not this reference to a King.  The “king” (Bin Laden?) stayed home that day. 
• Third, it’s not buildings that burn for Nostradamus, but rather the sky that burns at “forty-five degrees”.  What does that mean?  No one knows. 
• Finally, New York City has the word “new” in its title, but in 2001 it was the oldest city in the country.  In what sense is it new?

We can admit that collected artificially in this way, there’s some similarity - albeit very figurative - to 9/11.  But taking these bits of Nostradamus out of context (as if everything he wrote was somehow magically predictive, but in a way unconnected his own flow of thought or logic) strains credibility to the breaking point.

Another example:

The young lion will overcome the old one,
On the field of war in single combat:
He will burst his eyes in a cage of gold,
Two fleets one, then to die, a cruel death.

Allegedly, this has reference to the death of France’s king, Henry II.  He was wounded in a jousting contest in 1557; he died ten days later. Well, here’s what actually happened:

Only six years separated the ages of Henry and his opponent in the tournament; it was hardly a contest between the young and the old (Henry was only forty). The accident occurred during a friendly sporting event, not on a battlefield.  There is no evidence that Henry was wearing a gilded visor (cage) of gold. Also, the king’s eyes were not damaged; a splinter from the lance pierced his skull and entered the brain. The reference to “two fleets” is utterly unconnected.

These are just two examples of how extremely vague Nostradamus' writings are. This provides an opportunity for wild speculation and "retroactive clairvoyance."  Many have made him a genius by squeezing modern events into the very large openings provided by his imprecision and ambiguity.

However, there is one instance when Nostradamus was less vague and refreshingly clear. In his preface to “The Centuries” – a letter to his son – Nostradamus finally writes in unambiguous terms:

From the time I am writing this [1 March 1555], before 177 years, 3 months and 11 days, by pestilence, long famine, and wars, and more still by inundations, the world between this day and that, before and after, shall be diminished, and its population so reduced that there will hardly be hands enough to attend to agriculture, and the lands will be left as long without culture as they have been under tillage.

The deadline for this prediction is easily tallied:

             Day      Month     Year

Start     1            3              1555
Add      11          3                177

Total     12          6              1732

June 12, 1732.

The truly apocalyptic destruction and depopulation predicted here is very specific and the effects very long-lasting.  So we can say with confidence that none of this has occurred and yet the deadline passed by long before the United States became a nation.

So, when I compare Nostradamus to the incredible line of specific and fulfilled prophecy of Scripture, I find him untrustworthy.  And it leads to this question – why would we want to trust him?  Especially knowing that we have the markers of authentic prophecy in Scripture affirmed and crowned by the long-predicted Christ.

Isn't Christianity Just a Crutch for the Weak?

QUESTION “Religion is the opiate of the masses." Karl Marx is quoted as having once said.  Isn't Christianity just another way people try to feel better about themselves? Can Christianity be just a crutch for people who are too lazy or afraid to deal with reality?

RESPONSE: Great question, and one that many people voice who assume that in a modern world the only people who need religion are mentally weak, delusional or unintelligent.

First, let's list a definition of 'crutch' that people have in mind when they make this objection to Christian faith. ‘Crutch’: artificial, needless prop, or expedient.

Used in this sense, I would agree that there are some Christians whose faith is a cop out, and they cover their confusion, insecurity, ignorance and failed relationships with platitudes and ‘churchspeak’. They treat their faith like a drug, to make themselves feel better without really considering its larger implications.  Therefore, these people place in importance the beliefs and behaviors of Christianity far below the feelings they get in Christian worship services or concerts.

But surely this is a horrible distortion of Christianity itself. Jesus called his followers to radical acts of servanthood and sacrifice to God and mankind. He called for high ethical standards, justice, and for the intrinsic worth of human beings no matter their gender, social status or moral performance.  Jesus also told his disciples to expect to be marginalized for their devotion to him, thus to expect suffering, insult and general disapproval.

To think this kind of uncompromising call to bold action and counter cultural living is a psychological prop is ridiculous. In fact, in Jesus own time, many who wanted just a “feel good” message abandoned Jesus because they found that Christianity is not for the faint of heart. (John 6:66)

Rather, if taken seriously, life in the Kingdom of God as Jesus envisioned it, would radically knock over all other crutches that people use to feel better about life, such as hedonism, narcissism, careerism, materialism, even intellectualism and moralism.   Real Christian living forces a person out from behind such crutches that cover pain, or that encourage apathy or pride.

Contrary to a materialist view of religion, Christianity is not about the inducement of serotonin or endorphin levels in the brain.  It is not first a psychological question at all.  It is first an historical question about this man, Jesus of Nazareth. Strong evidence shows Jesus really existed in Palestine, lived a perfect life, claimed to be the Son of God, was executed by a Roman leader named Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead, being seen alive by many eye witnesses.  If I decide, based on this evidence, that Jesus was all he said he was, then I ought to commit myself to him and his leadership regardless of the psychological challenges or benefits his leadership brings (and my experience is that it brings BOTH!).

