Lord’s Supper Meditation – Judas Takes the Bread

The Last Supper; Christ Washing the Apostles’ Feet, about 1400–10, Unknown. Tempera colors, gold, silver paint, and ink on parchment; 13 3/16 x 9 1/4 in. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Ms. 33, fol. 286v

A Twilight Musing

As we learn from the portrayal of Judas in the account of the Last Supper in John 13, there is  spiritual peril in being formally a part of fellowship with Christ without being truly connected with Him.   The very beginning of this chapter (vv. 2-3) highlights Jesus’s acute awareness of Judas’s immanent betrayal: “During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that . . . he had come from God and was going back to God,” arose to wash the disciples’ feet.  We assume that Jesus washed Judas’s feet along with all of the others, but Jesus explicitly excludes Judas from the benefit of being made clean (sanctified): “For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, ‘Not all of you are clean’” (Jn. 13:11).  He reinforces this exclusion of His betrayer from the spiritual benefit of the foot washing when He tells them, “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’”

The point of all of this veiled anticipation is made clear in the account of Judas being identified by receiving a piece of bread from the hand of Jesus. 
         

After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side, so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.  When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.”  (Jn. 13:21-31)

There are several observations to be made about this passage.  First, Jesus is “troubled in spirit” concerning the upcoming betrayal, and He shares His concern with the disciples.   Why?  It seems unlikely that He is troubled only about the suffering and death that this act will bring about.  It is plausible that He is also concerned about the impact of the betrayal on both Judas and the rest of the disciples.  Satan’s work has disturbingly infiltrated this close-knit group; Satan has already “put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray” Jesus, and when the Master reveals it, the disciples respond with “Who is it?” and “Is it I?”  Immediately, their ability to assume solidarity in this small, intimate band is compromised.  We are told that the one “whom Jesus loved” (John) was seated next to Jesus, “leaning back against” Him, and therefore was ideally situated to ask the Master, “Lord, who is it?” 

It is symbolically significant that Jesus’ answer to this question is sharing a piece of the Passover bread with Judas.   Judas’s receipt of the bread from Jesus, far from being an act of sharing and communion, marked the point at which “Satan entered into him” and he was completely possessed by the Enemy.  Thus, the bread of communion becomes for him a kind of “Devil’s Mass,” and in taking it from Jesus’ hand he commits self-condemning sacrilege.  One is reminded of the warning of Paul in I Cor. 11:27-29: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”  The fact that Judas goes out immediately to execute the betrayal, perhaps with the bread still in his hand, indicates how thoroughly under the control of the Enemy he was.

So it is that we can recognize in the portrayal of Judas in this passage the danger of only maintaining appearances when we participate in the intimate fellowship of Communion together with Christ.  May we humbly receive His cleansing and His sharing of Himself in such a way that it is a blessing to our souls and not a curse to a hard heart.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

Lord’s Supper Meditation – Two Kinds of Suffering

A Twilight Musing

In the Lord’s Supper, both the bread and the wine represent the suffering of Jesus, but perhaps it is instructive to see the bread as focusing on His suffering in the flesh and the wine as focusing on His suffering in spirit.

 Jesus’ physical suffering on the last day of His life was no different from the suffering endured by the two thieves crucified along with Him.  Had only His physical body died, the eternal purpose of redeeming humanity would not have been fulfilled, even though He died in innocence and not because His body was forfeit to death because of sin.  Jesus had to go beyond merely having His heart stop beating and His lungs cease functioning.  It was man’s spirit that was doomed to die because of sin, and Jesus’ sacrificial death had to embrace that alienation from the Father expressed in the cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”  By the time He died, however, He was able to say, “Into Your hands I commit my spirit.”  Jesus gave back to God the Father that part of Him that had most profoundly died, the death that satisfied the penalty of death in the spirit.  It appears that while Jesus’ mangled body lay in the tomb for three days, the core of His life—the part that was capable of redemptive sacrifice--was with the Father, awaiting the First Day of the Week to descend once more into the Incarnate Son’s uncorrupted frame and transform it into a body that was imperishable, the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (I Cor. 15:20).

So as we partake of the bread, we can concentrate on the fact that in His physical body Jesus suffered in all points as we do in the flesh, experiencing rejection, misunderstanding, persecution, slander, betrayal, and finally horrible torture and the shame and pain of the cross, wrapping up in Himself the physical suffering of all mankind.  But the drinking of the wine in communion can call our attention to the fact that the cup that Jesus was called on to drink (in spite of beseeching the Father that it might not be so) was an indescribable suffering at the core of His soul.  God laid down the principle that the life of a person or an animal is in its blood (Lev. 17:14); and as we drink the symbolic wine, we imbibe the process by which the bitter cup of alienation from God is transformed into the cup of eternal life.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

A Word from St. Nicholas

Jaroslav Čermák (1831 - 1878) - Sv. Mikuláš

May I share with you what’s on my heart? I’m carrying a load on my shoulders. It’s about Christmas and me. I’ve been around a long, long time --- centuries in fact. I must tell you the truth. I’m not the same man I used to be. I’ve changed. When you see me today in a store, at the mall, or in a parade, you’re seeing a different man. I’m afraid some have gotten the wrong impression of me.

In the beginning I wore a bishop’s robe. I was tall and thin then. As centuries have rolled by, I’ve put on weight and rolled with them. Jenny Craig, ‘Weight-watchers’ and the Keto diet weren’t around. Since the nineteenth century, I’ve been a round and jolly fellow. I’ve had to get new, red breeches and a fur stocking cap; my cheeks are like cherries; and, yes, I still have a twinkle in my eye; but my age is telling on me. Look, my long hair and beard are white!

May I be honest with you? It really scares me to think to what proportions I’ve grown. This is just it. Too many boys and girls think that I am Christmas. They’ve put me at the center of their Christmas: I’m the one to whom boys and girls make requests; I’m the one they wait on at five minutes to midnight; and I’m the one they look to give them what they want.

Am I really? No, no, my goodness, no!!  Let me tell you who I really am. People call me St. Nicholas, and so I am. But, please, let me tell you about the real me, the real St. Nicholas.

Sixteen hundred years ago, in the fourth century to be exact, I impressed people. Here’s how it began. One day, I should say, one, crisp winter night, I saw something very clearly in my mind. I understood whom Christmas is really about:  Christmas is about Jesus Christ.  I saw Jesus had given me a gift: He came in the flesh; lived a miraculous life; died on a cross and rose from the dead. All to forgive my sin and reconcile God and me! 

This meant the gift of Life and salvation to me! Even me! He gave it long before I ever knew him. Finally, I received that Gift and owned it for myself. Have you? Things began to happen inside me. One thing that changed was the burden I felt for the poor, the sick, and the suffering. There were great needs in my town of Myrna (Turkey). As my parent’s had left me great wealth, I decided to return it to Jesus Christ. I gave gifts and presents to those with hardships.

Since I was Myrna’s bishop, I knew I had to give secretly. If I didn’t, people knew me and would think I was showing off. Also, I didn’t want people to know who was giving them gifts. I might embarrass them. So, I began giving my gifts out secretly at night.  While people slept, I left gifts on their doorsteps.

I remember one poor man with three daughters. The girls were coming to a marriageable age. In those days, a young woman's father had to offer prospective husbands something of value —a dowry – to go along with his daughter. The larger the dowry, the better the chance a young woman had to attract a good husband. Without a dowry, a woman was unlikely to marry. I feared for this poor man's three daughters. He didn’t have the money for one dowry, much less three.  Without dowries, his daughters would probably be sold into slavery, or prostitution.

So, secretly, on three different occasions, I tossed bags of gold through the poor man’s open window. I later heard the gold landed in the girls’ stockings; some clanged into their shoes left by the fire to dry. This is where your custom comes from of children hanging stockings on the fireplace mantle.

Somehow, just what I feared happened. The word got around: ‘The Bishop of Myrna goes out at night and gives presents to people.’  People started calling me ‘Saint Nicholas’.  When the Dutch Americans tried to say my name, Sinterklaas, it came out ‘Santa Claus’ rather than ‘St. Nicholas’.

What I’m trying to say is I am not Christmas! Jesus Christ is Christmas! I’m a servant of Christmas.  I’m the result of Christmas. Christmas doesn’t come because I bring gifts. I bring gifts because Christmas has come. If it had not been for Jesus Christ, I would not be here.  He is Christmas. He is the First Gift. He is the One to whom we make our requests. He is the One who fulfills our desires. He is the One for whose coming we wait with hushed breath.

This Christmas Eve, I will be bringing gifts. But please, remember, the Gift you most want is the Gift of Gifts, Jesus Christ. Ask for Him. Receive Him. Believe Him. Adore Him - if you have not. You too will be giving secret gifts to those with needs. ‘Ho, Ho, Ho, happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night’!

---

Tom is currently a retired Elder in the Virginia Annual Conference. He has pastored churches in Virginia, California and England. Studying John Wesley’s theology, he received his Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from the University of Bristol, Bristol, England and his Master of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary. While a student, he and his wife Pam lived in John Wesley’s Chapel “The New Room”, Bristol, England, the first established Methodist preaching house. Tom was a faculty member of Asbury Theological Seminary. He has contributed articles to Methodist History and the Wesleyan Theological Journal. He and his wife have two children, daughter Karissa, who is an attorney in Richmond, Virginia, and, John, who is a recent graduate of Regent University. Being a part of the development of their grandson Beau is a rich reward. Tom enjoys a good book by a crackling fire with an English cup of tea. His life text is, ‘Jesus, confirm my heart’s desire, to work and speak and think for thee’.

The Incarnation's Appeal to Humility (Part 2)

Introduction 

In the last entry, we discussed how Christ’s incarnation, as noted by the early hymn of Philippians 2, appeals to the importance of humility. With the humble model that Christ provided, the believer should follow suit if he or she is truly a Christ-follower. The first half investigated the humble authority and humble assistance (i.e., his willingness to serve others). The second half of our series examines two additional truths that permeate through the humility of Christ’s incarnation. The last two points relate to the importance that faith, or trust, in God has on one’s humble state.

