Why Isn’t Jesus’s Birth Year AD 1 and Other Answers about His Ministry and Crucifixion

When people study the life of Jesus Christ, some are often confused by the assertion that he was born in 4 BC, meaning that he was born in the year 4 “Before Christ.” Intuitively, one would think that Jesus’ birth year should be AD 1; more precisely, during year 1 of the “year of our Lord” (“anno domini” is the proper Latin phrase and “AD” is it’s abbreviation for year designations). First, the confusion concerning Jesus’ birth year originates from several errors made by a 6th century Scythian monk named Dionysius, who was the originator of the designations BC/AD (you can find more information about him on the web).  Dionysius, being a Christian monk, desired to create a new division of history that started with the year of Jesus’ birth. Obviously these designations were not used during Jesus’ earthly ministry. Ironically, Dionysius’s idea didn’t even catch on very quickly in his day. Nevertheless, as Dionysius calculated Jesus’ birth year, he made several critical errors. However, one should not castigate him too badly since the historical records available to him were not as accurate as those available to us today. Moreover, precision with respect to historical records was not as highly valued as it is today. Nevertheless, his mistakes are the origin of one of the greatest confusions in all of human history—literally. We all have bad days, but his takes the cake! Consequently, with respect to the year of Jesus’ birth, he was off by at least 4 years (I personally calculate Jesus’ birth as having occurred near the beginning of 4 BC). This particular estimation dovetails well with the final year of Herod the Great’s reign. Historical evidence indicates that during the final days of Herod the Great’s life, knowing that his death was nearing, he ordered that “all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation” be gathered into a stadium (i.e., the “Hyppodrome”) where they were to be executed for the purpose of ensuring that there was great mourning throughout the land upon his death.

Josephus documented Herod’s order in this manner:

“But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins; . . . and having no longer the least hopes of recovering, he gave order that every soldier should be paid fifty drachmae; and he also gave a great deal to their commanders, and to his friends, and came again to Jericho, where he grew so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman; and though he were near his death, he contrived the following wicked designs. He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation, wherever they lived, should be called to him . . . .  he ordered them to be all shut up in the Hyppodrome, and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: “I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; . . . but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death.”     . . .  He desired therefore, that as soon as they see he hath given up the ghost, they shall place soldiers round the hippodrome, while they do not know that he is dead; and that they shall not declare his death to the multitude till this is done, but that they shall give orders to have those that are in custody shot with their arrows; and that this slaughter of them all will cause that he shall not miss to rejoice on a double account; that as he is dying, they will make him secure that his will shall be executed in what he charges them to do; and that he shall have the honor of a memorable mourning at his funeral. . . . Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man’s mind; . . .  since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes . . . .”[1]

Consequently, it is not a great stretch to imagine that Herod would have given a similar demented order to slaughter a few dozen male infants in the little hamlet of Bethlehem around this same time. An order that he gave upon receiving news that the Magi from the East (i.e., political emissaries from the Parthian empire) had evaded him while not providing to him the exact location of where the new born king of the Jews was born (cf. Matt. 2.1-18). Therefore, since most scholars date Herod the Great’s death as occurring in 4 BC, it seems that Jesus actual birth also occurred in either early 4 BC or very late 5 BC.

Another common mistake some make when calculating how old Jesus was when he began his public ministry concerns the number of years between BC and AD (or BCE and CE according to secular designations, primarily because they wish to minimize the impact that Jesus’ life had in today’s culture).  One must not calculate an additional year by adding a “0” year between the years 1 BC and AD 1. Consequently, the transition from 1 BC to AD 1 is immediate, there is no “0” year in between them.

So with these issues in mind, when was Jesus born, how long was his public ministry, and when was he crucified? Luke wrote that Jesus was “around” 30 years old when he started his public ministry (Lk 3.23), which means that he could have been between 29 to 33 years of age (Luke was not trying to provide Jesus’ exact age). Consequently, if one assumes that Jesus began his ministry in AD 30, then it would mean he was approximately 33 years old at that time (assuming his birth was in 4 BC). A review of the Gospels reveals that at the very least Jesus’ earthly ministry was 2 full years, but more probably 3 full years (that is if one views John 5.1 as also referring to a Passover). However, his ministry could have lasted as long as 5 years (assuming that the Gospel writers did not record all of the Passovers that occurred during his earthly ministry). This longer period assumes that Jesus’ trial occurred during Pilate’s final year in office (which was AD 36). This estimation is the latest possible year of Jesus’ earthly ministry since Pilate oversaw the Roman portion of Jesus’ trial. However, it is not likely that Jesus’ trial occurred during Pilate’s final year in office. Consequently, assuming that Jesus was crucified in AD 33 (the most likely year of his crucifixion), then that would make him around 36 years old at his death and resurrection (assuming a full 3 years of public ministry; see the chronology below).

