Missing Out On Things In Life Doesn’t Matter At All

The Bible clearly teaches that there are some good and enjoyable things on this earth that will not exist after death.

Even though Scripture promises enormous blessings for God’s people after they die, it is clear too that some God-given and enjoyable things that can be found on this earth of ours will cease to exist.

Enjoyable things on this earth that will not exist after death

There are a number of things that fall into this category.

For example, the Bible teaches that after death there will be no marriage or having children (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35). This means that Christians who never get married or have children here on this earth will never, ever have an opportunity to do these things.

Similarly, the Bible teaches that this earth will come to an end and be replaced by the new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 21:1), and it seems very unlikely that the geography of both earths will be exactly the same. If this is right, it means that Christians who never visit amazing places on our earth will never, ever have an opportunity to visit them.

Sadness about missing out on these things

It seems clear to me that some Christians, who don’t experience some of these things here on our earth, have a certain sadness about the prospect of forever missing out on them. They understand that the blessings for God’s people after death will be enormous, but they feel disappointed to a certain extent that they will permanently miss out on things that exist here and now.

This especially concerns getting married and having children. These are obviously huge and life-changing events for those who experience them, and for some believers the thought of forever missing out on these things is a painful one.

This thinking is completely wrong

Although at first sight it might seem reasonable for Christians to think in this way, it actually doesn’t make sense.

I am not saying that it doesn’t make sense for Christians to feel pain about missing out on these things here and now. For example, a Christian might suffer being single and long to be married here and now. Or someone without children might suffer and long to be a parent here and now. Or someone who is unable to travel far from where they live might be disappointed that they are unable to do this here and now.

Suffering in these ways does make sense. I am not suggesting that Christians who suffer these things shouldn’t be suffering. Missing out on good things that God created does hurt and it makes sense that it hurts.

My point is that being upset at the thought of forever missing out on things doesn’t make sense. And the reason for this is simple. When we are with Jesus after death, from that time forward we won’t care at all that we missed out on anything while we were here on this earth, and from the perspective of the present almost all of our future will be with Jesus after death.

The vastness of our blessings after death

It is impossible to overstate the size of the blessings that will come our way after we die or the Lord returns to earth.

In 2 Corinthians 4:17 the apostle Paul says:

‘For our momentary light affliction is producing for us an absolutely incomparable eternal weight of glory.’

In this verse Paul is contrasting the sufferings of Christians here on our earth with the blessings we will experience after death.

It is actually not straightforward to translate the original Greek of the verse into English. Paul seems to get a bit carried away with the language he uses, and he literally describes the size of the eternal weight of glory we will experience as ‘according to excess towards excess’. This could be translated as ‘absolutely incomparable’ or ‘utterly enormous’ or ‘unspeakably gigantic’ or ‘exceedingly vast’ or something along these lines.

It really is difficult to find words to describe how wonderful and joyful our lives will be when we get into the immediate and visible presence of the Lord Jesus after death or His return to earth. And it is not possible that in that state we will have any feelings of sadness about what we missed out on while we were on this present earth. And that state will last forever!

It doesn’t matter what we miss out on

So for millions and millions of years on into an infinite eternity we won’t care at all about what we missed out on here on this earth. Therefore, because our future here on this earth is as nothing in length to our future on the future earth with Jesus, and because our future on the future earth will be nothing but happiness, it makes no sense to feel sadness now at the prospect of forever missing out on enjoyable things that exist on our earth.

It would only make sense to feel sadness now about this, if after death the blessings we will experience will not be all that great. But Scripture simply won’t allow us to think that this will be the case. The blessings after death will be vastly greater than the most enjoyable thing here on this earth.

Or perhaps it might make sense to feel sadness now about this, if after death from time to time we were going to feel some regret about what we had missed out on while we were on this earth. But, again, Scripture won’t allow us to think that this regret will exist.