But now let’s now consider the simplistic idea that all crutches are bad. Obviously, if I break my leg, a crutch is not a sign of weakness!  So, here’s another more nuanced definition of ‘crutch’: something used for support or reassurance, that enables a person to meet a real need.

By this definition, crutches are good things and everyone needs them. Every human has common inner needs for which they need support and reassurance: loneliness, sadness, depression, guilt or wonderment about their purpose, or the meaning of life. Does anyone really get over these things by wishing them away? Can mere mental acuity or knowledge make them go away?

No, they show no signs of going away even in our smartest scholars and best saints.

To condemn Christianity for being a solution to these universal needs is like condemning the use of food because it satisfies hunger. To reject a cure because it is a cure is silly. We should only condemn false cures, those crutches that work only for a short time, or those that make the condition worse over time.

But finally, what about those needs?  Why do humans have such universal, pervasive existential needs in the first place?  Maybe these inner needs were not meant to be ignored and muscled through, because maybe they are revelation. And what they are revealing is that something is wrong in us spiritually.  In short, something in us needs "support," to be set right, or healed.

Jesus said,

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Mark 2:17)

So he was saying in effect, “I’m not embarrassed by those who need crutches. In fact, it’s only those who acknowledge their deepest guilt and need who find my healing touch. I can’t help people who don’t think they need rescue. I came to mend people who know their need and reach out for my grace.”

So in that sense, yes, Christianity is a crutch... or - if we understand our predicament properly - more like the whole hospital!  This "crutch" is not for the lazy, weak minded and fearful, just as the walker used by physical therapists is not for the lazy or the weak - but rather for (and ONLY for) all those radically in touch with their own need and with a passionate desire to be made well.  Such a "crutch" is only for the intellectually honest who face their brokenness squarely and for the faith-filled who will trust the "crutch" can and will lead to their healing.

Just like that, Jesus claimed he could only help people willing to see their own brokenness, fully face their own sense of guilt and come humbly to him for help and wholeness. I dislike saying 'Jesus is my crutch,' only because it grossly undersells how much I need him.  "Crutch" can make it sound like I just need a little temporary leaning post, when in reality, I need a radical surgery for a mortal wound.  You can call such people weak or lazy or duped if you want, but Jesus called them ransomed children of God!  For that reason Christians have never been afraid to admit, "I'm am weak" for “when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:10)

By Works and by Grace? - is the Bible contradictory About Salvation?

QUESTION:  A friend of mine has said that the Bible is contradictory about salvation – saying in one passage it’s by works and in another it’s by grace.  He pits Jesus and James against Paul and points out these specific passages:  Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:26-28, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, and James 2:24.

RESPONSE: This is not a contradiction when you look into it – as the overarching message of Scripture is that people are saved not by good works, but by grace through faith.  The passages your friend lists as affirming salvation by works (Matthew 19, Luke10) are curious because in both cases, no one actually gets salvation by this means.  In fact, the rich young ruler in Luke 10 specifically loses out on salvation as we are to understand by him leaving Jesus in tears!

So before we’re into it even two steps, we have good reasons to pause and not interpret this in a simplistic binary way.  First, Jesus did not come to "abolish the law" (Matt 5:17) so it’s not altogether unexpected that He would say in Matthew 19 “if you want to enter life, obey the commandment” or to the Rich man in Luke 10, “do this and you will live”.  This is consistent with everything in the O.T. law:  “obey me and live”, being the repeated refrain of mosaic law (Lev 18:5 etc).  In one sense we might say, OF COURSE there is salvation by works – provided you do ALL the works!  This is what Paul affirmed in Galatians 5:3:  If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey all of the regulations in the whole law of Moses. NLT  Paul even seems to think God will honor with eternal life those who don’t even have the law of Moses, when he says: Rom 2:6-9:  “He will repay each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality… and also to the Greek.”  Of course in context of his whole argument, this offer is provided with a massive caveat.

A great big IF.  If one can obey all God’s commandments.  Then by definition, you are morally perfect like God.  That means you have earned your salvation, and God owes you heaven as a simple matter of fairness.  There would be no grace needed.  

Because of this, I will sometimes coyly tell people, the bible says there’s only TWO ways to heaven.  (People, used to Christians talking about one way to heaven, always perk up at that!)  And then I mention that the first way, the most obvious way, and the plan everyone seems to be working on is, the DO plan.  That is, ‘do enough’ to earn God’s acceptance.  Then, before I outline the OTHER way, I quote Dr Phil:  “how’s that working for you?”  The problem is not in the law, it’s in us – as Jesus points out in the "works" passage in Matthew:  “NO ONE is good, expect God alone.”  That is, no one obeys perfectly.

This is the entire point Jesus is making with the rich young ruler – he’s NOT perfect, though he thinks he is.  “One thing you lack”, Jesus tells him.  Also, in the Luke passage notice in 10:29 the interesting comment:  the lawyer is eager to “justify himself”.  So in both cases neither of our star moral performers is anywhere near as good as they think they are.  Jesus is actually using the law to point out the flaw in both men.  Or perhaps more accurately we should say Jesus is using his own instruction (“sell your possessions”; “love your neighbor”) to show how both men are not obeying the law as they think they are.

Let me paraphrase the conversations to underscore what Jesus is doing: 

The Matt 19 Passage:

Man: Hi Jesus, I’d like to get to heaven.

Jesus: Well, you have to be perfect, what is the standard of perfection?

Man: The law.

Jesus: Right!  So how are you doing on that?

Man: Really, really good, I think – I’ve been a faithful rule follower my whole life!

Jesus: Really?  Actually you’re not quite there yet.  If you’re so great with the commandments, then you won’t mind selling all your possessions to follow me.

Man: What!!  I’m good, but I’m not THAT good! (walks away)

The Luke 10 Passage:

Man: Hi Jesus I want to get to heaven.

Jesus: Well, what’s in the law, what’s God expect from you?

Man: Only two things:  love God, and love my neighbor.

Jesus: Alright, good answer!  So do it.

Man: Umm, uh, well, I have a question about that: Exactly WHO is my neighbor?  Because there’s lots of people I don’t love, but I’m guessing (hoping) they’re not my neighbor.

Jesus: Well, let me tell you a story (the Good Samaritan) that will define neighbor for you, in a way that will show, you do NOT, in fact, love your neighbor as God demands.

To miss how Jesus is using the law is to miss the entire point of BOTH stories.  He is not using the law to outline a way of salvation.  He is using it to expose these “good” men as law breakers.  For the rich young ruler in Matthew 19, Jesus is exposing something very specific.  The man claims to have obeyed all the law, “since his youth”.  Really?  The arrogance is astounding.  He's never lied? So Jesus tells him to sell everything.  Why?  To give ANOTHER law by which he can be sure he’s earned salvation?  No, to expose him.  To expose the fact that he is a lawbreaker like everyone else. 

How so?  Well, this demand (and his unwillingness to receive it) exposed the fact that he was consistently breaking the very 1st commandment, “no other gods before me”, with his addiction to wealth and power.  To apply Jesus demand would have broken him, and brought him to a faith-filled dependence on God’s mercy alone.  If he applies the call of Jesus, he will have to die – to pride and self sufficiency – and only THEN will he live.  That death to self Jesus is calling him to undergo (which he refuses) for the sake of the Kingdom is synonymous with salvation by grace alone through faith alone.  How is it different?

You see, faith is not merely ‘belief’, it’s a full-hearted turning to God, in repentance and trust in his mercy alone to save. 

In fact, defining the word ‘faith’ shows how the James passage ALSO affirms salvation by grace and not by works, even though James does say, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”  James is defining faith simplistically – as mere belief:  Mental assent to truth.  We know he’s working on a different definition than Paul because he says, this “faith” is what demons have (2:19)!  Well clearly this kind of “faith” (which amounts to doctrinal accuracy) doesn’t save anyone.

So when James says we’re not saved by “faith”, he is not contradicting Paul or Jesus, because he’s not talking about the same kind of faith!  To posit a true contradiction we have to be working with the same definitions.  The faith that simply “believes in certain dogmas” is not the kind of faith Paul promotes in his letters.  Read Romans 6:1-5 and see Paul calling the commitment of faith a kind of dying to sin as we invite the newness of the Christlife in.  James and Paul are here in perfect agreement.  Real faith is a whole person brokenness, it always includes repentance, and always produces good fruit.  Thus, without the fruit of repentance, we can presume there is no faith, thus no salvation.

Whenever I want to talk about salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, ironically, the Gospel passages I come back to most are the very passages that your friend says contradict salvation by grace alone!!  They affirm so clearly the central view of scripture, of Jesus, and of ALL his apostles, that we are “saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus,” Acts 15:11.

A final note about the Luke passage in particular:  If you think Luke 10:28 is teaching salvation by works, one should remember a couple chapters later, the same Jesus, recorded by the same author, is very clearly hammering the message of salvation by grace (Luke 15).  The problem with saying that Jesus affirmed salvation by works is not that this makes him contradict Paul, but that this makes Him contradict Himself!!  Clearly, unless Jesus is completely confused, he is up to something.  And I think his strategy is clear.  It goes something like this:  grace to the humble, law to the proud.

Jesus ALWAYS threw the law in the faces of proud people (again in Luke 11:42).  When he does so, it may APPEAR he is setting up a system of salvation by works, but what you see is always that the law winds up being used as a lever of conviction.  It starts as the “way to life”, but winds up becoming the crushing weight of perfection that opens eyes and shows how far we fall short.

So, when you see Jesus’ OVERALL strategy in this way (law to the proud, grace to the humble), you see how perfectly consistent Paul is with his Master when he declares: 

Romans 3:20 “for no one can ever be made right in God’s sight by doing what his law commands.  For the more we know God’s law, the clearer it becomes that we aren’t obeying it.” NLT

The only way out of this predicament, is to abandon the law (good works) as a means to be saved, and instead to repent, throw ourselves on the mercy of God and receive by faith God’s forgiving love.  And this is Jesus message of grace, consistently seen all over Luke’s gospel.  (Study Luke 5:20; Luke 7:47; Luke 15; Luke 18:13-14)