The Incarnation’s Appeal to Humble Acceptance (Phil. 2:8)

Humble acceptance of our state is probably among the most difficult of the virtues listed in this article. The hymn notes that Christ “humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). Christ’s obedient actions correlate with the prayer he encouraged his disciples to pray, saying, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Christ realized that the Father’s mission would send him to the cross, and Christ was obedient to accomplish the Father’s will. Reread the last sentence. Contrast this with the muscled-up celebrity pastor who wears flashy apparel and don teeth that are unnaturally white. More to the point, compare Christ’s life to the message being purported by celebrity pastors. Often, they say that God wants you to live your best life, wants you to have a life free from trouble, and that any form of sickness or trial derives from a lack of faith. Is it just me or does this completely contradict the humble lifestyle of Jesus? This is not even a minor interpretive issue. The life of Jesus thoroughly exhibited humility and his messages, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, taught others to live in like manner. If one accepts the validity of messianic prophecy as I do, then it was even prophesied that Jesus would live in such a manner in the Suffering Servant motif of Isaiah 53. Jesus was willing to obey the Father, no matter what the Father’s plan demanded. The flashy, muscular, me-centered Christianity often asserted by the fashionable speakers of our age is quite foreign to the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Incarnation’s Appeal to Humble Assurance (Phil. 2:9–11)

The hymn concludes with a point of great optimism and assurance. The humble life of Jesus would be rewarded. All was not in vain. The hymn declares that Christ …

“humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross. For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, the to glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9–11).

As my preacher friends would say, “That will preach!” The first sentence of the stanza ends with Christ’s death on the cross. The next line begins with Christ’s exuberant victory! While space is unavailable to discuss all the nuances and exhilarating details of this passage, suffice it to say, Christ’s humility led to his glorification through the Father’s promises. Does this mean that we should be humble simply to find a reward in heaven? Certainly not. Humility should come from our acknowledgment of God’s glory and our dependence upon him. However, Christ does promise that “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11). Ultimately, rather than living for an eternal reward, what is called for is faith in God’s promises. It may be that we will not see the fullness of our work until we reach God’s throne. However, if we trust in God’s promises, we know that the blessings he provides us in eternity will far outweigh any temporary afflictions that we may endure. Paul understood this concept, writing, “For our momentary light affliction is producing for us an absolutely incomparable eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17).

Conclusion

This exploration leaves me with a haunting question: If Jesus were to come today, would we recognize him? Would we desire to follow him, particularly with his message, which often contradicts the individualistic, aggrandized, glorification of the self? I am often left to wonder if we have sold the soul of Christianity to create altars for ourselves. To bring a resurgence of authentic Christianity, each of Christ’s followers needs to take time to reflect on the biblical portrayal of Christ. During this Advent season, we have an opportunity to reflect on the life and ministry of Christ. Many churches will hold special services, lighting of the candles, plays, and cantatas. As you participate in these services, allow the Spirit of God to guide you in such a reflection period. Maybe Advent would be a good time to push away social media to spend time with God in his Word. Additionally, consider reading books on the incarnation of Christ. One good resource to consider is Athanasius’s On the Incarnation of the Word of God which can be found online.[1] This Christmas season, stay humble my friends, and keep the faith.

---

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian is a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

© 2021. MoralApologetics.com.

[1] See Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Archibald Robertson, trans (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1892), https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm.

Lord’s Supper Meditation – Reconciled with One Another

A Twilight Musing

Ideally, the meaning of Holy Communion in the Lord’s Supper is that the love of God, as seen through His Son, has obliterated the petty differences of opinion, the long-held grudges, the clashes of temperament which are so often barriers between even well-meaning Christians.  But since we so seldom live up to this ideal, we may be tempted to throw up our hands in despair because we realize how far short we fall of the standard of mutual charity needed for true communion.   However, we must not forget that it is the Feast which sanctifies us, rather than we who sanctify the Feast.

It behooves us, then, to make each Communion a time at which, because we contemplate meaningfully the reconciliation wrought by our Savior Jesus, we determine to allow His Spirit to break down at least one more obstacle which separates us from those with whom we should be one.  Those matters which divide us cannot long exist in the face of a sincere and prayerful desire that the risen Lord reign in all our lives—but first in our own.  What better place to seek out and destroy our sinful animosities, with God’s help, than the table at which God reminds us that our peace is made with Him by the sacrifice of His Son?

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

The Last Place

My cousin Jay is vacationing on Bald Island. “What’s Bald Island like?’ I wonder. “It’s a tiny island off Carolina Beach, N.C. One takes a ferry to the island; no cars are allowed; one gets around by golf cart. Bald Island is a resort village among forests, sandy beaches with sand dunes and oat grass.”

 Jesus broaches with his disciples the subject of the kingdom of God. They’re intrigued.  What’s it like? Knowing their interest, Jesus asks, “What is the kingdom of God like?”  He reveals to them the Kingdom’s singular code and character. Let me share with you this deep code underneath the Kingdom’s character. Is this code integral to your character?

Jesus reveals to his disciples he’s soon to be rejected, tried, killed, and raised. Physically, he will soon be gone from them. They are to take over His ministry in His absence. The deep code of the Kingdom must undergird their character – and your character.

You are the disciple in His place now. He is speaking to you. You are taking over His ministry in this generation. His ministry must become your ministry. The deep code of the Kingdom underneath Jesus’ character must become yours.

Jesus reveals the Kingdom’s deep, underlying code and illustrates it through parables (stories illustrated with everyday objects and situations). He says, “If any want to come after me, let him deny himself and let him take up his cross daily…Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple” (Luke 9: 23)

What does Jesus mean “deny himself”? For short, denying oneself literally means, consider “your life as already finished”.  Do you reckon yourself already dead? In Charles Dickens’ novel, A Christmas Carol, which we will soon be watching, the hum-bug miser Ebenezer Scrooge has his last Christmas Eve vision. He is taken to the cemetery, and there guided to a particular tombstone. He brushes away the snow where he sees his name inscribed. Aghast, he sees himself already dead. Denying yourself is seeing yourself already dead; your selfish self, the self you privilege, the self you please, the self you put first. Consider yourself now dead…gone…departed. Do you? Will you?

 A disciple not only treats him/herself as dead, the disciple also “takes up his cross daily”.  Every Jew and Roman of Jesus’ day knew the Roman cross. Julius Caesar lined a two hundred mile stretch of road with crosses bearing enemy soldiers. Criminals were forced to carry their own crosses:  they bore the wooden patibulum, the cross piece, over their shoulders to the execution site. If Jesus contemporized it, he might say, “Carry your needle and intravenous line to your lethal injection”.  Do you consider yourself dead? Are you carrying your patibulum? Is the code of the Kingdom yours?

Jesus illustrates the code of Kingdom with the “Parable of the Last Place”.  He is in a Pharisee leader’s home for dinner. Jesus notices the invited guests clamor for the seats of honor. Guests semi-recline on couches arranged around the U-shaped tables. At the bottom of the U, is the most honored couch. The middle position of the couch is the most honored place with the person on the left and then the right venerated in descending order. Jesus sees guests scrambling for these choice seats. Have you ever been to a dinner and noticed you are not seated in an honored seat? How did you feel?

In my early ministry, I attended Paul Popenoe’s American Institute of Family Relations conference in Costa Mesa, California. We lunched in a ballroom of round tables. I looked for the table where my favorite speaker was going to sit. I wanted to ‘pick his brain’, so I plopped myself down in an empty seat near his.  Very soon, a woman came over to me and said in the earshot of all at the table, “Sir, I’m sorry but this seat is reserved.” Did I feel small. I slinked off to find any seat I could.

Jesus turns to those seeking select seats and says, “When you are invited to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor. Someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this man’.  In disgrace you will proceed to occupy the last place. But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place.  The host may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all…”

Jesus draws this conclusion: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”  This is His illustration of the deep code of the Kingdom: deny yourself. Therefore, humble yourself and take “the last place”.  Since you consider yourself dead, take the last place! This is the working out of the deep code.

Why does one seek the place of importance anyway? To exalt oneself; to glorify oneself; to try to increase one’s self-importance, honor, fame, position, power or fortune; or to idolize one’s self.  This, the Bible calls “pride”.  It is grasping glory for oneself and veiled striving to be god.  God condemned Lucifer for saying, “I will make myself like the Most High?” (Isaiah 14: 12).  C. S. Lewis said, “It was through pride that the devil became the devil.”

Are you tempted to increase yourself? This is contrary to the Kingdom’s code. Jesus’ disciple seeks the last place. Who likes last place? It’s the pokey, cramped, unwanted, and scorned place…the place of self-denial and cross carrying (humility).  The early church theologian Augustine said, “The way is first humility, second humility, third humility.”  Consider yourself already dead, carry your patibulum, and then take the last place.

In another parable, Jesus further illustrates the Kingdom’s deep code of “denying himself” and taking “up his cross”.  Jesus says when you give a great dinner, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind. They cannot repay you. When we lived in Bristol, England, a couple in our church, the Bucks, gave a Christmas dinner. They had a large, beautiful, eighteenth-century country house. They invited persons without families, persons alone for Christmas, people displaced, or who had sacrificed along the way: a retired missionary; a bachelor, Methodist minister; and American aliens like us.

What do the guests at the parable’s banquet have in common? They are stricken; physically challenged; and radically dependent on others. They are physical allegories, symbols, of disciples who are spiritually destitute and also radically dependent. Disciples recognize their spiritual deficiency in righteousness and absolute dependency for life upon Jesus Christ. These reckon themselves already dead, carry their patibulums to crucifixion, and take the last place.

Tom Thomas

November 2, 2021

All Soul’s Day

---

Tom is currently a retired Elder in the Virginia Annual Conference. He has pastored churches in Virginia, California and England. Studying John Wesley’s theology, he received his Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from the University of Bristol, Bristol, England and his Master of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary. While a student, he and his wife Pam lived in John Wesley’s Chapel “The New Room”, Bristol, England, the first established Methodist preaching house. Tom was a faculty member of Asbury Theological Seminary. He has contributed articles to Methodist History and the Wesleyan Theological Journal. He and his wife have two children, daughter Karissa, who is an attorney in Richmond, Virginia, and, John, who is a recent graduate of Regent University. Being a part of the development of their grandson Beau is a rich reward. Tom enjoys a good book by a crackling fire with an English cup of tea. His life text is, ‘Jesus, confirm my heart’s desire, to work and speak and think for thee’.