As Christians we need to be people who set our hopes fully on the unspeakably colossal blessings that God has promised us after we die or Jesus returns to the earth. Compared to that, it just doesn’t matter what we miss out on while we are on this earth.

So, although it may hurt us in the here and now to miss out on some of these things, a time will come when we couldn’t care less what enjoyable things we missed out on while we were on this earth. And because, from the perspective of the present, almost all of our future will be in that glorious state, it makes no sense to feel any sadness at the prospect of forever missing out on things that can be found on this temporary earth of ours.

 

See also:

Becoming a Christian Is the Ultimate Bargain

What Counts as True Success in Life?

How and Why Should Christians Rejoice?

Some Things for Christians to Do When They Are Hanging on by Their Fingernails

What to Do If You Feel Like Blaming God for Something

I think it would be right to say that it is common for Christians to feel like blaming God for things. Sometimes sufferings arise in our lives that we just don’t understand, and it is easy to feel unhappy with God as a result.

A little technique to use

I think if we feel like blaming God for something, it is helpful to do the following.

Imagine that Jesus, the God-Man, is sitting with you. And imagine that He is there to defend how He has treated you. In other words, imagine that He is speaking to you, explaining exactly why you have suffered the things that have made you upset with Him.

In His infinite wisdom, He would know exactly how to convince you that He hasn’t treated you badly.

You know that He would succeed in convincing you of this, don’t you? You don’t really think, do you, that if Jesus were trying to defend how He has treated you, He would fail to persuade you?

Deep down every Christian surely knows that this is true. If the Lord Jesus were to give a defence of how He has treated any of us, a defence tailor-made to what each of us can understand, what He said would be totally compelling. We would be sitting open-mouthed, amazed at how perfectly He had defended everything He had done to us and let us go through. We would see crystally clearly that He had not treated us badly and that what we had suffered made sense.

Of course, when we do feel like blaming God, Jesus isn’t actually sitting down with us, talking to us face to face. But what we need to do is accept by faith that His defence of how He has treated us would be totally convincing. Deep inside we know it’s true. So, walking by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7), we need to decide that we are going to trust His wisdom even if we can’t physically see and hear Him defend how He has treated us.

Blaming God is a sin

Although it is common for Christians to feel like blaming God, we need to be clear that blaming Him for anything is a sin. He is morally perfect and totally blameless in every way.

It is true that, when we are suffering, God wants us to tell Him all about how we feel. This means that if we feel blame towards Him, we should be honest and say this. We must always be one hundred per cent honest with Him about everything.

Of course, He won’t be shocked or even surprised by what we say. He already knows how we feel in every detail. But it is good for us to express our feelings to Him in this way.

Nevertheless, a Christian should never remain for an extended period of time with feelings of blame towards God. We know that blaming Him doesn’t make sense. Deep down we know that how He has treated us in no way conflicts with His goodness.

The example of David

Instead of blaming God for things in our lives, we do very well to follow the lead of David as seen in the Psalms.

When David was suffering, he poured out his heart to God. He pleaded with Him. But he stopped short of blaming Him. He never went so far as to actually say that God was to blame for anything.

For example, in Psalm 13:1-2 David says:

‘How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I take counsel in my soul and have sorrow in my heart all the day? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?’ (ESV)

It is true that at first sight, when David uses the words ‘Will you forget me forever?’ he seems to be blaming God for forgetting him. But it would be a mistake to take this too literally. This question needs to be interpreted in the light of verses 5-6, which end the Psalm:

‘But I have trusted in your steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in your salvation. I will sing to the LORD, because he has dealt bountifully with me.’ (ESV)

We could perhaps say that in this Psalm David gets close to blaming God. We could maybe even say, because he was sinful like we are, that he experienced some feelings of blame towards God. But he stops short of actually blaming Him. He is expressing His frustration in a very vivid way. But he doesn’t go so far as to blame the Lord.

Summing up

The next time you feel like blaming God for something you have suffered or are still suffering, I would encourage you to do what I have suggested.