• 4 BC = Jesus was born.
• AD 30 = Jesus was around 33 years old when he began his 3 year public ministry.
• AD 33 = Jesus was around 36 years old when he was crucified and arose physically from the dead. Remember, his public ministry began near the Passover in AD 30 and it ended during the Passover in AD 33; thus, the estimate of a full 3 year ministry.

If one assumes that his crucifixion was in AD 30 (which is another reasonable possibility), then it means his public ministry began ca. AD 27 (thus Luke’s description that Jesus was around “30” since AD 27 + BC 4 = 30 years). Remember, being born in 4 BC only includes 3 years to 1 BC, not 4 full years.  For example: 4-3 is one year, 3-2 is the second, and 2-1 BC is the final year, which equals 3 years. Afterwards, one’s calculations must begin immediately with AD 1. This alternative calculation means that Jesus was about 33 years old when he died and arose physically from the grave.[2]

• 4 BC = Jesus was born
• AD 27 = Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his 3 year public ministry.
• AD 30 = Jesus was about 33 years old when he was crucified and arose from the grave.

Please be aware that these are only estimations that are based on the historical records that are currently available. It is hoped that they help in clarifying some of the confusing issues concerning when Jesus was born; as well as when his public ministry began and how long it lasted; and finally, the year of his glorious resurrection.

[1] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVII.6.5-6.

[2] For explanations of astronomical calculations that point to Jesus’ crucifixion as occurring during the Passover in either AD 30 or AD 33, see D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 126-27. For a more thorough explanation of these issues and more, see Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspect of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: 1977).

Read Full Post »

DOES ACTS CONTRADICT PAUL’S TESTIMONIES ABOUT HIS VISITS TO JERUSALEM?

Occasionally while some study the chronology of Paul’s life and ministry they become confused about his early visits to Jerusalem and Luke’s reporting of these same visits in Acts. Regrettably, the discussions provided by some scholars on this topic create more confusion than is justified. This blog does not address Paul’s visits that occurred late in his ministry, it is highly unlikely that all of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem are referred to in his epistles or in Acts. Nevertheless, the historicity of the scriptures is an important issue, and we should be very careful of those who suggest that historical errors are contained within them. Recently I listened to a lecture by Bart Ehrman in which he stated that because of the complexities involving the historical veracity of the New Testament then no one should place a lot of confidence in the historical accuracy of the book of Acts. Consequently, I have put together a brief chronology of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem before the Jerusalem Council convened with the hope of clarifying the specific issue as to whether Paul and Luke contradict one another with respect to Paul’s early ministry movements and his visits to Jerusalem. The issue is not as complex as some make it out to be, and it occurs simply because Luke and Paul use slightly different vocabulary when discussing Paul’s earliest visits to Jerusalem.