The Incarnation's Appeal to Humility

Humility seems to be a lost spiritual discipline these days. If not completely lost, it is not practiced that often. Fast-talking, foul-mouthed, egocentric personalities seem to be elevated to the point of heroic status, possibly because those individuals are representative of those who take little flak from anyone or anything. Arguably, the antihero has risen to the status of the American ideal. But does this represent the nature of the One whose birth we celebrate every December 25th?

From the time of Thanksgiving until Christmas, the church enters the phase of the liturgical calendar called Advent. This is a time of preparation for Christmas when the birth of Christ is celebrated. Much ink has been spilled concerning the correct dating of Jesus’s birth.[1] Are we celebrating the correct date of Jesus’s birth, or should we celebrate in the spring or fall? To be honest, the older I get, the less importance I see in pinning down the exact date of Jesus’s birth, outside of academic interest alone. While theories abound, it may be impossible to know with any degree of certainty what the precise date of Jesus’s birth is.

The more important issue is to take time each year to contemplate the birth of Jesus and what it means for the Christian faith. In AD 335, Athanasius of Alexandria penned one of his most famed and endearing works entitled On the Incarnation of the Word of God. In his work, Athanasius writes, “For He became Man that we might be made God: and He manifested Himself through the body that we might take cognizance of the invisible Father: and He underwent insult at the hands of men that we might inherit immortality.”[2] Athanasius points to the humility of Christ as exhibited by the sacrifice that he would ultimately make.

The most remarkable aspect of Christ’s incarnation is that he left a state of perfect bliss to enjoin himself with humanity. Philippians 2:6–11 is an amazing passage of Scripture. Most likely, it is an early Christian hymn that predates the New Testament writings. The hymn makes the connection of Christ’s humility as exhibited through his incarnation. Before citing the hymn, Paul teaches that believers should “Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5).[3] What can we learn about humility from Christ’s incarnation? I argue that we can learn four spiritual principles from the humility in Christ’s incarnation. The first article will examine the first two, whereas the second will peer into the last set.

The Incarnation’s Appeal to Humble Authority (Phil. 2:6)

The hymn begins by noting that Christ, “who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited” (Phil. 2:6). The term aJpagmo;n (hapagmon), translated “exploited,” indicates something that is not held on to forcibly.”[4] The Moody Bible Commentary, in my opinion, rightly interprets verse 6 as saying that “Jesus does not exploit His equality with God for selfish ends.”[5] Jesus remained God, and his position did not change when he became a human being. Rather, Jesus humbly walked among humanity. Even though he had greater authority than any living human being ever had, or ever would have, Jesus continued to live a humble life. In like manner, believers must walk even more humbly, as we have far less authority than Jesus. Rather than being obsessed with power, authority, or prestige, believers would do well to remember their humble state when compared to the awesome authority of God.

The Incarnation’s Appeal to Humble Assistance (Phil. 2:7)

The hymn continues by noting, “Instead [Christ] emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity” (Phil. 2:7). Throughout his life, Jesus taught, led, and modeled servant leadership. Even though he held more authority than anyone ever could ever imagine, he led by serving. The text says that Christ “emptied himself.” Theories abound on what this means,[6] but all would agree that this is humility personified. Imagine this: The King of kings, who was in the highest court of all time (i.e., the divine council), allowed himself to be born in a dirty, stinky manger.

Compare this to the modern mindset that many hold today. I worked in an environment a few years ago, where the employees had been asked to assist the custodian with his duties, where possible. The custodian had suffered from some heart problems. His doctor had discouraged him from lifting anything heavy, including trash bags, which could weigh well over 20 lbs. To assist him until he could fully recover, leadership requested that we the employees help him by throwing away the trash bags into the trash bin. Most of the employees were more than willing to help the custodian. To assist the custodian, I grabbed a couple of the trash bags and loaded them into the cart so that they could be taken out. At the time that this occurred, I was still working on my bachelor’s degree. One employee looked at me and said, “I have earned a master’s degree. I don’t do things like that anymore!” This startled me. Did the individual take out their own trash? One would think so. Furthermore, does obtaining degrees in higher education remove the need for one to perform menial tasks? Now that I am working on the last phases of my dissertation for my Ph.D. program, I need to talk to somebody, because something has not worked out right for me. After all, I am still required to perform daily tasks like taking out the trash. (In case your sarcasm detector is broken, I am, of course, speaking tongue-in-cheek.)

The employee’s reaction is commonplace in modern society. Many people, myself included, have sought to obtain positions and statuses where others look up to us. I am, quite honestly, startled how social media has brought out our incessant desire to be seen, heard, and appreciated. Being seen, heard, and loved are not necessarily bad things, mind you. Such desires merely illustrate the needs of the human heart. However, the problem comes when these desires overwhelm us and become obsessive, to the point of exhibiting narcissistic traits, where others are cast down at the altar of our own ego. When we become infatuated with the number of likes our posts hold, the number of awards we have, and the standing we have among others, we are not focused on the virtues of Christ. Such actions stand directly opposed to the model that Christ afforded and expects from us.

Conclusion

Thus far, we have learned that Christ’s incarnation emphasized humility in his authority. That is, even though Christ had the highest authority that any could hold, he did not flaunt his authority and neither did he use his authority as a means to boast. Rather, he assumed the role of a lowly servant. By this point alone, we should all stop to consider how counteracts some segments of Western Christianity that appeals to the idea of domination by force. Secondly, we noted how Christ’s incarnation speaks to the need of humble assistance. That is, the believer should not seek to be served, but rather to serve. Already, the incarnation has challenged us to the core regarding humility—or at least it has me. In the next entry, we will investigate how Christ’s acceptance and assurance speaks to our need for humility.

---

[1] I have written on the different possibilities of Jesus’s birth date at BellatorChristi.com. See Brian Chilton, “When and What Time Was Jesus Born,” BellatorChristi.com (12/19/2017), https://bellatorchristi.com/2017/12/19/when-and-what-time-was-jesus-born/.

[2] Athanasius of Alexandria, Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God, 2nd ed, T. Herbert Bindley, trans (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903), 142.

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

[4] 57.236, in Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 583.

[5] Gerald W. Peterman, “Philippians,” in The Moody Bible Commentary, Michael A. Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham, eds (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1861.

[6] Three theories provide a possible interpretation. 1) The kenotic theory holds that Christ emptied himself of his divine attributes while on earth. 2) The incarnation view asserts that Christ merely emptied his nature into humanity by assuming the form of a servant. 3) The Servant of the Lord portrait views the term “emptying” as a metaphor of the Servant of the Lord motif in Isaiah 53. As Hansen notes, the Philippians hymn could provide an interpretation that holds some elements of all three. Walter G. Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2009), 146.

---

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian is a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

© 2021. MoralApologetics.com.

Lord’s Supper Meditation - Recognizing Jesus

A Twilight Musing

Luke tells the story of Jesus’ appearance after His resurrection to two disciples on the way to Emmaus.  It is instructive to note the successive stages of their understanding and recognition of Jesus, which culminated when He “took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.  And their eyes were opened and they recognized him” (Luke 24:30-31).  When Jesus first began to walk with them, they related to Him the events of the past few days, but without understanding.  They had seen that Jesus was a great prophet and the potential redeemer of Israel, but they were puzzled by His seemingly ignoble death and even by the news of His resurrection.  They had been impressed by the life of Christ, but they did not understand His mission or His relationship to God’s purposes.  So Jesus “interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (v. 27). 

Even then, however, they did not recognize the risen Jesus before them, for mere intellectual comprehension of the Scriptures does not guarantee that one is acquainted with Jesus personally.   It was the burning of their hearts within them (v. 32) as they listened to the Scriptures that moved them to invite Jesus into their home to sup with them.  (We are reminded of Jesus’ words in Rev. 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”)  These two disciples from Emmaus would never have recognized Jesus had He not come into their house and revealed Himself through the breaking of the bread.  The principle of knowing and appreciating Jesus is clear: it does not come through seeing Him as an unusual man, or through mastery of the Scriptures only (although that is a necessary step), but through the intimacy of breaking bread with an invited guest.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

5 Reasons Every Apologist Should Be Confident and Grateful

I want to tell you a bit of my personal story about how and why I became interested in apologetics. The year was 1988. I was in my first year of undergraduate studies, and it was my first day in the Philosophy 101 class at the community college I attended. I arrived at class early, sat near the front as was my custom, and waited for the professor to arrive. The class was full, about twenty-five students. I was 18 years old and serving as a youth minister, having already been preaching since I was fourteen. I was confident in my faith and had, until that time, not really faced any substantive challenges or obstacles related to Christian teaching or practice. Honestly, I had only heard of apologetics in passing, and philosophy was not something I had ever studies. I was only in the class because it was a general education requirement for my degree plan. So, there I sat on day one of the class, not really knowing what to expect and certainly not prepared for what was about to happen. The professor entered the room, and everyone quieted down as he walked to the board. Without any greeting, he took a piece of chalk and began writing. He wrote the following sentence on the board: The Bible is full of errors. After he finished writing, the professor turned, leaned over his desk and toward all of us and said, “If you are here and you disagree with this statement, I will show you this semester why you are wrong. Does anyone want to challenge me?” I sat in stunned silence along with the rest of the students, and then someone in the back of the room spoke out sheepishly in response to the professor. “The Bible is God’s Word and I believe it. You are wrong, professor.” More silence followed as the professor looked at the student with something of an incredulous smirk on his face. Finally, he replied to the student. “Is that all you can say? Really? I am a convinced atheist, and your response only confirms why I should be one. Christianity is nothing but a pack of lies.”

