Month: February 2012

Shocks in Mark’s opening

Have you ever been stunned by Mark? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

As I’ve said, I’ve been reading and listening to N.T. Wright lately and as a result I am really rethinking much of the NT. One night, I started thinking about the book of Mark as I was going to sleep and it’s been a thought that often pops back into my mind. I’d like to share some if it with you.

The first verse begins:

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus begins with a hefty pair of titles! He is the Messiah and he is the Son of God! We are about to hear his good news, the gospel. Let us suppose we are people who know nothing about Jesus and are rather picking up the gospel for the first time. What do we expect? Well let’s move on and see. Verses 2 and 3 read:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
‘MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.’” ”

Ah! Eschatology! This is big stuff then! Today we know about 2012 hype. When people think a prophecy is to be fulfilled, they expect something dramatic. The Jews had been studying and expected a mighty warrior to rise up and defeat Rome and restore Israel to a golden age. How could it be anything less?

We see that a prophet has said something! Even if we do not know who Isaiah is, we can know that this is pointing back to someone in the past. This has been an event long foretold. If it was foretold, then surely it must be something important to us all.

But even before this Christ comes, we have a messenger making ready the way of the Lord. Ah! A king is coming! A king has been prophesied and a king deserves only the best! What kind of great messenger could come that will fulfill a prophecy about a king? Verse 4 reads:

“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

Beg your pardon?

This is the great messenger?

This is the preparation for the king?

We have someone in a river dunking people?

Where’s the chariot? Where’s the sword? Where’s the entourage? How is this messenger described? Let’s look at verses 5-6.

“And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.”

This messenger appears in Judea? A nowhere country? Not in Rome? Not in Athens? Not in Egypt? He is in Judea?

The people are coming to him? Isn’t a messenger to go to the people?

In the Jordan River? That’s not much of a river. If we knew our Bibles, we would have known it’s the river Naaman did not want to disgrace himself by bathing in. The other rivers were much cleaner.

Let us suppose we thought about all of this.

A Jew would have recognized the outfit of Elijah and would have thought about how Malachi said Elijah would come before the day of the Lord. Now Elijah has come. They can tell. What of the Jordan? The Jordan was representative of entering the Promised Land. Is this messenger making way for the Promised Land again?

The crossing of the Jordan would mean just that. This would bring to mind the Exodus and God restoring His people. Such had not happened since the exile. Oh they had been in the land, but they had not enjoyed the richness of a Davidic age. Now here it was at last once again! As Wright would say “The exile is over.”

We go on to 7 and 8.

“And he was preaching, and saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

We have read this passage so much I think we overlook what John says about himself. “One who is mightier than I?”

We are looking at him and tempted to say “You’re just out there in the water dunking people. You’re not exactly Mr. Universe or anything.”

But this is someone mighty! He can pronounce the forgiveness of sins! He doesn’t even need you to bring a sacrifice. We don’t even know if he is asking about circumcision! All we know is that he is teaching about the forgiveness of sins and with authority. If it was not, people would not come to him.

It takes someone either mighty powerful or mighty foolish to pronounce the forgiveness of God Himself. John is one of the two. You must decide. Does his authority come from Heaven or from men?

We’re going to go to verses 9-11 then and end it for tonight. I do not know if we will continue through like this, but if we don’t, it is because I hope your flame has been lit to see the gospel for the first time on your own. Let’s see what happens in these verses:

“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

Amazing juxtapositions take place here! Jesus from Nazareth? What kind of great leader comes from a little Podunk like that? This is the Messiah and this is the Son of God? Why would such a man come from such a place? If this is a prophecy, did they not have the chance to foresee he must be a loser coming from such an area like that?

From Galilee? That’s also nowhere. Why should anyone give a rip about that? Were we to know about the Sanhedrin, we could know that they say that no prophet comes out of Galilee! Why there’s no need to even examine the case! We know where he comes from and the case is closed!

And he comes to the messenger? Seems like things are backwards. The messenger should be acting under the authority of the king, but not the other way around. Instead, Jesus (Who by the way also has a common name. Not much noble about that) comes to John asking to be baptized under John! What nonsense!

And then we hear about the testimony of God. Once again, we are in a tough situation. It really isn’t, but for us, it is. How often we today know what God says about something, but it meshes with our conceptions at the time. We know that God says to not worry. We look at our checkbooks and bank accounts. We know God says He loves us. We question that and call it into question constantly. We know that His way is best, yet we continually seek our own. We know about the joy of God and we sing about how awesome He is and marvelous and His ways beyond understanding, yet we treat Him as if He does not matter and that He is uninteresting entirely. We claim that He is Lord of all, yet we live in fear of all that He has made. We know that He has told us to trust Him, yet we hold on to silly fears. We know His Word is true, yet we do not seek to take it in constantly. We know He is always there to help us, yet we rarely pray.

Oh the way the first century responded with skepticism and disbelief in the face of the evidence of this testimony and the miracles we read was wrong, but let us make sure we are not too quick to condemn. We say the case for the resurrection is incredibly strong and thus we have even more evidence for who Jesus was and is, and we have more wisdom in the epistles and the apocalypse, but yet we too have hesitation when it comes to believing what God has said and we too hesitate then when we face the claims of Christ. We may sign our names to the creeds, but do we sign our lifestyles to Him? Do our actions show what we say we believe with our mouths?

This is the juxtaposition of Christ. I often use a saying and my wife corrects me as she should when I get it wrong. I say that Jesus did not turn the world upside-down. The world was not right-side up. It was upside-down and instead Jesus turned it right-side up. He is still doing it and you and I are a part of that world that’s being turned around and too often, our thinking is still topsy-turvy and God gives us a huge contrast. What will we believe? Him or ourselves? If Mark has shown us anything at this point, it is that God does not act the way that we often expect or think He should. It is easy for us to trust God when He acts as we would like. Can we do it when He does not?

I hope this has given you much to think about and I hope as you read the Bible, you also will try to read it for the first time with new eyes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Evolution a Problem?

If macroevolution was true, would that destroy Christianity? Let’s discuss it today on Deeper Waters.

On the Facebook page supporting Mike Licona, there has been discussion about the work of Peter Enns. I do not know enough about that at this moment to comment on that. However, in discussing all of that, the question has been raised about the role of science in interpreting Scripture and what it would mean if macroevolution was true.

Please note in all of this that I am not stating whether macroevolution is in fact true or false. Frankly, I am not a scientist and do not know enough about the scientific study to make a proper assessment of the data. What I simply wish to ask is if it would be a defeater for Christian theism if it was found to be true. Note what it would take is to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

I think much of the problem is that we moderns read Genesis in a way the ancients would not have. We are so scientific that we read it as if it was a scientific account. This is a mistake old-earth and young-earth creationists both make. The question we should be asking is why did God include it and why would the ancients care?

To begin with, is God telling us something just to satisfy our intellectual curiosity? No. The Bible is a book meant to tell us about Jesus and not to tell us superfluous truths. In all of this, the creation account is meant only secondarily to tell us something about creation but primarily to tell us about God.

For the people, knowing the time it took to create would not help them in their debates with pagans. Then what? Could it be that the accounts were written more to show the purpose of creation? If so, then God is using something like storytelling in a unique way to us, but something ancients would have understood.

But what if I am wrong and in fact the Bible is wrong? Well my being wrong would not be the first time, but a lot of Christians would have a problem with the Bible being wrong. I do not think that it is, but as a believer in Inerrancy, I would have to certainly rethink some matters, but I would not throw out the baby with the bathwater. More on this in a bit.

What if someone presumes evolution and comes to the Genesis text and interprets it in that light? The reality is we all do something similar. We come to the text that speaks about the four corners of the Earth in Revelation, but due to knowing the world is not flat, and knowing that the ancients knew that, we know it means something else. We know of texts that seem to teach that the Earth cannot be moved, but due to our knowledge of heliocentrism, we know that that understanding would be false.

If we want to know if evolution is true, then the place to go is a science lab. Let us suppose you say “We have Scripture and Scripture teaches it is not.” Fair enough. Then you should want to open the doors to the science lab and be able to say “Do your best research and in the end you will find that it does not hold up.” If you take a stance of not wanting to examine the evidence, then I would question how much faith you really have that the Scripture is true.

If on the other hand, you are evangelical and believe macroevolution is true, you should also be willing to say “Bring forth your toughest objections!” After all, if your belief is true, it will stand up to scrutiny. If you do not want to open yourself up, then the same question applies though to your science instead.

Now we return to this. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that macroevolution is true. Furthermore, let us suppose for the sake of argument that Scripture is incompatible with this, thus demonstrating that Scripture has an error. Again, I do not think this. I am merely taking the worst-case scenario.

Even here, Christianity is safe.

Why? One mistake does not prove it all false. For instance, Scripture teaches that Jesus existed. Are we going to deny what all scholars of the NT and ancient history would affirm just because the Bible would not be inerrant? Well then you ask, “How do we know what’s true in it?”

Let me ask you. How do you know what’s true on the internet? How do you know what’s true on TV? How do you know what’s true in that book you’re reading? If the answer is “Well I examine the evidence and I go where it leads,” then congratulations on answering your own question. We’d study the Bible the same way we do Tacitus, Josephus, or anything else.

Thus, we can believe that the Pauline epistles do contain a strong case based on the 1 Cor. 15 creed that Jesus rose from the dead alongside the information we have in Galatians. Because Genesis would be wrong, it does not follow that Paul has to be wrong. We also need to realize that people were arguing for the resurrection before any epistles or gospels were written.

In conclusion, this leaves Christianity in a powerful position. We can take what is assumed to be a defeater for our faith and show it is not. We could even for the sake of argument grant contradictions in the Bible and still demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, we do believe for a great miracle, God left great evidence. Indeed He did, even if it was through fallible men who made mistakes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Geisler Again Being Irrelevant

What’s the take on what Emir Caner has said? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, Geisler put up a response to an endorsement from Emir Caner of Geisler’s position. What difference does this make? In a word, none.

So far on the Facebook page of Geisler’s, only two comments have been made and that’s asking and answering if this is Ergun Caner’s brother. When I have done a websearch of posts on this issue in the past 24 hours, only myself and J.P. Holding come up as having new information. (A link to Holding’s response will be at the bottom)

In other words, this whole thing should be declared dead already and Geisler’s obsession with this need to prove himself right reveals much more about him than it does about the debate. Does Geisler just have an inability to let go and make amends and seek to have peace between himself and Licona?

Why do we do this then and answer? Someone should. Furthermore, unless Geisler says anything, I really don’t either. When I’m not debating the material that is put up, I have my own interests I am working on in the blogosphere. In all of this, I still do hope to sometime soon find a copy of “Defending Inerrancy” and review it.

At any rate, let’s get to what Emir Caner has said. (Link below)

The path to liberalism is paved by an incremental process that places a question mark over the theological and historical veracity of Scripture.

Absent in all of this is the notion of truth. It is not asking if Licona’s view is true or false. It is just saying that it automatically undermines Scripture. I remind the reader again that Licona has brought out that Henri Blocher in his book “In The Beginning” undermines much of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. He was a signer of ICBI and yet, Geisler is not sicking the heresy hounds on him. I find this interesting.

Could someone tell me why Blocher can do it but not Licona?

At any rate, what Licona is doing is not seeking to undermine the theological and historical veracity of Scripture any more than William Lane Craig has when he has stated the exact same interpretation in a debate. Licona has not once said “Scripture is in error” or “Matthew made a mistake” or “I don’t think this happened because I have a problem with the miraculous.” He has taken that route because based on literary clues he has found, he thinks that’s what Matthew is saying. He could be wrong. He’d be fine with that and if he can be shown he is wrong, he will change his view. He will not however change his view because of cries to recant. Licona has this strange view amongst evangelicals apparently. He just wants to go where the evidence leads. Would that Geisler had the same view!

And of all doctrines where liberals desire to interrogate Scripture under its dim light of naturalistic presuppositions, none is more coveted than the doctrine of the resurrection.

Note we have been told about the path to liberalism. Keep that in mind. We do agree that the doctrine of the resurrection is the central doctrine. Is it news to Emir Caner that Licona agrees? Perhaps that is why he has written a whole book on the topic.

Really. This is all that needs to be said. Imagine this dialogue between a skeptic and Licona.

Skeptic: I have read your book and I do not accept that Jesus rose from the dead.

Licona: Okay. How do you explain the evidence I presented?

Skeptic: It’s simple. You say the saints did not rise in Matthew 27 and therefore I conclude your evidence that Jesus rose is unreliable.

Licona: The evidence in both cases is different. We simply have one text in Matthew 27 and external sources are ambiguous. With the resurrection of Jesus, we have all four gospels, we have the Pauline epistles, we have the creed in 1 Cor. 15, we have the empty tomb, we have the claim of the apostles consistently that they saw the risen Christ, we have the change in social structure of the early church, we have the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, and we have the conversion of Paul.

Skeptic: Oh I don’t care! I don’t have to explain any of that!

Licona: Until you do, you are making a false analogy and you have no case.

As I said in an earlier post, the miracles are different and the resurrections are different. Is the faith of Geisler and Emir Caner so weak that they think that if by chance one passage of Scripture was not literal or, horror of horrors, there was actually an error in the Bible, (Which I don’t think there is) then we have to throw out all of Christianity? In other words, if Jesus did not literally turn water into wine, for instance, then that means the case for the resurrection no longer exists?

Sure looks that way.

This is presenting Scripture as an all-or-nothing game, when even Geisler does not do this. Geisler holds to an old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Do you know how many evangelical Christian leaders would say at that point that Geisler is undermining the authority of Scripture and allowing the naturalistic presuppositions of science to come in and overrule what the literal account says?

Note that that information Geisler uses is also information the writer and readers of Genesis did not have. Once again, it is okay to use 20th century information, but you dare not use 1st century information and genres that Matthew’s authors would have been familiar with.

It is imperative, then, that Bible believers stand firm on the historicity and trustworthiness on this doctrine and warn those, like Dr. Licona, who are undermining the historicity of parts of the Gospel record, even some texts associated with the resurrection, thus placing the resurrection of Jesus itself in jeopardy.

Notice the parallel here. Bible believers must stand firm. They must stand firm against those like Licona. What does that mean? Licona and those like him obviously do not believe the Bible. Once again, there are several young-earth creationists who would say the exact same thing about Geisler. In fact, Henry Morris did not sign ICBI for this reason. Is Geisler going to say Morris is going against Inerrancy for that? I am quite sure what Morris would think of Geisler’s wanting to include old-earth under Inerrancy.

Here we have again simply the panic button pushing. It is not the question of if the account is true. It is the question of “What will it mean if we allow it to be considered as possible? We must not do that! People will become liberals!”

Could some? Yeah. Of course. On the other hand, the young-earth crowd will say the exact same thing about Geisler’s interpretation. Geisler gets a free pass however. In fact, Blocher gets a free pass as well when Blocher is also using genre consideration. Why is Licona outed?

What Geisler is forgetting is that people who are really interested in truth will come to Christianity if it is true, which I believe it is. If they want to know whether Jesus rose from the dead, they will not stop with simplistic objections. They will search for the truth and follow the evidence where it leads.

Emir Caner’s view is not based on evidence then but pragmatism. We are not told in this why Licona is wrong. We are just told of the consequences.

If that’s the case, then I have a new refutation of “The God Delusion.”

“If we accept this book, then we will have accepted the destruction of Christianity and of civilization with it. Therefore, there is no need to contend with the arguments. We know the consequences will be dire and therefore, this book is wrong.”

You don’t accept that? Good. Neither do I. Appeal to consequences is a fallacy for a reason.

As I think about what Emir Caner said, I imagined this earlier message that would have been heard centuries earlier.

“The authority of Scripture has always held a high position in our history and we must do all we can to stop those who will undermine it. Therefore, it is imperative that Bible believers take their stand against the investigations of Galileo. We cannot risk having what the Scriptures clearly teach on geocentrism being shown to be false. If Galileo is allowed to have his way, who knows what else in Scripture will be called into question? It is imperative that we who believe in the Bible stand with the Pope and all others against this for the sake of Scripture.”

Yet today, the majority of Christians in America believe the Earth goes around the sun, even if they read places in Scripture that on the face could seem to say otherwise. Does anyone see any serious undermining of Scripture that has gone on as a result of that? If there is any, it is not because of the interpretation, but because of the response to the interpretation.

Now I am not saying Galileo was entirely innocent. I don’t believe he was. I am also not saying that the evidence was on his side then. I don’t think that was the case either. I am also not saying the way the skeptics present the case today is an accurate portrayal. I don’t think it was.

But I am saying we still have egg on our faces today because we did not handle an opinion that went against the majority correctly.

Have we learned nothing from the past?

Believers through the centuries have fought with their very lives to defend the complete truthfulness of Scripture

Indeed they have, and indeed so is Licona. Once again, several young earthers would say that Geisler’s interpretation is doing the exact same thing. Note that the implication is that Licona is saying the Scripture is not true. This is a very serious charge and rather than being debated, the way it should have been, it has been assumed and the argument has gone from there.

we cannot, in the name of friendships or sincere motives, let our guards down when a generation of new believers are relying on present Christian soldiers to take their proper stand.

Ah yes! It is obvious the only reason someone would stand with Licona here is because of friendship or something of the sort. Well Emir Caner, I will tell you why I am standing with him.

I am standing with him because I do not believe he is denying Inerrancy and the attacks on his family, including myself then being married to his daughter, are unjust. I believe that this seriously undermines evangelicalism and leads to a hermeneutical method that cannot stand up to scrutiny.

If I thought Licona was denying Inerrancy, I would be telling him the same thing. I do not hesitate to tell my in-laws when I think they are wrong on something. In fact, we have areas of Christianity that we disagree on and they know well that we disagree on and that we’ve had back and forth on.

The consequences for this kind of behavior done towards Licona are undermining of the idea to follow the evidence where it leads. This is not following the evidence. It is refusing to look at the evidence. Having stated my argument, I will point out other consequences, as the fallacy is pointing to only consequences.

Tell me, is R.C. Sproul next on the list? He was a signer and he holds to a Preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. Is he thereby undermining Scripture and now a signer of ICBI will have to be held to account? Are all Preterists then automatically heretics?

What about the age of the Earth? Will we have to single out young-earthers or old-earthers? If we approach it this way, upon what grounds will Geisler say external evidence is allowable in one case but not in another? Should not an investigation of truth take into account all information?

What we have been shown we need is accountability in evangelicalism. Geisler is in this position today because we put him there. It is because too often Geisler has been held up as a paragon of apologetics and now whenever he speaks on any subject, even those outside of his expertise, we can hear the old cry changed to “Geisler has spoken. The case is closed.”

Thus, evangelicalism needs an accountability structure set up with people who hold to many different interpretations to make sure no one person has too much power in the church. As we do not have this now, then the question at this point is “Who can call Geisler to account?”

The answer is we can.

We might not be able to do something formal, but for the start, people can avoid buying his books and materials and not attending conferences he’s speaking at. It’s the pathway of speaking with you wallet.

We definitely need evangelical leaders to stand up now and say “Whether we agree with Licona or not, he has done a great service to Christianity and this kind of treatment of him is unacceptable.”

I understand several are concerned about losing reputation or losing jobs.

Yet I seem to recall someone long ago saying something about people who were seeking the honor of men rather than of God. I recall about how some would not stand up for Jesus because they sought the praise of men instead of the praise of God.

Of course, Licona is not Jesus, but are evangelicals willing to stand for the truth? We are told that we are to be ready to die for our faith in Jesus in an instant if need be. How can we have the ability to face real persecution when we cannot even stand up against one of our own and rein him in and say “No more!”

I ask evangelical leaders then to stand up with Licona, not in agreement of his interpretation necessarily, but in agreement that he is orthodox and not denying Inerrancy. If you are not a leader, like myself, I ask that you stand up with your wallet and also if you blog, with your blog.

As I watch the net, the main defense of Licona in all of this is being done by J.P. Holding, Max Andrews, and myself. There have been a few others who have written elsewhere, but the long-term has been the three of us. None of us are scholars. We are all educated, but we are not scholars. We are ordinary people who love truth and want to take a stand.

This show has gone on long enough and this whole thing should have been done by now. I pray the evangelical world will rise up and do something to stop this from happening now and from ever happening again.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Emir Caner’s post can be found here

Holding’s response can be found here

Geisler Resurrects The Zombie Argument

Will the Geisler controversy ever stay dead? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

It’d been a few weeks since we’d seen anything from Geisler on Mike Licona. For the rest of us, we’d moved on with our lives. Maybe Geisler’s got the hint already. Unfortunately, with the appearance of a new webmaster for Geisler also came new arguments from Geisler on a topic that the rest of the world no longer cares about.

Hence, I call it the Zombie argument. It should have stayed that way but Geisler seems to want to keep resurrecting it. Oh well. Let us look and see what the first proponent has to say.

Second, unfortunately, while Licona’s work defends Jesus’ bodily resurrection ably, the assumption of genre hermeneutic known as apocalyptic or eschatological Jewish texts whereby Licona dismisses the historicity of Matthew 27:51-53 (and its recording of the resurrection of saints) results effectively in the complete evisceration and total negation of His strong defense of Jesus’ resurrection.

Oh come on now! This is the same tired argument we saw from Mohler as well and the one Geisler fears. Let’s point out some differences.

First off, not all miracles are equal and not all resurrections are equally noteworthy. Which miracle do you think you could probably make a better case for? The parting of the Red Sea or Jesus turning water into wine? With the Red Sea, we could do archaeology and compare the records of Egypt and look at the events that happened at the time.

With the second one however, are we actually going to try to go to Cana and try to find some leftover wine and be able to see if it was water that was instantaneously turned into wine? We would be much more hard-pressed. This is a miracle that I believe happened but is not essential to our faith. I would defend the possibility of the miracle in this case, but if I had to give a historical case for this one in particular, I would be hard-pressed. I would simply point to the general reliability of John.

In 2 Kings, there is an account of a dead man thrown aside who touches the bones of Elisha and comes to life again. What historical evidence will be mounted to show that this resurrection happened? Again, I cannot think of any. We do not know what this man’s name was even.

Compare this to Jesus’s resurrection. We do have evidence outside of the gospels in the epistles and we have the rise of the Christian church, the role of an honor/shame motif in the event, the reality that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and the claims of the apostles to see the risen Christ. Licona presents several articles of defense of this one resurrection.

Does someone who is a NT scholar really think the appropriate response would be “Yeah, but that doesn’t matter since you don’t accept this other claim in Matthew 27.”

No. I don’t even think a Bart Ehrman would use that line. The method is to deal with the evidence for the resurrection. Farnell assumes that the resurrection of Jesus would be defended like the resurrection of the saints and that the miracle of the saints if it happened would be as historically demonstrable as that of the resurrection of Christ. This is a huge assumption and a false one!

This conclusion is subjective, arbitrary, hermeneutically quite unnecessary. Nothing demands such a conclusion in the context or supports such a conclusion.

Farnell says the above about Licona’s conclusion that the text is apocalyptic. What he leaves out are the many arguments that Licona gives. Licona argues for a number of pages in the book with evidences and in his talk at EPS, he gave even more evidence for his position.

Farnell’s position is like someone sticking their head in the sand and saying “No! I don’t accept it!” Instead of dealing with the arguments Licona has given, he just asserts that there’s no need to have that conclusion. It doesn’t matter that Licona has given reasons. Those reasons must obviously be false! Why? Because they disagree with what I believe!

If the events in Matthew 27:51-53 are held that way, nothing—absolutely nothing— stops critics from applying a similar kind of logic to Jesus’ resurrection. Licona’s logic here is self-defeating and undermines his entire work on defending the resurrection.

Nothing stops critics from doing so except for Mike’s argument. No one I know of would take the creed in 1 Cor. 15 as simply apocalypse. No one I know of takes the crucifixion as simply apocalypse. For these people, it’s an all-or-nothing game. Either everything is literally historical or nothing is. For NT scholarship, it’s not that simple.

First, Licona appears to take other events in immediate context both BEFORE AND AFTER this passage as historical (Jesus crying out, veil of temple split, earthquake, the centurion crying out). Merely because he finds these events “strange” is rather subjective. His idea of “What were they [the resurrected saints] doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning?” shows that an acute subjectivity reigns in Licona’s hermeneutical scheme.

Licona does not take that view simply because it is strange, but based on a historical argument that Farnell has not touched. It is easy to cry out about subjectivity when one does not want to deal with the arguments.

Second, no literary signals exist to the readers that Matthew has switched from historical narration of the events surrounding the crucifixion. The passage flows both before and after as a telling of the events with no abrupt disjuncture. How would Matthew’s readers have recognized that the events, before and after, were historical in time-space but not the immediate passage?

How would Matthew’s readers have been able to distinguish the genre change from historical narrative to what Licona term’s “symbolic” based in eschatological Jewish texts.

Matthew’s readers would have been the most educated as few people then were literate. The popular audience would have known based on oral clues rather than written ones. We do not live in that culture and it is a mistake to think our thinking would be just like theirs. What clues were there? There would be a number and some we don’t know of I’m sure.

For instance, I just got done reading Ken Bailey’s “Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes” and my eyes were opened to things in 1 Corinthians I hadn’t noticed in years of reading. Paul writes often in a ring composition with point A, point B, point C and then an emphasis in point D, followed by a restating of C, then of B, then of A. We Western readers miss this. A Jewish reader would have caught on immediately.

There is nothing in the text that has Paul saying “Oh Corinthians. I want you to know how I’m writing. Please understand this.” Paul wrote using clues internal to the culture that that culture would have recognized. The same could be going on here in Matthew 27 and Licona certainly thinks it is based on the study of genre.

It is highly dubious that Matthew 27:51-53 or Revelation should be associated with Jewish Apocalyptic literature. While Revelation may share some highly superficial characterstics, such as symbolism, it DOES NOT share the dualism, pessimism, determinism, pseudonymity or rewritten history transformed into prophecy that characterized such Jewish literature (see Leon Morris, Apocalyptic, 1972).

This man has a doctorate after saying Revelation should not be associated with Apocalyptic literature? The very first word of the book is the Greek word for apocalypse. If Revelation is not an apocalypse, pray tell what exactly should we define it as?

Does Revelation share all the characteristics? No. But what does. However, there are a number of similarities. I believe there is a dualism in the sense of good vs. evil with the good winning. I also think some of Revelation is historical and has been rewritten, such as the account in Revelation 12 which I believe to be a description of the birth of Christ. (Let’s wait now and see if Geisler sends the Heresy Hounds after me.)

I would lovingly ask Mike Licona to reconsider his position. All of us have had times when we have reconsidered positions and changed as we grow in the faith and wisdom as Christians and in the love of the Lord Jesus.

Instead, what we need is for Geisler to consider he could be wrong in the face of opposition. This reminds me some of when the Arizona Congresswoman was shot and P.Z. Myers was sure that the shooter was a Republican who listened to talk radio. Myers would jump on anything that supported his claim and ignore all that went against it.

If Geisler is so sure he’s right, then he should have agreed to the round table discussion. He should have also agreed to meet Licona with witnesses, but he has not done so.

Meanwhile, let’s look at just one piece from the other short letter.

Be encouraged that we all see through the childish attacks you have faced. In
our culture, personal attacks are often offered when the opposition cannot
answer the clarity of your position. Sadly it is apparent that sometimes Christians
do this as well. You do not stand alone. We have been there, and we stand
alongside of you in the truth! The Administration, Faculty, Staff and students of
the Arlington Baptist College pray for you and stand with you in this battle.

All the childish attacks. Oh come on!

If people cry out over this, I wonder what they would do in the face of real persecution in certain countries overseas.

To begin with, let us remember it was Geisler who threw the first punch here, and that punch has cost the Licona family income and loss of credibility. Note also Geisler has had a petition going around behind the scenes against Licona and Geisler has been getting Licona uninvited from conferences and doing the same to Copan and Habermas for supporting Licona.

Last I checked, none of us have done such to Geisler. Geisler has tried to control the evangelical world and make sure everyone sees things his way.

I agree that attacks can come when the clarity of a position cannot be answered, but in this case it has been. I’ve done it. Max Andrews has done it. J.P. Holding has done it. We have not seen replies to what we have said. Holding’s challenge to Geisler for open debate was even taken down from Geisler’s Facebook page and the person who posted it was banned from posting there.

Geisler has refused to listen then and has instead kept going on his Crusade. If he wants to play that game it is played as well. The response of Holding was to make a cartoon and now Geisler plays the victim card. It is like the bully who punches someone only to have another student who doesn’t like it come over and knock him down and then the bully cries out that he is a victim.

What is done is done because Geisler is going against unity in the body and damaging Evangelicalism as a whole. There was a day and age when many of us held Geisler’s name in great respect. Now we look at that name with shame. We see it as disgraceful and for us, it wasn’t because of anything that Mike Licona said about Geisler. It was seeing Geisler himself and how he handled disagreement and the hostility in his approach to Licona.

The cause of Geisler’s loss of respect in the evangelical world is Geisler alone.

We hope that Geisler will stop and see the damage he’s done to the body and give it a rest. There are far more important battles to be fought.

We also want to note the irony that Ergun Caner is listed as support. Geisler. Do you really want to use Caner’s name again? There are people that have been waiting for you to answer questions for years on this topic and now in a topic where your position is not accepted, you bring in an endorsement from someone who’s endorsement will not be accepted. Do you really want James White going after you again?

Now earlier, I would have and in fact did agree with you on Caner. I hadn’t looked at it, but I knew Caner and I had a high respect for you and none for White. It seemed like a grudge match. Now since I’ve seen the way you investigate these claims, I must say I would simply wish to look at this whole thing myself if I got the time, but even if you were entirely right on Caner, it still does not serve you to bring him in here.

Seriously, this whole thing is dead. The evangelical world does not care any more about it. Oh I’ll still comment whenever you say something like this, but I’m also aware you’re doing a fine job of destroying your own reputation. When someone takes a minor and makes a major issue out of it, there is something else going on.

It’s done. I pray soon you’ll meet Licona with witnesses as he has asked for and be able to make amends and put this all past us. Enough damage has been done. There is no need to keep beating a resurrected horse.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Marriage Failing?

Has the institution of marriage let us down? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Readers of the blog know that for all intents and purposes, I am still a Newlywed and this has been a major learning experience. I often look forward to my male friends who are single getting married themselves so they know the joy of it, but at the same time want to prepare them for realities. Marriage is awesome, but it is also something that requires work.

My wife and I are both diagnosed with Asperger’s. This makes our marriage even more interesting. Something we discovered early on was that while there are many ways we have to say “I love you,” some are unique to us. Her cooking me something is such a way and wanting to buy me something is a way. For me, I am all about knowledge and one way I have done so is by ordering books on marriage and reading about being a good husband.

I also listen to podcasts. One I’ve found quite enjoyable is Marriage Today with Jimmy and Karen Evans. (Link below) I think the advice given is often quite good and my wife and I have started the pattern of listening to an episode together and then discussing it. We listened today to one on God’s indestructible plan for marriage. After that, we discussed what the subject was, how women need to feel loved and secure and how men need to feel respected and honored.

We then talked about ways we do this for each other and then talked about ways we don’t do this for the other and how we’d like to see change. We also set up a rule that we want it to be that when she does not feel loved by something I do, she can tell me without fear of criticism or defensiveness, and when I don’t feel respected by something she does, she can tell me without fear of criticism or defensiveness. It doesn’t mean that the person speaking is right, but they do have a right to speak. I really think this would be a great rule for many marriages to follow.

However, there was one point I disagreed with on the show and that was when Jimmy Evans said that the institution of marriage was failing as more and more people were unmarried than ever before and divorce was becoming more prevalent. Some of you could be wondering “With unwed mothers, homosexuality on the rise, and cohabitation without marriage rising, how could you say the institution of marriage is not failing?” Some of you I hope have caught the distinction, and it is one my wife caught immediately when someone gave her the same kind of statement.

The institution of marriage does not fail. People fail the institution of marriage.

You see, the system works great. It’s God’s idea. It’s just the people that are in the system are often problematic. Why is this? One reason that comes to my mind immediately is how self-centered each of us is. We are all constantly looking out for #1.

Sure. The husband is more than willing to help with taking out the trash, but there’d better be sex in it for him or else he’s going to be upset. Meanwhile, of course the wife is willing to have sex with her husband, but he’d sure better be sure to paint the kid’s bedroom!

This can sadly happen and in each case, each person is looking out for #1 and not seeing the joy in helping their spouse just for helping them. Okay men. You’ve spent all day cleaning up the house to surprise your Mrs. and then think “I bet she’ll want to show me how much she appreciates this!” Let’s suppose that wasn’t on your mind really when you started, but now it is and of course, it’s all you can think about it.

Question. If she does not give you a really good time tonight, are you going to feel hurt?

Let’s hope the answer is no. She is not under obligation after all. There is nothing that says that if you do X, she must have sex with you. Keep in mind however men, that women will say you are never more attractive to them than you are when you’re doing housework. (On a forum I belong to, there was a thread once called “Female porn” that consisted of pictures of men fully clothed doing housework.)

If she does, well you can certainly enjoy that! If she doesn’t, what do you enjoy? You enjoy that you got to show love to your wife and please her. Perhaps if she is not interested, she has her own reasons and it might just be that it does not mean anything whatsoever about her lack of desire for you. Instead, just let it be. It’s not much of a gift of grace to her if you give of yourself only so you can get something in return. Keep in mind we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church, which means sacrifice.

Now as to the women, so you spend all the time prettying yourself up waiting for your husband to get home from work. You’ve had a nice and long shower, put on his favorite perfume and the nicest make-up, fixed his favorite dinner, and you have those rose petals on the bed while you’re wearing a very revealing outfit all for him and have that romantic evening all planned with some nice romantic music. When he comes home, he is pleased and the night goes exactly as you wanted.

And now you go to sleep that night and think “I’ve shown my husband a great time. I hope he’ll paint the kid’s bedroom tomorrow.”

What if he doesn’t? What if the guy is still a bonehead who has not caught on as to how much this means to you? Do you get angry? “I did all this for him and he doesn’t do this for me?!” (oh how tempting it can be for us!) Or, do you delight that you showed your husband love? Note however I think this wife is on the right track. Women. You find men doing the housework attractive, but it is certain that if you nag your husbands, they will find that unattractive and will NOT want to meet your request. In fact, the way to get your husband to have more interest in your desires is to have more interest in his. One of the best things you can do in this case is to seduce your husband.

Marriage is the best way to draw you out of yourself and start you focusing on another. As you live with the other person, you have to learn how to change. You can no longer think about just what you want. Perhaps I want to spend some time in study and my wife wants to watch a movie. Am I willing sometimes to forgo that for the joy of my family, or will my wife always be second to academia? (For those concerned, we do often watch movies together at home).

Perhaps the Mrs. has been busy preparing herself to head out the door, but her husband sees her getting ready and suddenly has other things on his mind. Okay. Maybe you are too busy at this point, but does that mean you have to give a flat no? How about something like “I’d really love to right now, but I have to get to work, but I will be thinking about you all day today and if you have things ready when I get home, I will also be ready.” Be assured of this women. You will be on his mind ALL DAY!

No. You can’t do everything every time, but what would happen if in marriage each person put the needs and desires of the other above themselves? Why most of each person’s needs and desires would be met. What do we do when we seek to look out for #1? We seek to meet our needs and desires. A major difference with the first way is that in this case, we not only get them met, but we also grow in holiness and character as we reach beyond ourselves into the other.

Someone I worked with once asked me what the best way to learn forgiveness was. I answered to get married. In marriage, you spend a lot of time being forgiven and giving forgiveness because all your faults are displayed there for the other person to see and there’s nowhere to hide.

For we men, we have to learn to love with grace. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church, a tall order that should fill us with terror when we see how badly we are failing obviously. The women are to love as the church loves Christ. Some women might be saying “Well that’s a relief because the church doesn’t do that one well!” It would be a mistake to think that way. The church is the body of Christ and the church is to love Christ as if they were loving themselves. How many of us are good at doing that with the other?

It’s not a surprise to me then that so many people try to take the easy way out to avoid this, but the easy way will seldom produce exemplary results. “Marriage is just a ritual” The problem is with the word ‘just’. The ceremony is certainly a ritual in a sense, but it is much more than that. The wedding day is a day that will change your life forever.

Ah. Such a risky manuever! Let us go without risks! We will try each other out first! We will see how we do and if we think we are doing well, well then we might consider marriage.

Do you like being tested? Now some of us are rare exceptions in that when test time came at school for me, I was thrilled. I thoroughly enjoyed a good test. That is because I knew the subject and could pass it and thus, that meant that I had an easy class.

What if the test was never-ending? What if the test was every day? What if you were tested on every comment, every action, and every fiber of you being? Would that be a good test? What if it was not your knowledge that was being tested, but rather you that were being tested?

What if this test determined whether this person would love or respect you and your entire future happiness could depend on this?

Are you able to be free? No. You must walk on pins and needles. Your time in the bedroom cannot be as passionate if you know that you must please this other person. You cannot seriously think about having children if you know that this other person might not be around to help raise them. How can you plan to buy that house if you could be left with a mortgage when the other person abandons you?

For a married couple, they are to stay together no matter what. Whatever happens, one makes the best of it and loves and/or respects anyway. For the couple that is living together, it is but a sham.

“Okay,” I have heard several single guys ask me. “What’s the big deal? If I’m in love with this woman, I want to have sex with her. Why should I wait?”

You know what. That’s a good question. Why should you wait? Another good one is “Why shouldn’t you?”

For single men who are willing to take this risk, you are playing a very very dangerous game. I was relieved when one friend I have who started dating already told me they were making sure that if their relationship went well, there would be no sex until marriage and that that goes without saying.

For too many guys, even Christian guys I know, it sadly does not go without saying.

The dangerous game is that this is something dynamite that will forever change the fabric of your relationship. In ancient times, most marriages were arranged at birth. Today, many still are. How did that work? The two people who never knew each other come together after the wedding for the first time. This was usually where something like a bloodied sheet would be shown so all could celebrate the marriage being consummated.

That act was what it took to begin forming the bond. Were it not that the future of the human race is built upon having children and that sex is something designed to be very pleasurable, I suspect most men would never get married. However, it is that drive for the female that makes us want to be with her and the act of sex increases that desire all the more. Don’t think it can happen and the fabric of your relationship not change. It most certainly will.

Marriage creates the perfect bond for that. This is why Paul even told men and women to only abstain if they agreed beforehand and to come quickly together lest the devil use their lack of self-control. Obvious reason even for Christian couples? Both will want more and it will quickly become something highly important in the marriage.

Marriage helps to stabilize this drive. The man knows he must work to please the woman and provide for her as she meets his need for respect. The woman knows that she must be gracious and loving so that her husband will be able to meet her need for love and security. Sexual intercourse will also be a great security for her as it will be a great affirmation of respect for him.

Why wait? Because you want to save that for the person you’ve committed your whole life to. “Well I already know she’s the one!” Okay. If you’re so sure, you should be willing to wait. Is she not worth waiting for? You can rest assured, there will be times in marriage when you have to wait. You might as well learn now.

Thus, if she is the one, wait and you will have her eventually. If she is not the one, then you can be sure you are saving yourself for the right one.

But it could just be our drive for our personal pleasure is greater than our drive for personal holiness.

And maybe that’s what the problem is at root. We are lovers of self rather than lovers of God. If you are in a marriage and you do not love your spouse, do not give me this nonsense then that you love God. Now sadly, if in the case of a situation like abuse, it could be you have to separate, but I’d also be praying for your spouse to be convicted and repent and return to holiness. Most of us are not in these situations and how can we be lovers of God and not lovers of our spouses? John told us we cannot say we love God if we do not love man who is in His image.

Let us then reach beyond ourselves and love God and love our spouses, for the glory of God, and show the world the institution of marriage is not failing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Info on Marriage Today can be found here

God and Art

What hath Heaven to do with a Sketchbook? Let’s talk about it today on Deeper Waters.

As readers of this blog probably know, my wife is an artist. I, on the other hand, could not draw a good stick man if my life depended on it. I have at times got out of a picture of her and tried to draw it only to throw it away in shame unable to believe I had ruined things that way. How is it that one cannot take a simple picture and just copy what they see? As it stands, at this point, I cannot.

Last night, I was listening some to N.T. Wright as he talked about the creation and how it points beyond itself and how this relates to art. I do not recall exactly what it is he said, but I do remember that the idea of God and art has been bouncing around in my mind since then. The idea of aesthetics as pointing to God has long been appealing to me.

Beauty is something amazing to us all. Do we really think about the purpose of beauty? As I pondered it, one purpose I saw of beauty was that beauty is to draw us in and to make us want more of what it is that we see. We can see this often in secular programming today with a girl wearing an outfit around a man she wants to attract with the line of “I bet you’d like to see more.”

Of course, most women also know they have this power over men.

My wife and I sometimes watch shows on HGTV together as this is something she enjoys and I can tolerate it alongside her. I have noticed that on one show where a couple or single person is given a choice of three houses and we have to see which one they will choose to live in, that the Princess and I have always said we’d like to live in the same house. What I had not considered until I started pondering on this was the important role that beauty played in all of this.

Of course, a house needs to be functional for someone to live there, but we seem to have a necessity that it be beautiful. We do not really want to live in a house that will be perceived as ugly.The beauty adds value to the house and gets us to want the house more. We feel as if we are being drawn into it and being asked to experience more and more of it. We lose ourselves in its beauty.

This is also the case with good books. There are such things as bad books. They are a drag to read. You literally have to force yourself through page after page. Then, there are good books. I used to listen to Harry Potter on audio and found myself in my car saying “I’ll turn it off after this sentence.” “Okay. After this sentence.” “I can wait a little bit.” The story was drawing me in. I wanted to hear more.

In suspense, I love the works of Mary Higgins Clark. When I read a book of hers, I want to know what happens and can spend every waking moment thinking about the characters in the story and wondering what will happen next.. Who is it that I think has done the crime? How will everything work out? The story has worked its magic. The spell is cast. I am drawn in.

As a married man now, this is definitely an important aspect of marriage. When we were growing up we wanted our Mommies and Daddies. At times, we say today that we want our friends. However, when a man says he wants his wife and when a wife says she wants her husband, there can be times they mean something completely different from any of those prior wants.

Do we want our parents for their beauty? Do we want our friends for their beauty? No. But when it comes to spouses, we do want that beauty. In fact, we want more of that beauty. When we are dating, we seek to make ourselves as appealing as possible. Before I drove out of state to meet my Princess, I would have a good haircut and pick out a good outfit and make sure I had showered well and took something for breath. I wanted to look my best.

Why? The idea is simple. I wanted her to want me and the way to do that is to present beauty. To be sure, if that beauty rests solely in the physical, then that is a problem. If anything, we were first drawn by the beauty of hearts which is something special about connecting over the net at times. You see the person’s heart first.

As it stands, my wife does get more beautiful to me every day and I find it very pleasing when I know she wants to be beautiful not for her sake, but for my sake. Marriage is not meant to be an end of dating as it is so often seen, but it is to be an extension of dating with still each person wanting to draw the other in.

In Smallville, in the first season in the episode “Nicodemus”, Jonathan Kent is in a coma and Martha Kent relates to Clark about how she first met him and based on how he acted she found herself thinking the strangest thing of “God. I hope he marries me.” She then said that she still says every day. “God. I hope he marries me.”

To love in holy matrimony is not just a one-time choice, but is rather a choice that is made every day. To wake up and love is a choice that must be made. I make it a choice that when I wake up, to be sure to kiss my wife first. At the end of a work day, she’s already asleep, so I make it a point to have it be first that I go and kiss her. If I wake her up, she has done a good job of hiding it.

When we speak of this beauty in marriage, we must also speak of it in sexual union. This is the ultimate case of the drawing in and it is no surprise that it is the female who draws in the male. It’s my contention that of all that God created, the human female is the most beautiful of all and thus was saved for last, and I think the females would actually agree with me that overall women are more beautiful than men.

The idea of sexuality is that in that case, beauty seems to take on a new life, and indeed, this is the form of beauty that does create new life. Beauty reproduces after itself when it is reduced to the bare minimum. When the man and woman lose themselves in the beauty of one another, they are able to create a beauty together that neither could create alone.

In this case, the man seeks to possess the woman. He wants that which is totally different from him and wants it for it. He doesn’t want her the same way he would want a friend or a family member, which would more often be based on some function alone, but he wants his wife for her beauty first and while that does lead to a function, that leading is based on beauty.

This whole drawing in is fascinating, but what does it have to do with God? God is the master artist. If truth-seeking is thinking God’s thoughts after Him, could it be the case that good artwork is imagining God’s imagination after Him? We cannot create new things. We can only take the ideas God has created already and find new ways of reshaping them. It is the same with colors. The only colors we make are those that are combinations of prior ones. We cannot create new primary colors.

In that case, the world is meant to draw us in and we are to remember that the world in the sense of sinful humanity and desires is not good, but in the sense of humans as persons created in the image of God, it is good. People do not always behave good. We certainly know that. People insofar as they are however are good. This is not moral good, but ontological good, the goodness of simply being. The existence of people is good.

Many of us have a problem with the environmental movement and with some aspects of it, I can certainly agree with that disagreement. I do think some go too far in that they worship nature. Nature is not the end. It is not the final reality. The pantheist and the atheist both make the same mistake there. However, while they go too far in that they practically worship nature, we go too far in that we are not even tempted to.

In our world of technology, we can get so caught up in it that we lose sight of the beauty out there. I know this is a fault of mine. I am so eager to get caught up in all of the information that even when caught out in nature somewhere, I can just be wanting to check my mail. This is a fault in me. It is not a fault in creation.

When my wife and I go out somewhere in nature, with her interest in it, I know that she sees a lot more than I do. I am too busy thinking about all those things that we have created often that I do not take the time to look and appreciate what it is that God has created.

When we look at the environmentalists, we need to realize that Christians should be on the forefront of the environmentalist movement. Our God created this world and He created it to be beautiful and we should seek to do what we can to preserve that beauty for everyone.

Good art will seek to take God’s beauty and put it in such a way to best exemplify it. It will want to draw us in and at the same time make us want to be better than before. A good story will also have good virtue in it. A good painting will grasp us in the wonder of the true artist.

There is also the beauty of God Himself, an aspect often overlooked. What have we said about seeing a beautiful object? (By seeing, please do not limit it to the sense of sight. The same happens for beautiful music, smells, touches, etc.) We have said that the beauty makes you want to want the object all the more. You want to know it. As in the case of the opposite sex, you want to possess the other.

What of God who is not only the source of beautiful things, but beauty Himself? If we say we want God, then we should find Him beautiful. If we do not find Him beautiful, we will not find that we want Him. If we otherwise find that we do not really want God, then we need to ask if we really find Him beautiful. If we do not, and to an extent we all do not, then we need to ask if we really want Him. If we do not want that which is beautiful, the fault does not lie in the object of desire, but in ourselves.

Do we find ourselves drawn into God and the things of God? Do we live our lives wanting to experience the beauty that He has created and the beauty of Himself, or do we find ourselves rejecting these? Keep in mind that the more we reject the beauty, the more we move to the place of the ugly, and the most ugly place of all is of course, Hell.

If we love God, we will find ourselves wanting to say that we want to know Him as He is better. I will freely admit that in my own mind for me, this is a shortcoming of mine as I can very easily get distracted. I often do not find myself thinking on the things of God, but at times when I do get fresh insights into what I believe, something I find excellent about listening to N.T. Wright, I do find that passion for God there and the desire to want to know better.

As in the case of any beauty, the more we go into God, the more we find. The more we study the Bible, we will not just find that we know more, but we will find that there is more that we do not know. For those who are artists, such as my wife, they are privileged. Thinkers like myself get to present God to the world in ideas. Artists get to show Him in images somehow. Not so much as in sketching a picture of God, which cannot be done, but in using their images to make the viewer want more beauty, which will ultimately mean more of the ultimate beauty, God Himself.

May we find Him more beautiful every day.

In Christ,
Nick Peters