Paul describes his first visit with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem in Galatians 1.18-24. This meeting is recorded in Acts 9.26-30. It appears that Luke’s term “many days,” should be understood to have been approximately 3 years (Acts 9.23 & Gal. 1.18). Luke’s statement that Barnabas brought Paul to the “apostles” (Acts 9.27) should not be understood to mean that Paul was brought before all 13 apostles (by the number 13 I am including James the half brother of Jesus and Matthias), but only that Paul meet with a few apostles that represented the entire group, specifically Peter and James the half brother of Jesus (note that Paul referred to James as an apostle in Gal. 1.18-19). This could be justifiably understood as meeting with “the apostles” because Paul met with more than one of the Jerusalem apostles, and also because in the Jewish mindset a part of something was often considered as sufficient for the whole. The lack of precision is less than desirable for our modern way of calculating, but this type of thinking was a Semitic inclination just the same. Paul stated that after his first meeting with Peter and James he left and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1.21). Luke confirmed Paul’s destination after leaving Jerusalem, but rather than focusing on the “regions” that Paul went to, instead he mentioned the specific city to which the apostles sent him, which was Tarsus—Paul’s hometown (Acts 9.30). Tarsus is located in the southeastern region of Cilicia. The purpose of Paul’s first meeting was to introduce Paul to a few of the church’s leaders in Jerusalem with Barnabas being the intermediary. Luke made it clear that during Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem most believers were extremely untrusting of him (Acts 9.26). Given the suspicious nature of Paul’s dramatic conversion it would make sense that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem would not allow all the apostles to be exposed to Paul in case his “confession” of faith was just an elaborate charade for the purpose of ferreting out the leaders of the young church in Jerusalem. Consequently, Paul only met with Peter and James. I would guess that during this brief first visit to Jerusalem (15 days Gal. 1.18.) that Paul asked a lot of specific questions to Peter and James concerning the things Jesus actually taught since Paul apparently had not heard Jesus for himself.  Paul boldly spoke in the name of Jesus while in Jerusalem (Acts 9.28), which should be understood to mean that he preached the gospel and spoke of Jesus as the promised Messiah. However, Paul was adamant (Galatians 1.15-17) that he did not need to be taught the gospel from those who were apostle before him since he had personally met Jesus and received the gospel directly from him (cf. 1 Cor. 15.8-10). The church in Jerusalem became somewhat familiar with him as a result of this visit. However, while the church in Jerusalem had learned about Paul’s conversion to Christ and his boldness for the Lord, other churches scattered throughout the greater region of Judea still could not identify him by sight (Gal. 2.22). Being that Paul was only in Jerusalem for a little more than 2 weeks, it is understandable why Paul was fairly unknown in the greater region of Judea during the period immediately following his conversion.

Paul described his second meeting with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem in Galatians 2.1-10. It appears that the main reason for this visit to Jerusalem was because of the prophecy/vision concerning a coming famine (Gal 2.2; Acts 11.28).  This visit is also recorded in Acts 11.27-30. Paul took the opportunity while in Jerusalem to meet with the “pillars” (i.e., leaders) of the church there for the purpose of explaining his ministry and calling, which was to be the apostle to the Gentiles.  Since Paul mentions the issue of circumcision in Gal 2.1-10 it is likely that this topic was discussed, but no official or public decision was made by the leadership of the church in Jerusalem at that time. Nevertheless, the apostles who met with Paul clearly affirmed his ministry and his understanding of the gospel.  This meeting was not the meeting recording in Acts 15, and we know this because in Gal 2.10 the apostles encouraged Paul to be mindful of the poor, which is not even mentioned in the general epistle to churches recorded in Acts 15.23-29.  The encouragement in the universal letter to all the churches recorded in Acts 15 concerned fornication/idol worship and Jewish sensitivities to animals that had been sacrificed to idols (Acts 15.29); notice, there is no mention about caring for the poor.  The apostles and elders of the Jerusalem Council were essentially calling all Gentiles believers to separate themselves from everything that had anything to do with pagan worship, which would be a natural result of coming to faith in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior and Lord.  Essentially the leaders of the church in Jerusalem were calling gentile believers to make a public decision and stand for Christ.  There is no indication of such a concern during Paul’s second visit with the leaders at the church in Jerusalem, which Paul detailed in Galatians 2.1-10.

From Acts 15.1-29 we learn of Paul’s third meeting with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. This meeting is not recorded in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. If this meeting had occurred before Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians then he would have been obliged to announce their decision in his letter to the Galatians, as he in fact did with the church in Antioch and elsewhere (Acts 15.30; 16.4). However, we find no reference to the decision made at the Jerusalem Council anywhere in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The purpose of the Jerusalem Council was to address the false gospel (Acts 15.1; i.e., a faith plus works gospel) that had arisen within the church by a sect of the Pharisees (Acts 15.5) who claimed to follow Jesus as the Messiah, but had actually contaminated the gospel by requiring obedience to the Mosaic Law (i.e., circumcision). They were not true believers (which is a major that point made by Paul throughout his epistle to the Galatians with respect to anyone who held to such a soteriology). The decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was an official universal decree made by the leaders of the church at Jerusalem through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15.28) concerning what was the authentic gospel as received directly from the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24.44-48), which is salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 15.7-11).  The Jerusalem Council did not attempt to change the gospel message, but instead chose to remain faithful to the authentic gospel that the apostles had personally received from the risen Lord.