Imagine that Jesus is sitting down with you for the express purpose of defending how He has treated you, that He isn’t in a hurry, and that His defence is going to be tailor-made for what you are able to understand.

You know He would succeed, don’t you? You know you would become completely convinced that He hasn’t treated you badly.

So make a decision to accept this by faith. Apologise to God for blaming Him for anything, renounce the feelings of blame, and praise Him that He is with you to help you. And remember too that on the cross Jesus suffered more than you can imagine and that it was for you.

 

See also:

Some Things for Christians to Do When They Are Hanging On by Their Fingernails

Trusting God When We Are Not Sure What to Do 

How and Why Should Christians Rejoice? 

Taking Heart from the Apostle Paul’s Experiences of Setbacks and Failed Plans

Is It Right for Christians to Name and Claim Things in Faith?

Sometimes you will hear Christians speak approvingly of using a principle of ‘Name it and claim it’ when praying for things. They say that it is good Christian practice often to name something before God in prayer and claim the answer in faith.

It is also quite common to hear Christians speak disapprovingly of naming and claiming things in faith. They say that Christian prayer should not be like this and that it encourages believers to selfishly treat God like some sort of vending machine.

So who has got this right? Should we name and claim things in faith or shouldn’t we?

I would suggest that the principle of naming things before God and claiming them in faith is a good and biblical one, although it is important not to misunderstand this kind of prayer and to see its limitations.

Actually, although the principle of naming and claiming is a good one, because the precise label ‘Name it and claim it’ tends to be connected quite closely to the mistaken teaching that is known as the ‘Prosperity Gospel’, I think we do better to avoid using this label itself. But the basic principle is a good one generally as far as prayer is concerned.

Mark 11:24

An important verse on this topic is Mark 11:24, where Jesus teaches:

‘Whatever things you pray and ask for, believe that you have received them, and they will be yours.’

Here Jesus commands His followers to claim things in faith when praying. He is encouraging us to go boldly to God and say, ‘Lord, I ask You to do x, y and z, and I believe that You are going to do them.’

Jesus actually uses a past tense – ‘you have received’ – instead of a future – ‘you will receive’ – but the idea is that the person praying is so confident of receiving the answer in the future that it is as if they have already received it.

Although, as I have said, we do better to avoid the label ‘Name it and claim it’, Jesus is clearly encouraging us in this verse to treat prayer in this sort of way.

This only applies to things that are the will of God

It is interesting to note that although Mark 11:24 mentions the condition of believing/faith for a prayer to be answered, nothing is said about the condition of asking for something that is the will of God.

Importantly, however, language generally, as well as biblical language, often expects the reader to understand unexpressed conditions that are treated as obvious. And it should be obvious that Jesus means us to understand that this promise of God answering our prayers asked in faith only applies to prayers that are for things that are the will of God. If something isn’t the will of God, Jesus’ words certainly don’t apply.

So, for example, suppose that a certain Christian is somehow deceived into believing sincerely that God wants to give him a red Ferrari, although this is not the will of God at all. So he prays for this, genuinely expecting to receive it.

Will God give it to him? Absolutely not! Jesus’ words in this verse are in no way saying that God is somehow obligated to answer a prayer that is against His will, just because a Christian happens to wrongly think that it is His will.

Mistakes of those who approve of naming and claiming

There is no doubt that some Christians who say they approve of naming and claiming things in faith do try to abuse this principle for selfish gain. They have failed to understand that the approach to prayer outlined in passages like Mark 11:24 is essentially not about getting God to give us things we like (although that will happen sometimes) but about being involved in God’s work of building His church.

It isn’t that Christians are supposed to call the shots and get God to fit in with our prayers. Rather, we are supposed to claim things in faith that glorify God and advance His work in the world. It should be all about Him, not us.

Mistakes of those who disapprove of naming and claiming

On the other side, some Christians who say they disapprove of naming and claiming things in faith seem to throw the baby out with the bath water.

By all means, let us avoid the approach of those who want to abuse prayer for selfish gain. But let us be crystal clear too that the Bible contains passages like Mark 11:24 that teach us to name and claim things in faith, even if we avoid that exact label.

Here is the verse again:

‘Whatever things you pray and ask for, believe that you have received them, and they will be yours.’

Note how this verse contains not just a suggestion for how we should pray but a command. And there is not the slightest doubt that this command applies just as much to Christians living today as it did in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It’s not optional for us to do this. It is the way that the Lord Himself has instructed us to pray.

 

See also:

Every Christian Should Be a Prayer Information Hub

Getting the Balance between Expecting Too Little and Too Much from Prayer

Christians Need to Put Everything to the Test

Fighting Tooth and Nail to Interpret the Bible Honestly

Is It Important for a Christian to Be a Member of a Local Church?

It is not that uncommon to meet people who say that they are Christians but that they don’t get involved in any local church.

Some of these people make no effort to interact with other Christians at all, not even on the internet. Others do things like join church services online but don’t physically go to services or meet with other Christians.

The value of meeting with other Christians

Importantly, the Bible knows nothing of Christians going it alone, and it everywhere assumes that they will physically meet with other believers as and when they are able.

On this topic, Hebrews 10:24-25 is especially relevant, where the author writes:

‘And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.’ (ESV)

This passage is clear about the value of Christians meeting up, presumably to do Christian things together like worship God and pray.

Unless someone is housebound, there seems to be no good reason not to go to church gatherings. And even in the case of someone who is housebound, they should typically have Christian fellowship by receiving other believers into their home.

Joining services on the internet is better than nothing, but it is very inadequate. Meeting online is just no substitute for fellowship in the actual presence of other Christians.

In recent times we saw something similar during the Covid pandemic. Friends and relatives were often separated for long periods of time and met up to video-chat on the internet, but it just wasn’t the same as meeting in the flesh. In the same way, Christian fellowship is just deeper and more meaningful when God’s people are physically together.

Complaining about the state of local churches

Sometimes people who don’t get involved in a local church try to justify this by pointing to what they believe are serious faults in churches in their area.

I have never been convinced by this, and I think these people tend to be very judgmental and have unreasonably high expectations. Often, many of their criticisms of churches are right, but they go too far in the way they rule out all churches in their area as apostate.

I can remember some time ago speaking to a Christian man in Edinburgh who said that he and his wife were not involved in any local church because ‘none of them preach the gospel’. In a city that had literally hundreds of local churches, this was just nonsense. Even if 90 per cent of them were very poor churches – something that may well have been true – that would still have left more than a few to choose from.

The value of having one local church as a home

There are some Christians who do meet up with other believers in their area at church services, prayer meetings, etc., but they aren’t members of any one church. Instead, they get involved in multiple churches without making any one of them their home church.

So what should we make of this?

I think, firstly, it is much better for Christians to be members of a particular local church, to have that as their base, as their home. If these people find themselves in difficulty, it helps to know which church is responsible for helping them. And if they need to be disciplined in some way, again, it helps to know which church is responsible.

But secondly, if someone does have one church as a home, there is certainly nothing wrong with also being involved to a lesser extent in other local churches too. It really makes no sense to think that God’s people in an area should avoid meeting up with other Christians at various times and for various purposes just because the other believers happen to be members of other local churches.

Formal or informal membership?

Another relevant issue is whether membership of a local church should be formal or informal. Should people sign a piece of paper to become a formal member of a local church, or should this all be informal?

I would suggest that making things formal is the better thing to do, for the purposes of church discipline.

If professing Christians in a church are unrepentant of serious sins, they need to be put out of the fellowship, to try to encourage their repentance (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1-5), and it is easier to sort all this out if these people are formal members of that church.

The Bible refers to non-Christians coming along to Christian gatherings (1 Cor 14:23-25). These people would typically be unrepentant of various sins, but they should not be discouraged from visiting.

In a situation where there is informal membership of a church, professing Christians who are unrepentant of serious sins might try to avoid being put out of the fellowship by claiming just to be visitors, hoping to take advantage of any grey areas that exist as regards who exactly is a member of that church. However, if they have formally entered into membership of that church, there would be no way for them to use this ploy.

 

See also:

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

What Should the Dress Code Be for Christian Worship Services?

Denominations and Christian Self-Identity

Is It Ever Right to Be a Secret Christian?

Are Christians Supposed to Tithe Their Money?

When it comes to financial giving, there are many Christians today who claim that it is God’s will for us to tithe our money.

For anyone who doesn’t know, to tithe means to give a tenth of something. So someone who tithes their money gives away a tenth of it.

Some of those who say that Christians should tithe believe that we should give a tenth of our income to our local church. Others believe that we should give away a tenth of our income but don’t specify that this should all be to our local church.

Tithing and the New Testament

So what should we make of this? Are Christians today supposed to follow a principle of tithing when giving away money? Does the Bible point us in this direction?

The answer to this question seems to be a clear ‘No’. There is no good, biblically-based reason for thinking that Christians are under an obligation to tithe.

It is true that twice in the Gospels we find Jesus accepting the validity of tithing herbs (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42). However, firstly, the topic here is herbs, not money. And secondly, in the context of each of these passages He is speaking to Jews who lived in Old Covenant times and who were under obligation to obey the rules of tithing found in the Law of Moses, something that is not the case for Christians today.

More importantly, it is striking that although the New Testament is full of instructions for Christians to be generous in giving away money, this is never connected to any principle of tithing.

For example, in the Gospels we frequently find teaching on the importance of giving money to people in need (e.g., Matthew 5:42; 6:1-4; 19:16-22; 25:31-46; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 3:10-11; 12:33; 19:8-9). However, no Gospel passage connects financial giving to tithing.

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 8-9 the apostle Paul talks at some length about the importance of giving generously. If he had wanted to tie this to a principle of tithing, he could have said that God expects Christians to give a tenth of what they earn. Or he could have said that giving a tenth is the first step in giving and that it is also good to give over and above that. But he doesn’t mention a tenth at all.

In short, there are many places in the New Testament where it might make sense for a principle of tithing to be mentioned if Christians were expected to tithe. The fact that such a principle is never mentioned suggests that we aren’t under obligation to do this. The New Testament contains many instructions to be generous in giving money, but this is never connected with a principle of giving a tenth of what we have.

Problems caused by insisting on tithing

Insisting on tithing can cause various problems.

First, wealthy Christians can sometimes be led to believe that God doesn’t usually expect them to give away more than a tenth of their income, and that He is content for them to spend the rest on themselves.

However, this idea sharply contradicts the whole tenor of New Testament teaching on giving, where extreme generosity is encouraged.

See, for example, how in Luke 12:33 the Lord Jesus tells His followers, ‘Sell your possessions and give to charity’. Or see in 2 Corinthians 8:3 how Paul commends the churches of Macedonia for giving ‘beyond their ability’. Neither of these verses fits with the idea that rich Christians are supposed to keep hold of 90 per cent of their wealth or even close to 90 per cent.

Second, insisting on tithing can cause Christians in dire poverty to be led to believe that they must always give away 10 per cent of what little they have.

This is not a simple issue, because it is true that there is often a place in Christian living for poor believers giving away money and God giving back to them in return. God does work in this way at times.

But on the other hand, I would suggest that there are also times when it is better for Christians in serious poverty to use what little they have for themselves and their families, so that there is no danger they might become a burden on others, and so that they don’t put themselves under even more pressure.

Third, setting a rule that Christians should tithe could in some cases help to foster a legalistic frame of mind.

Christian living is not about following lots of rules and regulations. The Bible doesn’t encourage us to think in this sort of way.

It is true that it can occasionally be helpful for us to make a rule or two to live by on some issue or other, but this is not something that we should be doing much of. Lots of rules will become a burden weighing us down.

Focusing on generosity in giving

When thinking about financial giving, instead of focusing on a principle of giving a tenth, we do much better to focus on a principle of being generous without counting the cost. This really is something that the Bible supports in spades.

 

See also:

Christians Must be Generous in Giving to the Poor

In What Order Should Christians Choose to Help People?

The Prosperity Gospel Is a False Gospel

Is It OK for Church Leaders to Live in Luxury?

Could the First Christians Have Been Lying When They Said Jesus Rose from the Dead?

As everyone will be well aware, there are many opponents of the Christian faith today, who deny that Jesus rose from the dead. 

Some of these people argue that the first Christians genuinely believed that Jesus’ resurrection happened but were mistaken. Others argue that the story of Jesus’ resurrection began as a lie. 

In what follows, I want to say something about this second idea, that the resurrection story began as a lie. As we will see, this idea is extremely implausible and should be ruled out. It just doesn’t make sense. 

Many early Christians claimed to have seen the risen Jesus 

The first thing we need to understand clearly is that many of the first Christians claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. 

They include the early Christian leader called Paul, who wrote quite a lot of the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul stated: 

‘3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that, he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 And last of all, as to one born at the wrong time, he appeared also to me.’ 

So Paul is claiming here that Jesus appeared to him and to many others of the first Christians after he rose from the dead. And it is worth noting that there is wide agreement among scholars of Christian origins, whether or not they are Christians themselves, that Paul himself genuinely wrote this. 

There is no good reason for doubting that Paul would have been quite well informed about which other Christians claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. 

We know that Paul knew a number of the others he refers to in his list in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. 

In verses 5 and 7, he says that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas (i.e., Peter) and James (i.e., James the brother of Jesus, as scholars widely agree). In Galatians 1:18 – and scholars agree that Paul wrote Galatians – he says that he went to Jerusalem three years after he became a Christian and spent two weeks with Cephas. Then in the next verse he remarks that at that time he saw James the brother of Jesus. In Galatians 2:9 he also refers to meeting with John, one of the apostles. 

There is plenty of other evidence too which makes it highly likely that Paul knew others among the apostles he refers to in v. 7. 

To cut a long story short, scholars agree that Paul knew at least several of the people he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and that he probably knew many of them. 

There are good reasons for thinking, then, that in this passage Paul is accurately giving a list of early Christians who claimed they had seen the risen Jesus. 

Unsurprisingly, there is wide agreement among scholars of Christian origins that many of the first Christians claimed they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. 

The suffering of early Christians who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus 

The next thing we need to understand clearly is that many of the first Christians suffered badly over an extended period of time because they were Christians, and that this certainly included some of those who claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. 

Paul himself was one of these people. In 2 Corinthians 11:23-28 he lists the sufferings he experienced because he was a Christian: 

‘23 . . . [I have been] in far more labours, in far more imprisonments, beaten countless times, often in danger of death. 24 Five times from the Jews I have received the thirty-nine lashes. 25 Three times I have been beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I have been shipwrecked, I have spent a night and a day in the sea. 26 I have been on many journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from bandits, dangers from my own countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brothers, 27 in toil and hardship, in many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and nakedness. 28 Apart from such external things, I have daily troubling concerns about all the churches.’ 

Again, it is worth noting that there is wide agreement among scholars of Christian origins, whether or not they are Christians themselves, that Paul himself genuinely wrote this and that he is being honest about what he experienced. 

There is wide agreement also that Peter, James and the other apostles, who are on Paul’s list of people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, suffered badly over an extended period of time because they were Christians. And there is also wide agreement that some non-apostles who made this claim suffered in this way too. 

People don’t go on suffering for something they invented as a lie 

So we have seen that many early Christians claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. And we have also seen that some of those who made this claim suffered badly over an extended period of time because they were Christians. 

The crucial point here is that people simply don’t spend years suffering badly for something they have invented as a lie. It just wouldn’t be worth it. 

If someone claimed that they saw Jesus risen from the dead, when in fact they knew that they hadn’t, one beating or one spell in prison would be enough for them to abandon this claim. Either they would admit they had invented it, or they would just keep quiet and go and do something else with their life. They wouldn’t keep saying that Jesus rose, bringing more and more suffering on themself. So the fact that they did keep saying this must have been because they believed it. 

The idea that Jesus’ disciples stole his body from the tomb and invented the resurrection appearances is therefore not a reasonable  one. Instead, we should have no hesitation in saying that the early Christians genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. 

The resurrection story did not begin as a deception by Jesus 

Occasionally people suggest that Jesus might actually have survived his crucifixion, and that this could explain the origin of the story of his resurrection. Under this theory, it would be Jesus himself who plotted a big deception. 

This idea should be totally rejected, however. 

First, it is extremely unlikely that someone sentenced to death by the Romans would have survived. 

Second, even if, for the sake of argument, we were to suppose that Jesus survived crucifixion, we would have to assume that in his badly injured condition he then hatched a plot to deceive his followers by pretending to rise from the dead, a plot he succeeded in implementing! This is impossibly implausible. 

Summing up 

In short, although there are many who claim that the story of Jesus’ resurrection is based on a lie, this simply doesn’t make sense of the evidence. 

The idea that so many of the first Christians suffered so much for something they knew was a lie should be ruled out. And the idea that Jesus survived his crucifixion and then managed to trick his followers into believing that he had risen from the dead is just as implausible.  

 

See also: 

A Very Strong Piece of Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus 

The Resurrection of Jesus and Probability 

Two Things about Atheism That Everyone Should Consider 

Are the Old Testament and New Testament Portraits of God Contradictory?

What Makes a Human Being a Human Being?

I was talking recently to someone who was arguing in support of abortion. She used a couple of arguments to try to make her case, arguments that are often used by pro-abortionists but which I am sure are misguided.

In what follows, I want to mention these arguments and say why I believe they don’t work.

A point about terminology

Pro-abortionists, of course, almost always claim that an unborn baby, at least in the first months inside the womb, is not really a baby. I strongly disagree with that claim.

However, because this article is aimed at convincing those who take a pro-abortionist position or are undecided, it would be a methodological mistake for me to assume something that those I am arguing against wouldn’t accept.

So, for the sake of argument, at times in what follows I will refer to an unborn baby as an entity or an entity in the womb, since these are terms that everyone would agree are correct.

The argument that appeals to viability

The woman I was talking to used an argument that appealed to the so-called viability of the entity in the womb, and it went along the following lines:

Up until about 22 weeks after conception, the entity in the womb would not be able to survive outside the womb. That means that it is incorrect to describe it as a viable human being. Therefore, it is not wrong to deliberately destroy it.

Firstly, it is important to recognise that there is something very arbitrary about this argument. If someone is going to say that the entity needs to be able to survive outside the womb in order to be classed as a human being, why stop there? Why not say that the entity also needs to be able to feed itself in order to be classed as a human being?

A newborn baby, of course, if left to fend for itself would die. To survive, it is completely dependent on another human being to feed it.

So we can divide things up into three stages. At stage 1, in the first months inside the womb, the entity is unable to survive outside the womb. Then stage 2 is reached when the entity is able to survive outside the womb but only if it is fed by someone else. And finally stage 3 is reached when the entity is able to feed itself.

For someone to claim that the entity is not a human being at stage 1 but is at stage 2 is purely arbitrary. This is just plucked out of thin air.

If having a certain level of ability to survive is a factor that determines whether an entity is a human being, there is no more reason for drawing the line at stage 2 than there is for drawing it at stage 1 or stage 3. Simply to assume that stage 1 doesn’t make an entity human but stage 2 does is an unwarranted assumption.

Secondly, to think in terms of the ability of the entity to survive in various circumstances is completely wrongheaded anyway. As God has designed things, in the first months of its life the entity is not supposed to survive outside the womb. At that stage in its life it is supposed to live in the womb and feed through the umbilical cord.  And then after birth God has designed that the entity is dependent on being fed by another human.

The fact that in the early stages of its life the entity can’t survive outside the womb, or the fact that soon after birth it can’t survive without being fed, are beside the point. These things have nothing to do with whether or not the entity should be classed as a human being.

The argument that appeals to suffering mothers

The woman I was talking to also used an argument that appealed to the suffering of some mothers, and it went in the following way:

Some girls get pregnant at a very young age as a result of rape. It would be wrong to force them to go through the trauma of a pregnancy and having a baby they don’t want. Therefore, in such cases it is not wrong to deliberately destroy the entities in their wombs.

On this point I want to make it clear that I shudder just to think of what these girls would go through having a baby. I have no desire to treat lightly the horrendous suffering involved. But nevertheless, I strongly disagree that it would be OK for girls in this situation to have an abortion.

I asked the woman I was talking to what her view was if a young rape victim gave birth to a baby and was then deeply traumatised and strongly wished the baby was dead. I asked her if she would approve of killing the baby after it was born, and she said that she wouldn’t.

I then asked her why she took this view, and she said that it was too late at that point to kill the baby.

Her answer showed that her top priority was not to protect the young girl from suffering, that there was some other calculation that was even more important. In other words, despite the suffering of the poor girl, the woman I was talking to believed that it was just wrong to kill a newborn baby. The baby was simply too valuable, and it was simply too late to kill the baby, regardless of how much the girl wanted the baby to die.

But suppose, for a moment, that what anti-abortionists like myself believe about the entity before birth is correct, when we say that this entity is a human being. If that is right, then it should be obvious that avoiding killing it should trump the desire to stop the young girl suffering, just as is the case with a baby that has been born.

So the issue of whether the entity in the womb is a human being is the key issue. The issue of the suffering of the rape victim, though very important, is not remotely as important as the issue of whether the entity in the womb is a human being. That is the key issue that trumps any issue of suffering.

The point I am making is that the issue of whether the entity in the womb is a human being is so important that it makes all arguments to do with the suffering of the mother irrelevant. So arguments supporting abortion based on the suffering of some mothers are completely beside the point.

What makes a human being human?

I have already said that the ability to survive outside the womb and the ability to feed oneself have nothing to do with whether an entity should or should not be described as a human being. So what does make an entity human? What is a human being?

I would suggest that the answer to this question is really very simple. A human being is an entity that has a soul made in the image of God.

Now, there should be no doubt that immediately before a baby is born it already has a soul, and few people calling themselves Christians would dispute this. But if it already has a soul before birth, it makes sense to think that the joining of the soul to the material part of the human occurs at some critical point. However, before birth the only really critical point that exists is conception.

If we were to say that the soul joins to the fertilised egg or embryo or foetus at some time after conception but before birth, what reason would we give for taking this view? Why would we think that the soul joins after the physical component of the human has been growing for a week? Or why would we think this happens after 10 days or after 20 or 40?

Crucially, nothing critical happens at these times. But, by contrast, the time the sperm fertilises the egg is a real critical point, and this is surely the time at which the soul joins the physical part of the human. When else could it be?

Thinking, then, that the tiny size of a human fertilised egg in the first few days after conception means that it is not really a human being doesn’t make sense. In fact, a human being with a human soul made in the image of God is present, despite the tiny physical size of the entity in question.

 

See also:

Does the Oral Contraceptive Pill Cause Abortions?

How Serious a Sin Is Sex outside Marriage?

The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of Western Society

Divorce and Remarriage Are Only Acceptable in Special Circumstances