The student said nothing. The professor then rattled off a litany of reasons he “knew” the Bible was wrong. There are contradictions. We do not have the original writings. The message changed to meet political and social needs. Jesus was a myth. There was no God because evolution had disproven his existence. On and on he went, and with each statement I felt something I had never felt before. With each of the professor’s statements I felt a heaviness settling on my mind and heart. By the time the professors stopped speaking, it was like a dark cloud hung over the room, and I seemed to be sitting all alone in the darkness. My heart was racing. My throat was dry. My emotions were a mixed bag of anger and frustration. My mind froze for a moment, and then a thought formed as I sat there. A question. “What,” I thought, “if he is right? What if the Bible really is full of errors? What if my Christianity is false?” The questions reverberated in my whole being, and with each reverberation I slipped deeper and deeper into what seemed an abyss of helplessness and doubt. By the time the class ended I had an overwhelming sense of paralysis in my mind. By the end of the day, I was in full-on depression that only got worse with time. I was in trouble, and I knew it, but I did not know what to do about it. Over the next weeks every class with the professor only made my situation worse, and by the end of the term I was in full-blown crisis mode. My whole life seemed in jeopardy, and I began going to very dark and desperate places in my mind. I dreaded being alone with my thoughts, and I eventually began to contemplate suicide. I wanted to die rather than live with this doubt about what I had—at least until that class began—considered the most central thing in all of mine and anyone else’s life. My faith was crumbling, and I was unsure what to do, nor was I certain that anything could be done.

One Saturday afternoon in early summer, still reeling from the class with the hostile professor, I drove to a remote location near a local lake. I sat in my car, gripping the steering wheel, and shaking. I said nothing for a moment until I could bear it no longer. Then I yelled out, “God, if you will not stop this struggle in my mind, I am going to kill myself! Please, help me! That was it. I sat there a bit longer, then drove home with the same burden and depression. Another week went by, and I had found no relief. Then, in a conversation with one of the men I knew in a local church, I received a life-changing question. I was not lamenting my situation to the other man, as I had already concluded it was hopeless. I was still thinking of suicide, and I was becoming more deeply depressed by the day. I had lost interest in my regular activities. No joy in leading the youth group. No desire to read the Bible or pray. No motivation to preach or evangelize. Nothing but crippling doubt. Yet here I was in this conversation and the man asked me, “Have you ever heard of apologetics? I ask because I found a really informative book on it, and I thought you might be interested.” My mind raced again, though this time there was something odd about the feeling. It was as though the question from the man opened a door slightly and a light began to creep into the room of my soul. I could not explain it at the time, but it was something I had not felt in a long while. I took the bait of the question and responded, “Never heard of it. What is apologetics?” Looking at me with a rather stunned expression, he said, “Well, apologetics is the defense of the faith. You know, things like giving answers to challenges to God’s existence and the Bible…stuff like that.” I sat there not knowing what to say next, and it must have been obvious to the man to whom I was talking. After an awkward pause, he said, “Here. Read this. It’s all about those things.” He handed me a book entitled Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

At first, I just sat there in silence with what I suspect was a confused look on my face. Eventually, I accepted the book with a meager expression of thanks and the conversation ended. I took the book home and began to read…and read…and read. The book answered every question the professor raised and dozens more, and every answer resounded with evidence from history and science and…philosophy. To my amazement, the book included philosophical reasoning to answer the challenges I received from my atheist philosophy professor. As they say, “the rest of the story” is that I read the book from cover to cover, and then again, and again. By the time I made my way through the material McDowell presented I had a visceral sense of two things: my faith was defensible, and my hope was returning. Fast forward to today, and I have since spent thousands of hours studying apologetics and challenges to the Christian faith. What started as a catastrophe of faith became a triumph. Obviously, I did not kill myself. In fact, apologetics is something that—then and now—has become a source of experiencing a deep and abiding life as a Christian. Apologetics made the difference. I want to say that again. Apologetics made the difference.

Thus, as I write this today over 30 years later, I thought it apropos to share with you what I believe are five reasons every apologist should be confident and grateful. My list is certainly not exhaustive, nor is it intended as an apologetic argument for any of the five topics. It is, however, a call to persevering gratitude for all of us who have struggled, are struggling, or will struggle with the challenges posed by an unrelenting attack on Christian truth by secular culture and Satan. My hope is that you will consider these five reasons and find a cause for joyful doxology as you remind yourself that there is much to be confident of and to give God praise for in your Christian faith. To that end, I urge you to be thankful, defender!

1. Be Thankful for a Reasonable Faith: The Christian faith is not one of blind, irrational leaps into believing without evidence. Rather, the Christian faith stands firm on robust experience based on rational thought and defensible claims. Faith and reason give us wings to fly to the bulwark of truth found in the Gospel. Be thankful, defender! Ours is a reasonable faith.

2. Be Thankful for Natural Theology: God gave us two books, one in nature and one in Scripture. We may be ‘Bible Ultimately’ people, but we enjoy an abundance of revelation in the world around us and the image of God within us. Natural theology is a veritable bounty of pointers to the one true God’s existence, and it is ours to enjoy as the heavens declare the glory of God. Be thankful defender! Nature is on our side.

3. Be Thankful for a Trustworthy Bible: Contrary to my professor’s claims, the Bible is not full of contradictions and errors. There is not a single instance—not one—where criticisms of the Bible stand up to scrutiny and careful investigation. God’s word is settled in the heavens and defensible on earth. Be thankful, defender! Ours is a trustworthy Bible.

4. Be Thankful for Resurrection Evidence: Countless critics attack Christianity at its very heart, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet, the evidence is resounding from the echo of the empty tomb to the eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus to the transformed lives of James, Paul, and countless others. We do not just make the claim Jesus rose from the dead; we can defend it with ample evidence. Be thankful, defender! Jesus rose from the dead.

5. Be Thankful for Your Fellow Apologists: What would have become of my life without Josh McDowell and the countless other apologists before him and since who have labored to give a reason charitably and articulately for the hope that is in them? No Christian ever needs feel left alone in the battle for faith. We truly stand on the shoulders of those giants of Christian apologetics who have gone before us, and the fruits of their labors are ours to learn and deploy. Be thankful, defender! The apologetic army of the ages is strong.

Stand firm, brothers and sisters, and always be grateful and confident in the faith once delivered.

About the Author

Dr. Thomas J. Gentry (aka., TJ Gentry) serves as the pastor of First Christian Church of West Frankfort, Illinois, the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com, and Executive VP of Bellator Christi Ministries. Dr. Gentry is a world-class scholar holding 5 doctorate degrees and 6 masters degrees. Additionally, he is a prolific writer as he has published 7 books including Pulpit Apologist, Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord, and You Shall Be My Witnesses: Reflections on Sharing the Gospel. Be on the lookout for two additional books that he will soon publish. In addition to his impressive resume, Dr. Gentry proudly served his country as an officer in the United States Army and serves as a martial arts instructor.

https://www.amazon.com/Pulpit-Apologist-between-Preaching-Apologetics/dp/1532695047/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=pulpit+apologist&qid=1632093760&sr=8-3

Diving Deeper

T. J. Gentry, “Progressing Toward Destruction,” BellatorChristi.com (10/11/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/10/11/progressing-toward-destruction/

Brian Chilton and Curtis Evelo, Interview with T. J. Gentry, PhD, DMin, “SIS S1 E6 Pulpit Apologist,” BellatorChristi.com (8/1/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/08/01/sis-s1-e6-pulpit-apologist-w-dr-thomas-j-gentry/

Copyright, 2021. BellatorChristi.com.

Communion Meditation – The Reality of Jesus, Then and Now

A Twilight Musing

We are often made to feel that we lack real contact with God because Christ, the only abridge between God and man, no longer walks the earth.  We envy His disciples who heard His words and knew Him personally.  We may think, “Nearly two thousand years separate us from the man who was supposed to be God’s Son.”  We may even cry, “How can we truly see him as a mediator, one who knows our ills and to whom we can speak?”   

But we must in justice note that not all who saw Him and walked with Him truly felt His presence.  Most of the Jews, missing His spiritual meaning, were disgusted at His suggestion that they would find His flesh food indeed, and most of the multitudes were more concerned with filling their bellies than strengthening their souls.  Those who were most benefited by being with Him were often puzzled rather than uplifted by His physical actions.  His power lay in that part of Him which is not bounded by space and time, and that manifestation of Jesus is as much with us now as it was with the disciples of the first century. 

Thus, when we partake together of the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper, we are recognizing by a physical action the spiritual truth that Christ is accessible to people of all times, and that we benefit from His having taken the form of a man just as surely and effectively as did those who saw Him in the flesh.  We must remember that, just as they had to see past His physical lowliness to the Truth He represented, we must see beyond the commonness of bread and wine to the timeless Christ Who has supped, and still sups, with all His brothers and sisters.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

According to His Righteousness

I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness. (Psalm 7:17a)

Have you ever found it difficult to stay focused during a worship service? You should be singing, or agreeing in prayer, or preparing to commune, but all you seem to notice is everything happening around you.

Rather than the words of the song, you notice the voice of the person next to you, or across the sanctuary. They are loud or off-key and you are distracted. Rather than joining your heart to the prayer offered by another, you find yourself counting how many times they say “um” or “just” or some other word or phrase. They appear to stumble through a prayer, and you are distracted. Rather than giving yourself wholly to the moment of communion as you receive the bread and cup, your thoughts turn to how so-and-so sitting in front of you is moving around. They fidget, and you are distracted.

All this opportunity for worship – the singing, the prayer, the communion - and there you are out of focus and out of sorts.

This happens. To all of us. Maybe more than we want to admit.

Yet, on the one hand this is part of worship in an imperfect setting, part of worship this side of heaven. So, a certain amount of distraction is to be expected, even embraced as a reminder that we aren’t in heaven yet.

However, there is something we can do to help with what we find distracting during worship. I don’t mean go across the sanctuary and tell the loud and off-key singer to quiet down. I don’t mean pull aside the one praying with “ums” and “justs” and instruct them in proper address to the Almighty, and I certainly don’t mean grab the shoulder of the person in front of you who struggles to sit still during communion.

What we need to do to overcome distractions is remember that the focus of our worship is on God and His righteousness. There are plenty of times in Scripture when the Lord decides to correct worshipers, and unless He is showing up in your service to correct the singing and praying and communion follies, then perhaps your best approach is to simply ask Him to help you get your eyes off the imperfect around you (and in you) so that you can look to Him and praise Him for who He is.

Sounds simple enough, and you may be tempted to doubt if it works.

It does. I promise.

As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that someone has asked God to help them get their eyes off you during a worship service so that they can better focus on Him. They see you wince over the singing you don’t like. They notice your change in position when the prayer falls into repetitious words. They see you fidget with frustration when someone around you can’t sit still during communion. The same thing they ask of God when they see you and are distracted by you is what we should all ask of Him.

Lord, will you kindly help us praise You according to Your righteousness?

---

T. J. Gentry is the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com, the Senior Minister at First Christian Church of West Frankfort, IL, and the Co-founder of Good Reasons Apologetics. T. J. has been in Christian ministry since 1984, having served as an itinerant evangelist, youth minister, church planter, pastoral counselor, and Army chaplain. He is the author of numerous books and peer-reviewed articles, including Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics (Wipf and Stock, 2020), You Shall Be My Witnesses: Reflections on Sharing the Gospel (Illative House, 2018), and two forthcoming works published by Moral Apologetics Press: Leaving Calvinism, Finding Grace, and A Moral Way: Aquinas and the Good God. T. J. is a Clinical Pastoral Education Supervisor, holding board-certification as a Pastoral Counselor and a Chaplain. He is a graduate of Southern Illinois University (BA in Political Science), Luther Rice College and Seminary (MA in Apologetics), Holy Apostles College and Seminary (MA in Philosophy), Liberty University (MAR in Church Ministries, MDiv in Chaplaincy, ThM in Theology), Carolina University (DMin in Pastoral Counseling, PhD in Leadership, PhD in Biblical Studies), and the United States Army Chaplain School (Basic and Advanced Courses). He is currently completing his PhD in Theology at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (2021), his PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (2022), and his PhD in Philosophy of Religion at Southern Evangelical Seminary (2024). T. J. married Amy in 1995, and they are blessed with three daughters and two sons. T. J.’s writing and other projects may be viewed at TJGentry.com.

In His Image: How Man is Designed to Legislate Morality

In The Bible, God creates man in His image. I set out below to show a tiny overview of a far more complicated and amazing collection of working parts in man that show that God designed man not just in His physical image, but in the way we are designed to do things similar to what God has done: Legislate Morality. 

Speaking of Man

It is often stated in varying degrees that man is extremely similar to monkeys, and that he is just a primate that learned to talk through a series of accidental, beneficial mutations that occurred to better ensure his survival. So how does the language of man compare to the sounds of animals? 

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute (1), a human being is 96% similar to a chimpanzee. Some say this is evidence of a recent evolutionary link between the two very distinct species. It also turns out humans are 90% similar to a cat, 85% similar to a mouse, 80% similar to a cow, and 61% similar to a fruit fly. Your DNA is also said to be 60% identical to both a chicken and a banana. That said, DNA research continues to throw these numbers farther apart with every new discovery of the layers of information contained within each of your cells, but that’s a topic for another day. 

If we just look at what is around us, we can see what the codes of that DNA bring about; people, cows, fruit flies, monkeys, bananas and all the other living things on this planet. Humans aren’t as good as monkeys at climbing trees. They both eat bananas, which now seems strange if we are actually 60% like bananas. 

But monkeys don’t talk. They simply lack the physical design in their throats, mouths, lips and jaws (think hardware) and far more importantly they lack the dedicated areas of the brain (think software) to comprehend oral communication. Depending on the desired sound, there are as many as 100 muscles used by a human in order to make the precise sounds of the tens of thousands of words in the English language. There are animals with a variety of chirps, squeeks, grunts or howls, but nothing even remotely close to the complexity and order we find in any one of the many human languages. 

Monkeys are an entertaining animal, and clearly have non-verbal forms of communication, but it seems clear that monkeys were not designed to communicate with words. Monkeys will never be able to describe how they feel, or say how their banana tastes. They can’t say thank you and they can’t say I’m sorry. Monkeys will never converse with one another about how the DNA of humans is 60% similar to bananas and chickens. 

No other living kind can communicate information the way humans do. A few animals may mimic the sound that humans make, but they can’t understand why the sounds are significant. Animals can certainly sense fear and react to it, but they cannot tell another creature how the fear makes them feel, or tell another about their day, or where they are from. Animals can be a part of a story, but they can never tell the story.  

Man is designed in such a vastly different way than any other creature to use the fine motor skills of his mouth, and the circuitry of his brain to be able to speak and comprehend speech. Without speech, so much human achievement would have been impossible. And yet, the animals go on without the mutations proposed to be of our benefit. They continue to chirp and grunt and live and go on about their lives unchanged for thousands of generations. They don’t seem bothered by their inability to speak in terms of their ability to survive, as would seem to be the point of evolving the ability in the first place. 

There is no denying that man seems intentionally designed to speak, especially when compared to all other living creatures. The Genesis account of creation begins with God speaking creation into existence. Jesus is referred to as “the Word” in the book of John. Without speech, we would not be able to ask the questions, where did we come from, or, why are we here? Without speech we would not be able to communicate our ideas of right and wrong. We could never tell someone they must not do this, or they must do that. 

Hands on Purpose 

When I was a new recruit at the police academy 20 years ago, there were a number of things that the instructors drilled into our heads, everything from how to shine your shoes to how to shoot a gun. One of the most often repeated things I heard, and continue to preach to officers, is that you have to watch peoples’ hands. The hands are what will kill you. 

There are lots of ways for a man to kill another man, but the vast majority require the hands. The hands can strangle and punch. The hands are what throws the spear, swings the sword, pulls the trigger or pushes the button. 

The other thing they taught us about hands in the academy is that we officers should always have our hands out of our pockets. If you were seen with your hands in your uniform pockets by a drill instructor, get ready for problems. This was their way of getting it through to us that our hands were our defense. We had to be ready to react with our hands at any moment to whatever may be thrown at us. I have threatened to sew pockets of officers’ uniforms shut for fear of them not being prepared to react to the random human outburst, often aimed more at the uniform than the individual officer. 

Man’s hands aren’t just dangerous though. Man’s hands are the only hands of all the creatures that are so finely tuned to provide enough strength and dexterity that a person can go from climbing a mountain to swinging a bat to writing a letter to playing a piano without issue. Man’s hands have created the incalculable amount of art that has existed in history. Hands are the primary instrument in expressing design and imagination, using tools small and large, and putting the intricate finishing touches on a creation. 

No animal comes close to the potential of man and his hands, especially when combined with his intelligence and imagination. Animals continue to live on, seeming not to need the capabilities we possess with our hands, and instead relying on instinct rather than imagination and finely tuned hands. From the beginning, the hands of a human seem important. A fetus at 10 weeks is only 2 ½ inches long, but already has fully identifiable hands formed(1).  

 The hands of man, while capable of being used to commit terrible atrocities, are the same hands used to perform the most complex surgeries imaginable to save other human lives. Human hands are used for eating, greeting, expressing thoughts, writing, sensuality and for prayer. And when speech doesn’t come to a person, our hands are capable of  speaking (sign) and reading (braille). Hands are used to feed infants their first solid food. Hands can be used by a father learning to braid his daughter’s hair, or a mother teaching her son to tie his shoes. 

 Man also uses his hands quite frequently to write important things down, especially things like history and laws. No animal has written a history of their kind from creation to present. No animal has compiled so much as a sentence about the right and wrong ways to conduct themselves. The law of the jungle is not   

Legislating Morality 

In criticizing Christianity, many point to the idea of how unjust the world is as clear evidence that there cannot be a good God. It is initially hard to argue against this idea when you consider the horrible ways people treat one another on a daily basis around the world. How do we deal with this undeniable evil? 

In the recorded history of man, laws of one sort or another have been a staple of every civilization. In a very summarizing statement, a law is supposed to bring about order and establish standards of behaviors. This is not a uniquely Judeo-Christian philosophy. Every society has laws that govern the behavior of its people in their conduct toward one another. It is a fundamental purpose of governments, as even the bible notes.1 

One thing I often hear is that we should not try to “legislate morality.” We should let others do as they please, as long as no one gets hurt. My response is that all laws legislate morality. That is the purpose of laws in the first place. If people were inherently moral, we would not need to legislate any laws. But people are not inherently moral. While people are quick to point out their relatively good behavior compared to their neighbor or Hitler, it is not often they compare their behavior to Mother Teresa or God Himself. 

Every statute in our criminal code legislates morality. Laws against violence, rape and murder exist because people recognize that man has inherent value, and should be protected. That is a moral position. Laws against white collar crime and fraud exist because stealing from others is agreed upon to be morally wrong. Laws concerning drug, food and water safety exist to protect people because we value people. That is a moral position. Stop signs legislate morality. If none existed, do you think anyone would stop out of pure courtesy to their neighbor as they are running late for work, with no potential traffic ticket to worry about? If you follow any law back to its source, you will eventually find a moral position that grounds it. 

The moral basis for laws are a reflection of the value man sees in other men. These laws have many similarities to natural laws in that if you break them, bad things happen. If you try to defy gravity, you will likely crash to the ground. If you defy a stop sign, you will likely crash into a car.

If the Bible is true, we are all the sons and daughters of the God Who spoke the laws of nature and of man into being. Man is given dominion to act in a way that reflects God’s value for the life He originally spoke into existence. 

There is no other creature aside from man that possesses the hardware or software to speak the way we speak, to read the way we read or the fine motor skills we have in our hands that allow us to write complex symbols that express ideas to others. Without the ability to speak, read and write, humanity would be unable to collectively have a history, and as importantly, to have a law that came about as a result of that understanding of history. 

Simply being able to speak, or even to read and write, would not get us to a point where we speak and write about right and wrongs. We have also been given a sense of right and wrong from the same Creator Who created us in His image. The animal kingdom has it’s laws, but they are not written down or even spoken. They are just instinct. 

The God of the Bible is the original Lawgiver, and we are the Lawgiver’s law givers, acting out our instinct, with the use of our completely unique abilities to speak, read and write, to legislate morality in defense of creation and our fellow image bearers.

---

Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor's degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics. Tony has been married for 9 years and has two sons. He and his family currently reside in Southern Illinois. 

Meditation on the Lord's Supper: God’s Insurance Policy

A Twilight Musing

What would you think if an insurance agent came to your home and offered you a policy that covers not only the mishaps that might come to you in the future, but all of the misfortunes and mistakes from which you have suffered in the past?  And what if, moreover, the expense and risk of this dream policy were to be borne, not by you, for whom it is written, but by the company that issues it?  You would say, of course, "What's the catch?  What do I have to do?"  Then the agent says, "You only have to agree to accept the policy as a gift, and never to say or pretend that you have received it because you deserve it; and also to commit yourself to telling others about it."

Jesus referred in His institution of the Lord's Supper to the "covenant" sealed by His blood.  This covenant is somewhat like the unbelievable insurance policy described above, in that, like all of God's covenants, it depends on what He has done, not on what we have done. We have no bragging rights when we accept it, only thanking rights.  But accepting the covenant sealed by Jesus' blood is a much more intimate arrangement than signing that fantasy insurance policy.  It is more like the marriage of Hosea to his undeserving wife, for God Himself has plucked us from the miry clay of sin and set our feet on the rock of His assurance that He will cover all past and future harms that may come to us.  

Of course, that places some responsibilities on us, not by way of payment, but by way of gratitude.  How can we live in the light of His salvation except by letting the brightness of His generosity shine in us, and by telling others of the wonders of God's covenant of grace?  As we take these symbols of Jesus' sacrifice and covenant, let us remember that He has made us his Body in the world, so that we can be the proclaimers of His Perfect Insurance Policy, written in blood.   

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

I am Samson (Judges 14)

Samson. Aaah, Samson.

In Judges 14 he comes off the page to me as a larger-than-life contradiction. Read it. I suspect you’ll see it too.

Samson is a true enigma. A man used by God who also appears to use God. At least that’s what it looks like to me. His details in this chapter baffle me, starting with telling his parents to "get her for me" when he decides he wants a wife from the Philistines. Then the tearing apart of the lion, the eating of the honey, the posing of the riddle, the manipulative tears of his wife, the killing of 30 men, and finally Samson gives his wife to his best man. Again, Samson baffles me. 

But then I have to ask why he baffles me. Why do I struggle with Samson?

Is it his insistence on what he wants, even when it is driven by what appears to be a simple lust of the eyes? But I am just like him sometimes. I see with my eyes only, then expect those around me to give me what I want. I am Samson.

Maybe it is the way that God's purposes are working out in Samson, even though the details of his life leave me wondering at times if he even knows God? Then I hear the echo of my own life in that very description...God working through me though sometimes my life does anything but point to Him. I am Samson.

Perhaps my struggle with Samson is the way the power of God flows to and through him even when his choices cause others to suffer? He can't keep his secret from his wife, so 30 men die as a consequence. Yet, I think of the times I preach or teach or counsel--God working through me in each instance. Then I go home and have no patience with my family. I yell at my wife. I justify my selfishness as a matter of collateral damage in service to Jesus. Others suffer as God uses me. I am Samson.

Yes, I am Samson. At least sometimes I am Samson. The funny thing is that the longer I live the more I realize that I can be Samson...I have been Samson...I am Samson, and even still I want to be someone else. I want to be more like Jesus and less like Samson, and that's a good thing. Perhaps a bit simplistic or naive, but still a good thing. Actually, what is good about it is that I see myself in Samson, but I also see God in Samson.

To be sure, Samson's foibles and frailties are his own...his contradictions are his and nobody else's, but those moments of wisdom and power and justice...those are God's. Samson shows me God through his brokenness, and I am grateful. I see the same thing happening in my life. I am Samson.

---

T. J. Gentry is the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com, the Senior Minister at First Christian Church of West Frankfort, IL, and the Co-founder of Good Reasons Apologetics. T. J. has been in Christian ministry since 1984, having served as an itinerant evangelist, youth minister, church planter, pastoral counselor, and Army chaplain. He is the author of numerous books and peer-reviewed articles, including Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics (Wipf and Stock, 2020), You Shall Be My Witnesses: Reflections on Sharing the Gospel (Illative House, 2018), and two forthcoming works published by Moral Apologetics Press: Leaving Calvinism, Finding Grace, and A Moral Way: Aquinas and the Good God. T. J. is a Clinical Pastoral Education Supervisor, holding board-certification as a Pastoral Counselor and a Chaplain. He is a graduate of Southern Illinois University (BA in Political Science), Luther Rice College and Seminary (MA in Apologetics), Holy Apostles College and Seminary (MA in Philosophy), Liberty University (MAR in Church Ministries, MDiv in Chaplaincy, ThM in Theology), Carolina University (DMin in Pastoral Counseling, PhD in Leadership, PhD in Biblical Studies), and the United States Army Chaplain School (Basic and Advanced Courses). He is currently completing his PhD in Theology at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (2021), his PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (2022), and his PhD in Philosophy of Religion at Southern Evangelical Seminary (2024). T. J. married Amy in 1995, and they are blessed with three daughters and two sons. T. J.’s writing and other projects may be viewed at TJGentry.com.

Lord’s Supper Meditation: Outside the Camp with Jesus (Heb. 13:11-15)

A Twilight Musing

The contrast of covenants in this passage highlights the fact that the sacrifices of atonement in the Old Covenant were only of intermediary value (“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins,” Heb. 10:4).  However, the Perfect Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus is a unifying completion of the sacrifices on the annual Day of Atonement under the Old Law.  Lev. 16 describes that whole ceremony, which required three unblemished animals, a bull and two male goats. The bull and one of the goats were to be slaughtered as sin offerings, and their blood sprinkled on the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies and on the altar in the tabernacle courtyard.  After all of this purification of the people and the tabernacle, the high priest was to put his hands on the head of the remaining goat and symbolically transfer the sins of the people to it, and it was to be released in the wilderness as a “scapegoat.”  Rounding off these sacrifices, the remains of the slain bull and goat were to be taken into the wilderness “outside the camp” and burned completely.   

It is this latter element of the ceremony of atonement that is referred to in regard to Jesus’ sacrifice: "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood” (v. 12).  In the Old Testament, there was a separation between the atoning blood of the sacrificial animal and its body, with only the blood being used within the tabernacle and the body being taken outside the camp to be burned.  In the Perfect Atonement by Jesus, He was both the high priest and the sacrificial lamb being offered, and there was no need of a multiplicity of beasts, nor a split between the sacramental blood in the Holy Place and the burning of the carcass outside the camp.  It is significant that the Perfect Atonement was not carried out in the Holy of Holies in the temple, but outside Jerusalem altogether, in a place meant for shame, but transformed by the death of Jesus into a symbol of glorious redemptive suffering.

If we are to share and participate in this Perfect Redemptive Suffering, the Hebrews writer goes on, “Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore."  Although we may be reminded of the shame Jesus bore, how often are we moved to think of our obligation to share in his disgrace?   If we remember His sacrifice truly, we go beyond a neat ceremony worked into the context of a respectable worship service.  We express a willingness to step over the line of mere convention and expose ourselves to the contempt of the world, as Jesus did, and we reaffirm that this world is not our home.   Moreover, if we truly identify with Jesus as we partake, we determine to be so dedicated to doing God's will that we are willing go against the grain of the everyday world that we live in.  As we now partake, let us commit ourselves to sharing His shame, if necessary, so that we may also share His glory. 

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

Empathy and the Sermon on the Mount: The Foundation for Christian Ethics

When a popular American pastor was asked whether he wanted a candidate that embodied the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, the pastor said that he didn’t, but rather desired one who was a strong, mean, individual. In stark contrast to the modern American pastor’s political rant, I recently discovered something quite fascinating concerning the early church and the Sermon on the Mount. Rather than eschewing the principles of the Sermon on the Mount as the unnamed pastor did, the early church used the Sermon on the Mount as something comparable to a catechism. Joachim Jeremias contends that the Sermon on the Mount was intended to show “young Christians, who have not only heard the message of Jesus Christ but also opened their hearts to it, what manner of life they should lead in the future.”[1] If Jeremias is correct, then we as modern Christians have truly missed the mark on what it means to be a Jesus-follower if we toss aside the principles found in one of Jesus’s greatest messages.

The Sermon on the Mount encapsulates Jesus’s ethical system. There is a debate over whether the recorded sermon is one long summary of Jesus’s message given in one place at one time, a series of sermon summaries given over a period of time in the same location—comparable to an intensive or a series of messages given in a revival, or if it was a series of sermon summaries collected together to provide a didactic to teach Jesus’s ethical system.[2] Regardless, what is of utmost importance is the understanding that Jesus provides a summary of his ethical system.

In a previous article published at MoralApologetics.com, I argued for the importance of empathy. As was noted in the article “No, Wormwood, Empathy is Not a Sin,” empathy is understood as “sharing in … another’s emotional experience.”[3] It is quite fascinating to consider, as I have found in my studies on the Sermon on the Mount, is that empathy an important element of Jesus’s ethical system, particularly regarding a believer’s treatment of other people. Consider the following examples.

Empathy Relates to the Response of Persecution

Often, people will respond negatively to God when they encounter persecution for doing something right. No one likes to be falsely accused. We don’t imagine people holding up their hands to say, “Lie about me! Say something bad about the good things I do!” Such actions would be viewed as abnormal, to say the least. However, Jesus said in the Beatitudes that his children are blessed when “people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you” (Matt. 5:11).[4] If that isn’t shocking enough, Jesus goes on to say something that goes against the grain of human nature. He tells his disciples to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves to be the sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:44).

One may ask, what does empathy have to do with this commandment. Well, when one digs deeper into the text, one finds that Jesus is teaching an already-not-yet kingdom in relation to Isaiah 61. In Isaiah 61, the prophet describes a messianic kingdom full of bliss and glory. Those places that were in ruins will be rebuilt (Isa. 61:4) and the people of God will be known among the nations (Isa. 61:9). Because of one’s faith in God and his future work, the believer should take pity on those who are outside the kingdom. Jesus seems to be suggesting that the kingdom will turn things around when it is brought to its full end. As such, those who are outside the kingdom will not experience such blessings. Thus, the child of God should desire to see people come to faith and join in on the joy and bliss of God’s kingdom. If a person does not have empathy, then one will not care who comes to the kingdom and who does not.[5] Therefore, empathy leads one to focus on God’s kingdom and seeing souls saved rather than mere individual preferences.

Empathy Relates to the Problems with Lust

Jesus indicates that sin is not only a matter of action, but it originates with one’s thoughts which flows from one’s soul. Later in the Sermon, Jesus contends that the heart—that is the totality of a person—drives one’s passions and desires. Jesus said that if a person is materialistic, then they person will be driven to own the most things. Jesus instructs believers to seek the kingdom of God first, because “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21).

When it comes to sexual relationships, Jesus first identities the commandment against adultery. But then he says that “everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 6:28). The problem with lust is that the practice objectifies the individual. Roger Scruton contends that sexual fantasy devalues individuals. He notes that the “sexual world of the fantasist is a world without subjects, in which others appear as objects only.”[6] He goes on to call such practices “psychic rape.”[7] In the first-century, women were greatly devalued. However, Jesus elevated their status to the level God held for them—individuals made in the imagio dei. Women were people to be loved, not things to be objectified. The problem with lust, therefore, is a problem of empathy. The luster objectifies the lustee and does not see the person as a person.

Empathy Relates to the Problems with Anger

Similar to the issue with lust, anger and bitterness also warps one’s empathetic ethic. Jesus teaches that “everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell” (Matt. 5:22). Jesus then teaches that a person should seek to work through any difficulties with his brother or sister before presenting one’s gift at the altar of God (Matt. 5:23–24). Douglas Groothuis rightly notes that Jesus does not intend to claim that it is never okay to get angry, but rather illustrates the dangers of “revenge, viciousness,” and, I would add, bitterness.[8] Philosopher Michael Martin deduces that “Jesus’ emphasis on controlling one’s thoughts, emotions, and desires has been de-emphasized and in many cases nearly eliminated from modern discussions of Christian ethics.”[9]

As it relates to empathy, unresolved anger and bitterness leads to the same objectification of a person as does the problem of lust. In such cases, the object of one’s anger loses one’s personhood and merely becomes an entity to be despised. The person doing the hating may even reach a point that the hated person becomes the reason behind all of the person’s woes. History has shown the tragic ends when such hate is allowed to grow and fester. Nazi Germany viewed the Jews as things rather than people, as did Pol Pot’s regime with the Cambodian killing fields, and so on. In contrast, empathy allows an individual to see the person underneath the spite and hate. When adopting Jesus’s ethical system, the believer begins to see the person as one made in God’s image.

Conclusion

Empathy is deeply ingrained in Jesus’s ethical system. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, human value is elevated to its highest level. A person is challenged to see others through the lens of God’s goodness, virtue, and love. Perhaps the reason why the Sermon on the Mount is bypassed by many, such as the pastor previously mentioned, is that Jesus challenges our ethical system to the core. He charges that our primary allegiance should be to a good God and to his benevolent kingdom. When we allow ourselves to see others through this divine lens, then empathy naturally, or rather supernaturally, flows. Perhaps the key to revival is not found in strategies and methodologies, but rather a return to the catechism used by the earliest church—the Sermon on the Mount.

---

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and is in the Master of Arts in Philosophy program at Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

© 2021. MoralApologetics.com.

---

[1] Joachim Jeremias, Jesus and the Message of the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1963, 2002), 29.

[2] Personally, I hold that the Matthean and Lukan presentations of the sermon consist of summaries from a series of messages that Jesus gave on the hillside. Thus, the second option is most preferable for me. Nonetheless, I must digress. I will dig into this topic in deeper detail in my forthcoming dissertation.

[3] Brian G. Chilton, “No, Wormwood, Empathy is Not a Sin,” MoralApologetics.com (Sept. 8, 2021), https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/2021/9/8/no-wormwood-empathy-is-not-a-sin.

[4] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman, 2020).

[5] Perhaps it may be said that the greatest danger to evangelism in the modern church is apathy toward one’s neighbor, the antithesis of empathy.

[6] Roger Scruton, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Philosophy (New York, NY: Penguin, 1998), 138.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus, Wadsworth Philosophers Series (Toronto, ON: Thomson Wadsworth, 2003), 66.

[9] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990), 169.

Lord’s Supper Meditation: One Body

A Twilight Musing

In breaking bread at the Lord’s Table we usually think first of His physical body, particularly as that body endured the pain of the cross.  Such literal remembrance is appropriate, but there are widening circles of meaning radiating from that point that should not get lost in graphic reminders of His physical suffering. 

The fact that He assumed fleshly form at all is as striking as the fact that He died while clothed in it, for only a perfect life could have served God’s purposes for the perfect sacrificial death.  The glorified body which proved His victory over death is our assurance that death will not reign over our mortal bodies. 

An even broader meaning, however, which is not often enough thought of in connection with the bread of the Lord’s Supper, is the designation of the church as the “Body of Christ.”  In I Cor. 12 and Eph. 4, Paul emphasizes the major implication of this metaphor: all the members are joined together for the mutual good of the Body, and guidance and purpose are given to the whole organism by the head, Christ.  We thus may see the eating of the bread as our acknowledgment that Jesus’ life and death and resurrection have made it possible for us to be so intimately related to Him that we may be spoken of as one Body, sustained by one divine life. 

As Paul pointed out, this relationship denotes something vital about our interaction with one another in the Body.  The dwelling of the divine life within us as individuals is possible only if we all partake of it together, in harmony.  To fail to do so is to dishonor and mar our memory of His body.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

Lord’s Supper Meditation: Not Merely a Teacher

Christ with the Eucharist, Vicente Juan Masip, 16th century.

A Twilight Musing

Perhaps nowhere is the difficulty of a purely humanistic allegiance to Christ more clearly felt than in a sincere attempt to participate meaningfully in the Lord’s Supper.  Acknowledgment of Jesus as a great teacher and moral philosopher who is worthy of our admiration and imitation is certainly better than rejecting Him outright, but such an attitude was not what He expected from His disciples.  When He ate the Last Supper with them, His object was not simply to institute a reminder that humans should treat one another humanely, but to perpetuate the truth that they could serve Him only by allowing Him to be, not just an influence, but the very power of action within them.  Jesus was not one whose words they could merely choose to accept or refuse, along with all the other human ideas, any more than food was something they could eat or leave alone, as they preferred. 

Neither they nor we were meant to partake of the Lord’s Supper without being powerfully reminded each time of the demand—and the promise—that He makes to every person.  As we take the bread and the wine, we should hear our Lord saying, in effect, “By eating my body and drinking my blood, you are admitting your inability to eradicate the spiritual disease within you and within the world, and you are renewing your faith—not in your ability to apply my teaching through your own power, but in God’s ability to make you a new person through my death for you.”  The price of communing with Christ is allowing Him to completely make us over.

---

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

Petrine Apologetics: 4 Things You Didn’t Know About 1 Peter 3:15

“Petrine” refers to ideas, words, teachings, or documents attributed to the Apostle Peter. This article uncovers several aspects of apologetics that Peter was concerned about in the course of his writing.

1. The context of the verse is persecution.

2. Peter is referring to Jesus as God (Yahweh).

3. Peter is moralizing “apology”—a legal term.

4. The case for rational apologetics is in verse 14.

The Context of the Verse is Persecution

Part of the appeal of using 1 Peter 3:15 as a prooftext for apologetics is its completeness as a thought—true apart from its context. But as any Bible scholar will tell you, the context of a statement constrains its meaning and determines the author’s intent. Few realize that the audience in 1 Peter is concerned with persecution.

First Peter is written around 60 A. D. by the Apostle Peter to Christian “strangers” (1:1) living in a Roman milieu of pagan systems (termed by Peter as “Babylon” in 5:13); particularly in Asia Minor. The following is an outline of 1 Peter is given by Donald W. Burdick and John H. Skilton.

I. Greetings (1: 1– 2)
II. Praise to God for Salvation (1: 3– 12)
III. First Response to Suffering: Creating a Holy Community (1: 13— 2: 10)
A. Call to Holiness and Love (1: 13— 2: 3)
B. Creation of a Vibrant Community (2: 4– 10)
IV. Second Response to Suffering: Winsome Witness in Society (2: 11— 4: 19)
A. Navigating Authorities in State and Household (2: 11— 3: 12)
B. Introduction: identity as foreigners and exiles (2: 11– 12)
C. Submission of all to rulers (2: 13– 17)
D. Submission of slaves to masters (2: 18– 25)
E. Wives and husbands (3: 1– 7)
i) Submission of wives to husbands (3: 1– 6)
ii)  Warning to husbands to respect wives (3: 7)
F. Conclusion: Seek good, not evil (3: 8– 12)
G. Suffering for Christ and as Christ Did (3: 13— 4: 19)
i) Good conduct despite possible persecution (3: 13– 17)
ii) Christ’s example of suffering and exaltation (3: 18– 22)
iii) Distinctive living among unbelievers (4: 1– 6)
iv) Exhortation summary: Love one another (4: 7– 11)
v) Doctrinal summary: Suffer for Christ (4: 12– 19)
V. Living Together in Christian Community (5: 1– 11)
A. Shepherding Role of Elders (5: 1– 5)
B. Exhortation for All to Be Humble and Alert (5: 5– 11)
VI. Final Greetings and Benediction (5: 12– 14)[1]

Chapter 3 verses 13-17 (ESV) reads:

14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

John Walton states that in 1 Peter, every chapter has references to suffering and perseverance: 1:6-9; 2:19-25; 3:8-22; 4:1-2, 12-19; 5:6-10.[2] Thus, Peter is instructing Christians to follow Christ’s example and live virtuously, even amidst unjust suffering as a witness to society. When asked why one has hope that transcends their circumstances, Christians should be ready to explain (give an apologetic).

As Justin D. Barnard puts it, “The hope that the apologist possesses must be manifest in such a way that those in despair’s grip are compelled to ask. In other words, Petrine apologetics, as an activity, is a defense whose need is driven by an encounter with an alien form of life.”[3]

This gives new meaning to the quote, “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words.” Thus, Peter’s instruction is an urge to engage in a form of moral apologetics.

Peter is Referring to Jesus as God (Yahweh)

In Charles Kuykendall and C. John Collins’s treatment of 1 Peter 3:15, they argue that the first part of the verse should be rendered, “But in your hearts revere the Lord Christ as holy." This is done in order to make the directive of acknowledging Christ's holiness more explicit and to take the more nuanced view that "'Christ' further defines who the Lord is."[4] But what does “Lord” mean?

The Greek word for Lord (κύριος) denotes a master’s absolute ownership rights over some property. This is what Roman citizens would be accustomed to hearing. But for Jews, it has a greater semantic potential: LORD (יְהוָֹה), the proper name of the God of Israel—also known as the Tetragrammaton (meaning “four letters,” transliterated as YHWH). When biblical writers use other biblical writings, they are doing two things: (1) validating their source, and (2) supplanting it within a contemporary context. This signifies intertextuality—or a relationship between two or more texts.

In the case of verses 14-16, Peter is referencing Isaiah 8:12-14 (ESV) which reads as follows:

12 “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.
13 But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Since verse 13 corresponds to 1 Peter 3:15, Peter is identifying the Tetragrammaton with Jesus.

Kuykendall and Collins note that Peter has no scruples about using the title Yhwh to describe Christ. They provide 1 Peter 2:3-4's allusion to Psalm 34:8 as a proof-text. Again, in 1 Peter 2:3-4, the ambiguous Greek term “Lord” is used, but Psalm 34:8 disambiguates it using the one-and-only Tetragrammaton. Similar moves are made by Paul’s use of the Shema (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Deuteronomy 4:35) and the Gospel writers’ allusion to Isaiah (cf. Mark 1:3, Matthew 3:3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23; Isaiah 40:3).

Peter is Moralizing “Apology”—a Legal Term

1 Peter 3:15 has been called the locus classicus for apologetics—the classic place to look in finding prooftexts for apologetics.[5] Apologetics is a branch of theology that argues for the truth of Christianity. “Apology” (ἀπολογία), from which “apologetics” stems, in the ancient Mediterranean was used to refer to court defenses. For example, in Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Socrates gives a legal defense for which he should not be put to death for “corrupting the youth.”

In a similar way, Paul defended himself before the Jewish council (Acts 23), Felix (Acts 24), Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26), and Christians when defending the authority of his apostleship amidst accusations (1 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 13). As a Jew, Jesus was likewise accused by three Jewish sects in Matthew 22, for which he gave judicious replies.

It is from these terms that we derive the Greek terms “apologesthai” (verb; to give an answer), “apologia” (noun; the answer given), “apologetikos” (noun; the skill of giving an answer), and of course “apologetics” (noun; the discipline that gives answers).[6] Though these terms are not always used, there is a number of instances of apologetic activity throughout the New Testament.

Given the context of 1 Peter 3:15, we see that Christians in Asia Minor are being instructed to prepare to explain their hope, even amidst unjust suffering. Their virtuous living in these circumstances will put their persecutors to shame. Such upright behavior would put them at a rhetorical advantage in court (a common practice among Greeks and Jews), with their accusers being embarrassed.[7]

However, as Craig Keener points out, “The present case is not bound to legal settings, nor is it a deliberate reversal of charges.”[8] Though the disciples may face legal persecution, the goal of the was to change the lives of the accusers in an honor-shame culture. It is in this sense moral instruction, rather than legal instruction. Even in our culture (which is less driven by honor and shame), we see how shame can be used to change behavior, for the better and for the worse.

For example, a study was done on patients whose physicians made them feel ashamed for unhealthy behavior.[9] One-third responded by avoiding future doctor visits while another third decided to change their health behaviors for the better. This may be while Peter says to give reasons for the hope in us with “gentleness and respect.”

The Case for Rational Apologetics is in Verse 14

Many contemporary apologists would say there is precedent for making positive cases for the existence of God, the coherence of theism, the reliability of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, and so on. But is there a precedent here in 1 Peter that makes these sorts of rational apologetics permissible? If there is a case to be made, it would be in explaining the content and method in which Peter is referring.

The hope that was in the early church was that they would be resurrected just as Christ had been (1 Thessalonians 4:14). This is the content that the early church was to be ready to defend. Implicit in this was the belief in God, the historicity of Jesus, and much more (though it is unlikely that these things would have been as relevant to defend at the time). So what about the method?

Again, verse 14 says, “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled.” As we saw, this is an allusion to Isaiah 8, which indicates that it is the LORD, God of Israel, we should fear rather than man. To Jews, fear of the Lord is not merely reverence but has an epistemic aspect as well.

It is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), the hatred of arrogance and pride (8:13), a fountain of life (14:27), humility (22:4), understanding (Job 28:28, Psalm 110:10), the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:13). These all hinge on wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 15:33; Psalm 110:10) by observing God’s instruction.

The semantic potential for wisdom includes technical skill, shrewdness in administration, and prudence in ethical and religious affairs in Hebrew (חָכְמָה) and generalized knowledge, acute experience, skill, discretion, craftiness, artistic awareness, rhetorical eloquence, and intellectual excellence in Greek (σοφία). Its diversity of use has made it difficult to pin down its exact definition. Recent developments in psychology and philosophy shed light on what is common among instances of wisdom.

In philosophy, wisdom is normative practical knowledge about the significance and priorities in life. In psychology, as delineated in the Berlin Paradigm, wisdom is expert knowledge and judgment of the "fundamental pragmatics of life."[10] This includes five qualitative criteria.

1. Factual knowledge: To what extent does this product show general (conditio humana) and specific knowledge about matters of life (e.g., life events and institutions) and the human condition, as well as demonstrate scope and depth in the consideration of issues?

2. Procedural knowledge: To what extent does this product consider decision and advice-giving strategies, whom to consult, how to define goals and identify means to achieve them?

3. Lifespan contextualism: To what extent does this product consider the past, current, and possible future contexts of life and the many circumstances in which a person's life is embedded?

4. Value relativism and tolerance: To what extent does this product consider variations in values and life priorities and recognize the importance of viewing each person within his or her own framework despite a small set of universal values?

5. Awareness and management of uncertainty: To what extent does this product consider the inherent uncertainty of life (in terms of interpreting the past and predicting the future) and effective strategies for dealing with this uncertainty?[11]

The first two criteria are described as "basic" while the last three are described as "metalevel," taken together to create a sort of metaheuristic for life. (Note that #4 is not referring to the technical definitions of relativism and tolerance, but the practical sense of deliberate organization and accommodation, respectively.)

In any case, the necessity of rational argumentation is implied. However, that is not the end of it. Petrine apologetics requires that one lives virtuously and contextualize rational argumentation within a greater understanding of wisdom in which the apologist can contextualize his or her knowledge.

[1] Burdick, Donald W. and John H. Skilton. “1 Peter,” NIV Study Bible, Fully Revised Edition. Edited by Kenneth Barker. Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Locations 8616-8617.

[2] Walton, John H., Mark L. Strauss, and Ted Cooper Jr. “1 Peter.” The Essential Bible Companion. Zondervan. 2006. 118-119.

[3] Barnard, Justin D. “Petrine apologetics: Hope, imagination, and forms of life. Review and Expositor. Vol. 111, Iss. 3 (2014). 274-280.

[4] Kuykendall, Charles and C John Collins. "1 Peter 3:15A: a critical review of English versions." Presbyterion. 29, No. 2 (September 2003). 76-84.

[5] Ibid., Barnard.

[6] Ramm, Bernard. “Brief Introduction to Christian Apologetics,” Varieties of Christian Apologetics: An Introduction to the Christian Philosophy of Religion. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI. 1976. 11-12.

[7] Keener, Craig S. “Behave Honorably, Refuting Slanders (3:13-17),” 1 Peter: A Commentary. Baker Academic, 2021. 257-265.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Cohen, Taya R., Scott T. Wolf, A. T. Panter, and Chester A. Insko. “Introducing the GASP Scale: A New Measure of Guilt and Shame Proneness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 100, No. 5. (2011). 947-966.

[10] Konrad Banicki. "The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm: A Conceptual Analysis of a Psychological Approach to Wisdom," History & Philosophy of Psychology. Vol. 11, Iss. 2 (2009). 25-35.

[11] Staudinger, Ursula M., and Alan Law. "Wisdom." Encyclopedia of Mental Health, 2nd Edition. Edited by Howard S. Friedman. Elsevier Science & Technology, 2015.

Lord’s Supper Meditation – True Bread from Heaven

By Master of the Gathering of the Manna - from ISBN 978-90-6918-225-4, p. 215., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7503712

(See Num. 11:4-10; John 6:30-34, 48-51) 

“We have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!” (Num. 11:5b) 

When we read in Numbers 11 the account of the Israelites complaining about the miraculous daily manna from heaven, we are amazed at their perversity in rejecting God’s miraculous daily supply of food for them. How could they be so quickly desensitized to this miracle of God’s provision?  How could they fail to be thankful, even for the daily task of gathering the manna?  But before we are too critical of the Israelites, let us examine how we regard Christ’s body, the symbolic Bread of Heaven, presented to us in the Lord’s Supper.

There are significant associations in John 6 between the manna in the wilderness and Jesus as the Bread of Life.  He says that He is “the true bread of heaven,” and that His disciples must eat of His body and drink of His blood.  Our partaking of the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic implementation of this truth, for in it we are repeatedly refreshed with spiritual food from heaven.  Have we become blasé about this regular provision by God for our spiritual nourishment?  Are we bored with renewing our thanks for the gifts of God through Christ?  And, if so, are we not as profane and sacrilegious as the Israelites were? 

We resent it when our children are not thankful for the food and other daily supplies that are so regular and abundant that they take them for granted, like spoiled brats.  It is to guard against that kind of insensitivity that we habitually offer thanks at meal times.  One of the traditional names for the Lord’s Supper is Eucharist, meaning “thanksgiving.”  Each time we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we acknowledge, celebrate, and give thanks for the supreme gift of Jesus Christ.  If in partaking of this feast we are not acutely aware of the faithfulness and sufficiency of God’s gifts, we, too, become petulant children, turning up our noses at the Bread of Heaven, God’s true, life-giving Manna. 

---

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.