One important note: the Council’s decision was a universal proclamation of the true gospel for both Jews and Gentiles concerning how one is saved. However, the Council’s decision should not be understood to mean that Jews should no longer continue the practice of circumcision. It only meant that circumcision was not a “requirement” for salvation (moreover, circumcision was never intended to secure salvation). However, if Jewish parents wished to continue to identify their sons as Jews who would participate in the promises made to Abraham, then they could and should have their sons circumcised. Circumcision was always a sign for Jews of their ethnicity and participation in the Abrahamic Covenant. If circumcision no longer had any meaning or purpose whatsoever, then Paul would not have had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16.3). The sign of circumcision predates the Mosaic Law, and was the way the decedents of Abraham to identify themselves before God as ethnic sons of Abraham who were looking toward the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham concerning the land (Covenant Theology notwithstanding, but this would be a debate for a different class). Some might ask “what about women, how would they make the same identification”? The way women could continue to be identified as participating in Abrahamic Covenant as Abraham’s descendants would be to marry Jewish men. Jewish women continue to participate in the Jewish community by marrying Jewish men, and thus perpetuate the Jewish race (some may disagree, but this again would be a different discussion for another course).  The one caveat, of course, would be that believing Jewish women should marry Jewish men who are also believers (1 Cor 7.39, 9.5; 2 Cor 6.14-18). Anyway, I hope this clarifies any confusion concerning Paul’s meetings with the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem early in his ministry as documented by Luke in Acts and Paul in his epistles.  The primary take away from this blog is that there are no significant discrepancies between Luke’s history on the birth and growth of the early church and Paul’s personal descriptions about his early ministry movements to and from Jerusalem.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2014

 

Read Full Post »

WHEN WAS THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN?

The Composition Date for the Book of Acts

The book of Acts is essential to understanding the birth and early growth of the first-century church, and for the most part it is straightforward and not hard to understand.  However, some historians and scholars disagree about its historical accuracy and when it was written, and as you research Acts you will be confronted with some of these disagreements.  A major disagreement concerns the year that Luke finish writing and publicize the book of Acts. This blog argues that the early date of Acts is the most defensible and reasonable conclusion with respect to when it was written. There are two compelling reasons why Acts should be viewed as having been written before the outbreak of the Neronian persecutions (ca. early AD 65 or early AD 66). First, Luke ended his history of the early church with a description of Paul’s condition, writing that, “For two whole years he lived in his own rented place and welcomed everyone who came to him. He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom” (Acts 28.30-31). To be sure, as Luke wrote Act if he was aware of Paul’s fate and the Empire’s attempt to eradicate Christianity, then ending the book with such a cheery description would have been unthinkable, if for no other reason that such an ending would make Luke appear completely incompetent since most of his readers would have either already known about Paul’s fate, or would eventually learn what truly happened to him. Some argue, however, that Paul’s inevitable fate was not important to Luke, and that Luke’s purpose was more “theological” than “historical.”  This is not a well-defended position simply because the book contains far more historical data than explanations concerning theological subjects. Moreover, the book is titled “Acts of the Apostles” instead of “The Beliefs of the Apostles,” and its title is “Acts” precisely because it overwhelmingly focuses upon the activities, accomplishments, and deeds of the early church and its leaders.  Of course it also contains theological content, but this is unavoidable since the focus and purpose of the church is theological in nature.  Nevertheless, if Luke was primarily concerned with the church’s theology, then more content within Acts would look more like what is found in Acts 15 (i.e., the Jerusalem Council), but it does not. Luke’s primary purpose in Acts is clearly more descriptive than prescriptive, in other words he focused predominantly on explaining and documenting the church’s birth and subsequent growth from a small sect within Judaism, to its inclusions of Gentiles, and to its ultimate arrival to the heart of the Empire.

A second reason for concluding that Acts was composed before the outbreak of the Neronian persecutions is that Luke placed a high value upon persecution and martyrdom accounts and included them within his history of the early church whenever he could. This is obvious from his inclusion of the martyrdoms of both Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and apostle James the brother of John and a son of Zebedee; as well as various riot accounts found throughout the book.  If Luke had known about the martyrdoms of both Paul and Peter, arguably the two most important leaders of the first-century church, then he would have assuredly provided accounts documenting their deaths, or at least references to them in his history of the church (not to mention the martyrdom of Jesus’ brother James, ca. AD 62). But instead of references to the deaths of these significant leaders, Luke provided travel records throughout Acts (e.g., Acts 27.1-28.10), some of which are rather uneventful.  Additionally, not only does the book show no hint of the fates of these important leaders, but as Carson and Moo observed, the exact opposite is true, Luke seems to portray a rather positive outlook for the church’s leaders, as well as a healthy relationship between the church and the Roman Empire (CM, Introduction to the New Testament, 298-300).  Again, such an outlook would have been completely inconceivable if Acts was written any time after the beginning of Neronian persecutions. In fact, once Nero condemned Christianity as subversive and began targeting its leaders for execution, then Christianity became an illegal religion its eyes of the Empire. Moreover, Nero’s ruling against Christianity became the legal basis for all of the Empire’s future persecutions of church over the next couple of centuries. Consequently, if Luke wrote Acts sometime after the cessation of the Neronian persecutions, then his book would not have improved the image of the church, but would have actually endangered individual churches and other Christians by documenting where they could be found and who were some of its remaining leaders. We should credit Luke with having more intelligence than to have written such a potentially dangerous book if he was aware of the Empire’s lethal hostility towards the church.  The Empire had claimed the lives of some of his closest friends, what could he have possibly gained by composing a work that would have only endangered others?

Think about it this way, if 3 years ago someone wrote a book about the rise of Isis and its condition, then the book would have concluded with some ambiguity with respect to its future.  However, if one wrote a book on Isis 10 years from now, it would be inconceivable to not explain or at least reference its collapse.  Of course, Isis’ ultimate defeat would not have to be the book’s main purpose, but to completely ignore its demise as an organized geo-political military force would be a rather glaring omission, one that would make any author appear completely out of touch.  Nevertheless, some scholars still make speculative conjectures promoting a late composition for the book of Acts; however, the more reasonable conclusion is that Luke completed it near the end Paul’s first imprisonment or soon after his release, sometime in the early to mid AD 60s, probably no earlier than AD 62.  Additionally, such a date also has obviously significant ramifications for estimating the date for Luke’s composition of his Gospel.  Many secular scholars who have a biased against the supernatural and prophetic natural of Luke’s Gospel must date the composition of Acts later since they also date the Gospel of Luke considerably later. Since Acts was composed after Luke’s Gospel, then in their view the book of Acts must also be dated much later as well.  Nevertheless, such conjectures and speculations are not well defended given the available historical evidence.

Doc.

Copyright © Monte Shanks, 2010

 

Read Full Post »

JESUS AND THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE

John Piper once asserted that Christians should not procure conceal carry permits in order to defend themselves against criminals, insane sociopaths, terrorists, and those who would persecute Christians. Apparently his edict was a response to a president’s public encouragement for students at a leading Christian university to consider securing CCW permits for their own protection. I will agree with Piper on one count. If while preaching that Jesus Christ is Lord or sharing the gospel, someone attempts to insult and/or assault me, then as a Christian I am called by the Lord to receive that person’s aggression with love, humility, and endurance. If such persecution occurs and I bear it well, then the scriptures teach that I am blessed and that God is pleased with me (Matt. 5.10 -12). The Lord and the Scriptures are clear on this point—Christians are called to suffer unjust persecution for the cause of Christ. However, Piper is wrong about a believer’s right to defend his or herself from the other three possibilities, which are the brutal attacks of violent criminals, the dangerously insane, and terrorists. Criminals, sociopaths, and militant radical Islamic jihadists are not seeking to maim and kill people because they are rightly practicing the Christian faith. For the most part they simply do not care what we are doing or why we are doing it. In the case of the insane (e.g., the massacres at Aurora Colorado, and Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut), these sociopaths are not thinking rationally in the first place; therefore, no amount of empathy or Christian persuasiveness will deter them during an active shooting. These murders will not stop until they are out of ammunition or dead. Likewise, rapists, serial killers, murders, and drug-crazed criminals that daily attack and kill innocent people in Baltimore, Chicago, or LA are not concerned about what faith anyone is practicing. They simply don’t care whether their victims are atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or agnostic. They only want to satisfy their godless desires and greed irrespective of who they defraud and maim. And lastly, militant radical Islamic jihadist (911; Fort Hood, TX; and San Bernardino, CA; or terrorists of any stripe for that matter) are not persecuting individuals for living out the Christian faith. Instead they are murdering innocent civilians of all faiths simply because they have not converted to the terrorists’ peculiar twisted interpretation of the faith they profess. Consequently, they can only be stopped by lethal force that is carried out with extreme prejudice.

Regrettably it is demonstrably observable from the deadly attacks at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, and most recently at West Freeway Church of Christ in While Settlement, church shootings are becoming a real “thing.” Consequently, given these realities, Piper’s assertion is not only void of common sense it is also lacking biblical support. Jesus himself clearly commanded his disciples to arm themselves (Luke 22.36), and to do so at their own expense. He didn’t say “And if someone attempts to rape or murder you, or is in the process of massacring dozens of children, then you should wait until the proper authorities arrive.” Neither did he say, “Before arming yourself go and check with the authorities and see if you can get permission.” Although this particular verse may be the most unknown or politically incorrect verse in the Bible; nevertheless, it is the clear instruction of Jesus—and no amount of theological, rhetorical, or intellectual gymnastics is going to dissolve His clear biblical injunction to His followers.

Moreover, in a world where horrific massacres occur and are increasing at an alarming rate, it is irresponsible to suggest that Christians avoid taking advantage of their legal advantages to self-protection simply because pacifists have an elevated view of what it means to be a passionate Christian—especially when living in a free society that protects and fosters one’s God given right to self protection. If anyone chooses not to arm himself and avoid protecting his family or those around him, then that is his privilege. If he wishes to encourage others to do likewise out a false sense of security in the government’s capacity to protect its citizens, then he has that right as well. But please, don’t imply that law abiding Christians who disagree with such a position are some how less then authentic in their faith, or are less trusting in the Lord, or are some how biblically deficient in a proper understanding of the scriptures if they choose to take advantage of their constitutional right to protect themselves and the others around them that cannot. It is simply indefensible to assert that because one person puts on a uniform and another does not, then that necessarily means that the one with the uniform will be able to protect everyone else at all times, and will always be there when you most desperately need them. Such is demonstrably not the case. As the old adage goes, “When seconds count the police are minutes away.” That is not a slur on our law enforcement agencies, it is simply a recognition of reality. Police offices, as good as they are, can’t possibly be all places at all times; consequently, given the rise of violence throughout out country, everyone—including Christians—need to make a decision as to whether they are willing to become protectors or potential victims.

Additionally, Jesus also said that it is a supreme display of love that one would lay down his or her life for a friend (John 15.13). And the fact is that it is no longer an uncommon event in which armed civilians (both Christian and non-Christian) are successfully saving the lives of others at the risk of their own. This reality is demonstrably observable by the quick actions taken by the volunteer security team composed of church members at West Freeway Church of Christ this past Sunday. These heroes are to be applauded for standing in the gap between the innocent and the murderer in their midst. Regarding protecting the innocent, James the half-brother of Jesus also taught that if anyone knows to do what is right and does not do it, then it is sin (James 4.17). Consequently, if we have the freedom to adequately train and arm ourselves in order to protect the children who attend our schools, day-care centers, and churches during these troubling times, then there is nothing unbiblical or unChristian if we choose take up such a responsibility. And if we chose not to do so, whether for conscious sake, or a lack of physical and/or emotional capabilities, then it’s time to consider hiring those with the proper training to protect those that attend our events. To continue ignoring the violent realities of our troubled times is no longer a thoughtful option. I am not surprised by those living in peaceful upper-middleclass gated communities in the suburbs who agree with Piper. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate, if not elitist, to belittle law abiding devote Christians living in the drug infested gang ruled streets of America’s urban centers because the chose to arm and defend themselves. Moreover, if pagans, atheists, secular humanists, or Muslims wish to come and challenge what we believe, then so be it. As far as I am concerned they are more than welcome to come and give us their best shot—but they must do so with their minds and arguments. Nevertheless, having made this invitation, if they plan to bring weapons, then let it be at the risk of their own lives.

Copyright @ 2013 Monte Shanks

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »