Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3797&b=Matthew

Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Testing, proving, or trying someone can be a very effective teaching technique. A teacher might effectively test the honesty of her students by giving them a difficult closed-book exam over a chapter they had not yet studied. Those who took their “F” without cheating would pass the test. Those who opened up their books when the teacher left the room and copied all of the answers word for word, would fail the test, and learn the valuable lesson that honesty is always the best (and right) policy, even when it might appear that it means failure.

Teachers test their students in a variety of ways. Good parents prove their children early on in life in hopes that they learn the virtues of honesty, compassion, and obedience. Coaches may try their players in attempts to instill in them the value of being disciplined in all phases of their game. Bosses test and challenge their employees in hopes of assembling the best team of workers who put out the best products possible. Indeed, mankind has understood the value of tests for millennia.

It should come as no surprise that God has used this same teaching technique various times throughout history. He tested Abraham on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:1-2; Hebrews 11:17), and hundreds of years later He repeatedly tested the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2; Psalm 81:7). King David declared how the Lord “tested” and “tried” him (Psalm 17:3), while his son Solomon wrote: “The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests the hearts” (Proverbs 17:3). Roughly 1,000 years later, the apostle Paul declared the same inspired truth—“God…tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Even when God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, He tested man. For example, once when Jesus saw “a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?’” John revealed, however, that Jesus asked this question to “test” Philip (John 6:5-6).

There are certain tests administered by God that some find cold and heartless, partly because they fail to recognize that a test is underway. One such event is recorded in Matthew 15:21-28.

Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He [Jesus] answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

In this passage, the reader learns that Jesus: (1) initially remained silent when a Canaanite woman cried out for mercy (vss. 22-23); (2) informed her that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24); and (3) told her that it was not fitting to take that which was meant for the “children” and give it to the “little dogs” (vs. 26). In addition, Jesus’ disciples urged Him to “send her away, for she cries out after us” (vs. 23).

Although Jesus eventually healed the Canaanite woman’s demon-possessed daughter, some believe that Jesus’ overall encounter with the woman indicates that He was unkind and intolerant. For example, the prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 529 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2010).

Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, offensive, or a racial slur. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we wouldnot be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4). Any unkindness on Jesus’ part would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

TO THE JEW FIRST AND ALSO TO THE GREEKS

In order to understand properly Jesus’ statement, one must recognize the divinely appointed order in which the Gospel would spread. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, in his epistle to the church at Rome, the apostle Paul stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

HOW FAR CAN AN ANIMAL ILLUSTRATION BE TAKEN?

To our 21^st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal.... It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews.... Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).

A TEST OF FAITH

Given other information in Matthew’s gospel account as well as the overall context of Matthew chapter 15, it appears that more was going on in these verses than Jesus simply wanting the Gentile woman to understand that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added).

If Jesus so willingly responded to a Gentile in Matthew chapter eight by miraculously healing his servant of paralysis, why did He initially resist healing the Gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter in Matthew chapter 15? Consider the immediate context of the chapter. The scribes and Pharisees had once again come to criticize and badger Jesus (15:1-2). The Son of God responded with a hard-hitting truth: that His enemies were hypocrites who treasured tradition more than the Word of God, and whose religion was heartless (vss. 3-9). What was the reaction of the Pharisees? Matthew gives no indication that their hearts were pricked by the Truth. Instead, Jesus’ disciples reported to Him that “the Pharisees were offended” by Jesus’ teachings (vs. 12, emp. added), to which Jesus responded: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (vss. 13-14). Unlike many modern-day preachers who water down the Gospel and apologize for the Truth, Jesus did not sugar coat it. It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but sincere truth-seekers will respond in all humility, regardless of being offended.

Being offended is exactly what many people would have been had they initially been turned down by Jesus as was the Canaanite woman. While she pled for mercy, at first Jesus remained silent. Then, after being informed that Jesus “was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24), she worshiped Him and begged Him for help (vs. 25). Even after being told, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (vs. 26), this persistent, humble woman did not allow potentially offensive remarks to harden her heart. Unlike the hypocritical Jewish scribes and Pharisees who responded to Jesus with hard-heartedness, this Gentile acknowledged her unworthiness, while persistently pursuing the Holy One for help (15:27). Ultimately, her faith resulted in the healing of her daughter and served as an admonition to those witnessing the event about the nature of true faith.

What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. The fact is, the truth can hurt (cf. Acts 2:36-37). However, we must remember to respond to God’s tests and teachings of truth with all humility, rather than haughtiness (James 4:6,10).

Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

REFERENCES

Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Breidenthal, Dean (2003), “The Children’s Bread,” http://web.princeton.edu/sites/chapel/Sermon%20Files/2003_sermons/090703.htm.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Wells, Steve (2010), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html.

Christians, Gambling, and the Lottery by Dave Miller, Ph.D. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1251

Christians, Gambling, and the Lottery

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Playing the state lottery, and frequenting casinos, have become prominent pastimes for millions of Americans. More and more people are participating, in the hope of becoming millionaires. While there have been a few exceptions and isolated cases in American history, it is really only recently that gambling has come to be considered socially acceptable. Though times have arisen when gambling became more widespread, overall public sentiment has frowned upon the practice. Gambling generally has been illegal in our society, and the word “gamble” was a slang term of reproach. People in polite society, who held virtuous and moral convictions, viewed gambling as an unacceptable, inappropriate, even sinful vice. Those who engaged in such practices were seen as the degraded elements in society who served only to weaken social sensibilities.

The first modern state lottery was established in New Hampshire in 1964, while Nevada legalized the nation’s first casino in 1931 (“Indiana…,” 1998). The extensive opportunity of gambling activities did not capture the American public’s attention until the 1970s and 1980s. Now, however, horse and dog racetracks and casinos have sprung up all over the country. Several state governments now sponsor lotteries, complete with massive advertising campaigns. In 1988, the Federal Indian Regulatory Act opened the door to widespread casino development throughout the country. By 1993, riverboat gambling had been established in six states, and land-based casinos were legalized in several additional states. Gambling has become normalized across the nation, and various gambling activities are legal in all states except Hawaii and Utah. In 1995, more than $500 billion was legally wagered in the United States—a dramatic increase from the estimated $17 billion wagered in 1979, less than two decades earlier (“Indiana…”).

In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus Christ laid down a test by which every activity or philosophy could be assayed, and its true value assessed. He said, quite simply, that “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” Jesus’ statement was addressed specifically to false teachers, but it certainly can be applied to various philosophies and activities of life (such as gambling). What kind of fruit does gambling produce? When legalized gambling arrives in a new community, does it raise the moral standards of that community? Does it help to lessen the hardships of families in that community? Or, is the opposite the case? Does legalized gambling place a burden on the communities by an appreciable lowering of the moral standard and an increase in the financial burden for those who already are working with a poverty-level budget? Let’s take a walk down the gambling produce aisle and see what it has to offer.

The social effects of gambling have been substantial. Current data indicate that more than 80% of Americans participate in some form of gambling (Lesieur, 1993). Johns Hopkins University researchers reported that the social cost of excessive gambling “ranks among the most expensive illnesses afflicting society, though it is among the least expensive to treat” (Politzer, et al., 1985). In the late 1980s, the National Council on Compulsive Gambling estimated that between four and six million gamblers are suffering from an addictive disorder that threatens their lives and the lives of their loved ones (Chamberlain, 1988, p. 37). Now, gambling researchers say that at least eight million Americans are compulsive gamblers, with one million of these being teenagers (Chavira, 1991, p. 78). A survey of 500 Gamblers Anonymous members reported that 21% of the participants stated that they had never thought of suicide, 48% said they had thought about suicide, and 13% had attempted suicide (Frank, et. al., 1991). According to the Charter Hospital of Las Vegas, the suicide rate among active gamblers (especially women) is the highest of all illnesses (see Charter Hospital, n.d.). Would anyone classify a highly addictive activity that often results in the participant’s contemplation of (or attempt at) suicide as a beneficial fruit that is good for society? On the contrary, such can easily be recognized as a rotten fruit that would suggest that the activity itself is not above reproach.

Furthermore, experts have expressed alarm at the rising numbers of teenagers who are gambling. They refer to gambling as “the growing addiction,” and predict that it will cause teens more problems during the next decade than illegal drugs (McCabe, 1990, p. 7-D). In the first ten days of the Texas Lottery, counselors operating the hotline of the Texas Council on Problem and Compulsive Gambling reported alarming stories about teenage gambling:

An 18-year-old employee of a convenience store called on the second day of the lottery reporting he had scratched off hundreds of tickets belonging to the store, saying, “I thought it was a sure thing I would win enough not only to pay the store for the cost of the tickets but would have a bunch left over.”

An affluent 16-year-old male from an upscale suburban neighborhood reported he had lost “a considerable sum of money” on the lottery. Realizing he was under the legal age to buy tickets, he had asked older friends to purchase tickets for him. He admitted to heavy gambling in school restrooms.

A father of a 19-year-old from a rural town in East Texas was distressed because his son was gambling on cards and dice and had spent his weekly paycheck on the lottery (“Teenage…,” n.d.).

The director of the National Center for Pathological Gambling made this apropos observation: “You have state governments promoting lotteries. The message they’re conveying is that gambling is not a vice but a normal form of entertainment” (Chavira, p. 78). Just the fact that there is a “National Center for Pathological Gambling” should clue every legislator into the fact that there is something wrong with this type of activity.

In 1957, Gamblers Anonymous was formed, and has since grown to more than 800 chapters in the U.S., and more than 1,400 meetings worldwide. The experts are comparing compulsive gambling to alcohol and drug addiction. The official position of Gamblers Anonymous is the promotion of abstinence from gambling as essential to a person’s recovery. As one might expect, their strongest and most active group is in Las Vegas.

David A. Korn, in an article titled “Expansion of Gambling in Canada: Implications for Health and Social Policy” in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, noted that gambling often affects the lower-income families more dramatically than those of higher income, due to the fact that lower-income families spend almost four times as much on gambling (in proportion to their income). Korn wrote: “These data suggest that gambling expenditures may be regarded as a voluntary regressive tax that has a proportionately greater impact on people with lower incomes.” He further noted: “Several populations are vulnerable to the impacts of gambling, in addition to lower socioeconomic groups. The cost to families in terms of dysfunctional relationships, violence and abuse, financial pressure, and disruption of growth and development of children can be great.” In concluding his article, Korn commented: “The rapid expansion of gambling represents a significant public health concern that challenges our values, quality of life and public priorities” (Korn, 2000).

What then, could one conclude from even a cursory glance at the “fruits” of gambling? Gambling is addictive, it preys on those with lower incomes, it dramatically affects teens, and it often leads to dysfunctional family relationships and abuse. Surely these would classify as “bad fruits.”

FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

A dramatic change in the social order of American culture has taken place. As the moral fiber of American civilization deteriorates and biblical values are jettisoned, activities that once were perceived to be harmful to society are now becoming acceptable. Many people no longer care what God thinks or what the Bible teaches. Nevertheless, there is a God in heaven who has given His written Word. That revelation is designed to govern human behavior. One principle that runs throughout the Bible is that of stewardship. The Bible repeatedly and consistently paints the picture that God is the ultimate owner of all earthly possessions. The psalmist observed that the Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10). James wrote that every good and perfect gift comes from God (James 1:17). Jesus referred to humans as stewards—those who are entrusted to take care of another’s property (Luke 12:42). And He declared that every person has the moral responsibility to be a faithful steward of the money that has been entrusted to him (Luke 16:10-11). Yet, each year people shell out billions of dollars gambling away the money that has been entrusted to them by God. Imagine the good, wholesome projects that could be supported annually by such enormous stores of cash—children could be fed, the Gospel could be preached, houses could be built, and the list goes on. Instead of such worthwhile projects, however, these billions of dollars are pumped into a system that leads to addiction and abuse. It would be difficult, indeed, to conclude that gambling is good stewardship of the money with which God has entrusted a person. In reality, to pour one’s money into a system that mathematically and statistically has been proven, time and again, to benefit the “house,” and take from the gambler, certainly would fall into the category of unfaithful stewardship. Concerning unfaithful stewardship, Christ said: “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon [money or riches], who will commit to your trust the true riches” (Luke 16:11)? To stand before the throne of Christ, having squandered the money God entrusted to you on an idle and degenerative activity like gambling, would be a frightening thought indeed.

Furthermore, imagine the potential negative influence of a Christian who participates in gambling. For one thing, many people, who are not even affiliated with the Lord’s church, view gambling as a sinful vice that respectable people should avoid. Looking over the fruits of gambling, it is not difficult to see why they would think such. If they saw a Christian in a casino, or buying a lottery ticket, what would that do to their opinion of that individual and the congregation of the Lord’s body of which that individual is a member? Would it not drastically reduce the chances of that Christian having a positive impact on the one who saw him gambling? Certainly, the Christian is responsible for the image he or she portrays, and for how “those who are without” view his or her actions. Paul told Timothy, for example, that a bishop (elder) “must have a good testimony among those who are outside” the body of Christ (1 Timothy 3:7). If many people outside the Lord’s church view gambling as a morally reprehensible activity, and a Christian participates in that activity, he or she would have a difficult time explaining how such could be good for his or her reputation.

Furthermore, as Colossians 3:17 notes, “whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to god the Father through Him.” It is not enough for a person to ask, “What is wrong with an activity?” Instead, the question actually should be phrased: “What is right with this activity?” The burden of proof falls on each individual to show that what he is doing has a positive, encouraging effect on himself and on others. One would be hard pressed to find any evidence that would classify gambling as something that could be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In fact, when Christ returns, what person would want the Lord to find him in a casino?

CONCLUSION

Gambling is first and foremost a moral issue. There was a time in American society when the majority of people considered such things as lewd dancing, drunkenness, cursing, and gambling to be wrong. Obviously, times, circumstances, and culture have changed. But God and His Word have not. His Word warns that those who do not respect His will, and who choose to live life according to fleshly desires, will spend eternity in the fires of hell (Revelation 21:8). A genuine Christian is the one who eliminates from daily life the vice and immorality that is characteristic of a society that continually desires to abandon God’s will. Instead of “going along” with such a society, he or she studies the Bible in order to learn how God would have people to live. Only then can one eagerly look forward to the joys of heaven.

REFERENCES

Chamberlain, R. Edwin (1988), “Gambling: New Treatment Ideas for an Old Addiction,”Professional Counselor, November/December.

Charter Hospital of Las Vegas (no date), (Las Vegas, NV: Charter Hospital).

Chavira, Richard (1991), “The Rise of Teenage Gambling,” Time, February 25.

Frank, M.L., D. Lester, and A. Wexler (1991), “Suicidal Behavior Among Members of Gamblers Anonymous,” Journal of Gambling Studies, 7:249-254.

“Indiana Problem Gambling Prevention Plan” (1998), [On-line], URL: http://www.in.gov/fssa/servicemental/gambling/problems.html.

Korn, David A. “Expansion of gambling in Canada: implications for health and social policy” (2000), eCMAJ, [On-line], URL: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/163/1/61. Originally printed in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, July 11, 2000;163(1):61-4.

Lesieur, H.R. (1993), Understanding Compulsive Gambling (Center City, MN: Hazelden).

McCabe, George (1990), “Too Young to Gamble,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, p. 7-D, June 14.

Politzer, R.M., J.S. Morrow, and R. Leavey (1985), “Report on the Cost Benefit/Effectiveness of Treatment at the John Hopkins Center for Pathological Gambling,” Journal of Gambling Behavior, [1]:131-142.

“Teenage Gambling Addiction” (no date), Texas Council on Problem and Compulsive Gambling (Dallas, TX).

Autonomous Control of Creation by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4154

Autonomous Control of Creation

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

AUTONOMOUS CONTROL AND "MOTHER NATURE"

Engineers regularly work with control systems. Autonomous control is a step beyond remote control. Remote control applications allow manual issuing of commands through some sort of transmission device (i.e., a remote controller) that controls something else (e.g., a robot or television) located some distance away from the controller. Autonomous control, on the other hand, uses a computer program to issue the commands. The computer becomes the controller, instead of a human being. It is common knowledge in the engineering community that autonomous control is a subject that is of particular interest today. From autonomous control of ground vehicles (Naranjo, et al., 2006), to autonomous missile guidance systems (Lin, et al., 2004) and aerial vehicles (Oosterom and Babuska, 2006), to autonomous aquatic vehicles (Loebis, et al., 2004) and satellites (Cheng, et al., 2009), and even to autonomous farming equipment (Omid, et al., 2010), notable success is being made in this area of technology.

The amazing thing from a Christian perspective, however, is that many engineers—the designers of the scientific community—are becoming aware of the fact that the world around us is already replete with fully functional, superior designs in comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to date. Biomimicry (i.e., engineering design using something from nature as the blueprint) is becoming a prevalent engineering pursuit. However, some engineers are not interested in copying creation in their designs since they simply cannot replicate many of the features that the natural world has to offer. They are realizing that the created order oftentimes comes equipped with natural “sensor suites” whose designs surpass the capability of engineering knowledge to date. Animals possess amazing detection, tracking, and maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today’s engineering minds, and likely will be for many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand, from the University of Arizona in Tucson, admitted, “There’s a long history of trying to develop microrobots that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I think many engineers have realised [sic] that they can’t improve on Mother Nature” (Marshall, 2008, p. 41). Of course, “Mother Nature” is not capable of designing anything, since “she” is mindless. The Chief Engineer, the God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after all, could out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order, after some six millennia, His designs still stand out as the best—unsurpassed by human wisdom.

CONTROLLING THE LIVING

Recognizing the superiority of the natural world, the scientific community has become interested in learning how to remotely control living creatures instead of developing robotic versions. This line of thinking certainly adds new meaning to God’s command to mankind to “subdue” and “have dominion” over the created order (Genesis 1:28). One of the ways in which animal remote control is being done is by implanting electronics in animal bodies that are subsequently used to manipulate the movements and behaviors of the creature. Hybrid creatures such as these are known as bio-robots or cyborgs. Cyborg research has been conducted since the 1950s, when Jose Delgado of Yale University implanted electrodes into the brains of bulls to stimulate the hypothalamus for control purposes (Marshall, 2008). Since then, the list of remotely controlled animals using electrode implantation has grown to include:

• sharks (i.e., spiny dogfish; Gomes, et al., 2006; Brown, 2006)
• rats (Talwar, et al., 2002; Li and Panwar, 2006; Song, et al., 2006)
• monkeys (Brown, 2006; Horgon, 2005)
• mice (“SDUST Created…,” 2007)
• chimpanzees (Horgon, 2005)
• frogs (Song, et al., 2006)
• pigeons (“SDUST Created…,” 2007)
• cats (Horgon, 2005)
• gibbons (Horgon, 2005)
• cockroaches (Holzer, et al., 1997; “Researchers Develop ‘Robo-roach,’” 2001)

Cornell University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Arizona State University at Tempe are working on developing flying insect cyborgs, including hawkmoths and green June beetles (Ray, 2010; Sato, et al., 2008; Sato, et al., 2009; Bozkurt, et al., 2008). The University of Florida in Gainesville used electrodes to remotely control rats specifically for detection of humans (for search and rescue scenarios) and explosives (Marshall, 2008). Non-invasive remote creature control projects are underway as well. M.I.T. used virtual fencing coupled with Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking and autonomously herding cows by implementing auditory cues and shock reinforcement to keep cows within a desirable area (Correll, et al., 2008; Schwager, et al., 2008).

There is beginning to be more interest in the prospect of remotely controlling canines as well (“Grand Challenge…,” 2010). Engineers realize that dogs can traverse a variety of terrains more efficiently than humans or robots and are effective at guarding territories, carrying out search and rescue missions, as well as providing guidance for the visually impaired. They also have an amazing sense of smell that makes them capable of detecting explosives, narcotics, tobacco, pipeline leaks, retail contraband, and even cell phones and bed bugs (“Detection Services,” 2010). Since engineers have not developed a device that can compare with a canine’s ability to detect odors, the use of canines for these applications is attractive. Although other creatures, such as rats (Marshall, 2008), have a keen sense of smell, canines are more appealing, especially due to their innate ability to interact with humans. Thus, using canines for these purposes is attractive to engineers, and the ability to remotely control a canine for many of these purposes is an even more attractive goal. Many scenarios could be envisioned to illustrate cases where the presence of a dog handler alongside a canine could be an impossibility (e.g., tight areas in search and rescue operations) or undesirable (e.g., scenarios where the handler should not be visible or in harm’s way). In a recent event in Afghanistan, a bomb detection canine detected an explosive a moment too late. The canine handler lost his left leg and received other serious injuries (“Grand Challenge…,” 2010). Remote control capability or autonomous guidance likely would have significantly altered the outcome of this unfortunate event, as well as many others.

Since engineers cannot yet develop an adequate robotic solution to this problem, the Office of Naval Research funded a research project to develop such a solution—a research project I was heavily involved in at Auburn University while engaged in doctoral studies. The Canine Detection and Research Institute (CDRI) at Auburn University demonstrated that detection canines can be remotely controlled using a canine vest we developed that was equipped with a tone and vibration generator (Britt, et al., 2010). However, many cases could easily be envisioned where the canine would be out of sight from the handler (e.g., moving behind a distant building), at which time remote control capability becomes useless. Therefore, the next natural step was to automate that remote control capacity (i.e., autonomous control of the canine).

Since canines can traverse a variety of terrains more efficiently than humans, and possess a natural array of “sensors” used to detect and locate items of interest that robots are not readily equipped with, many aspects that pose problems to unmanned ground vehicles are inherently removed with the canine. Canines can execute the low-level decision making that is necessary for rerouting their local path to avoid obstacles or unfavorable terrain. We proved with notable success that canines can be tracked using GPS, inertial sensors, and magnetometers (Miller and Bevly, 2007; Miller and Bevly, 2009a; Miller and Bevly, 2009b), as well as be autonomously guided along desired paths to distant end points (Miller, 2010; Britt, 2009). More important, this system was designed without having to develop the technology that would be required for a complete robotic solution. Instead, a pre-designed creature, already developed by the Chief Engineer, was utilized. In the interest of not plagiarizing Him, I happily reference His incomprehensible work, although, unfortunately I cannot speak for all of my doctoral colleagues.

CONCLUSION

How ironic that those who are designed, design based on the Designer’s designs, while simultaneously claiming that those designs are not designed. How could mindless rocks, dirt, gas, or slime bring about the amazingly complex designs we see in the World? Personifying inanimate materials such as these with names like “Mother Nature” does nothing but tacitly admit that some Being is in control of the natural order. The frontlines of the engineering community today—bringing about unparalleled technology, more advanced than any society in the history of mankind—cannot come close to replicating the designs around us. Engineers are forced to borrow from God’s design portfolio (oftentimes plagiarizing Him—not giving Him due credit for His designs). What a testament to the greatness of the Chief Engineer’s created order! We may be able to try to fix some of the damage that has been done to the created order due to sin and entropy, but in the words of John Hildebrand, quoted earlier, we certainly “can’t improve on” God’s design. Rather than plagiarizing Him, let all engineers know, “He who built all thingsis God” (Hebrews 3:4, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Bozkurt, A., R. Gilmour, D. Stern, and A. Lal (2008), “MEMS Based Bioelectronic Neuromuscular Interfaces for Insect Cyborg Flight Control,” IEEEMEMS2008 Conference, pp. 160-163.

Britt, W. (2009), “A Software and Hardware System for the Autonomous Control and Navigation of a Trained Canine,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Summer.

Britt, W.R., J. Miller, P. Waggoner, D.M. Bevly, and J.A. Hamilton (2010), “An Embedded System for Real-time Navigation and Remote Command of a Trained Canine,” DOI 10.1007/s00779-010-0298-4.

Brown, S. (2006), “Stealth Sharks to Patrol the High Seas,” New Scientist, 2541:30-31, March 4.

Cheng, C., S. Shu, and P. Cheng (2009), “Attitude Control of a Satellite Using Fuzzy Controllers,”Expert Systems with Applications, 36:6613-6620.

Correll, N., M. Schwager, and D. Rus (2008), “Social Control of Herd Animals by Integration of Artificially Controlled Congeners,” Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pp. 437-447.

“Detection Services” (2010), Amdetech: Protection Through Detection, http://www.amdetech.com.

Gomes, W.J., D. Perez, and J.A. Catipovic (2006), “Autonomous Shark Tag with Neural Reading and Stimulation Capability for Open-ocean Experiments,” Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Ocean Sci. Meet. Suppl., Abstract OS45Q-05.

“Grand Challenge: Smart Vest for Detector Dogs” (2010), National Aerospace & Electronics Conference, http://www.naecon.org/challenge.htm.

Holzer, R., I. Shimoyama, and H. Miura (1997), “Locomotion Control of a Bio-Robotic System via Electric Stimulation,” International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Grenoble, France.

Horgon, John (2005), “The Forgotten Era of Brain Chips,” Scientific American, 293[4]:66-73.

Li, Y. and S. Panwar (2006), “A Wireless Biosensor Network Using Autonomously Controlled Animals,” IEEENetwork, 20[3]:6-11.

Lin, C., H. Hung, Y. Chen, and B. Chen (2004), “Development of an Integrated Fuzzy-Logic-Based Missile Guidance Law Against High Speed Target,” IEEETransactions on Fuzzy Systems, 12[2]:157-169.

Loebis, D., R. Sutton, J. Chudley, and W. Naeem (2004), “Adaptive Tuning of a Kalman Filter via Fuzzy Logic for an Intelligent AUV Navigation System,” Control Engineering Practice, 12:1531-1539.

Marshall, J. (2008), “The Cyborg Animal Spies Hatching in the Lab,” New Scientist, 2646:40-43, March 6.

Miller, J. (2010), “A Maximum Effort Control System for the Tracking and Control of a Guided Canine,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Winter.

Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2007), “Position and Orientation Determination for a Guided K-9,”Proceedings of the IONGNSS, Ft. Worth, TX.

Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2009a), “Determination of Pitch Effects in Guided K-9 Tracking,”Proceedings of the JSDE/IONJNC, Orlando, FL.

Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2009b), “Guided K-9 Tracking Improvements Using GPS, INS, and Magnetometers,” Proceedings of the IONITM, Anaheim, CA.

Naranjo, J.E., C. Gonzalez, R. Garcia, and T. Pedro (2006), “ACC+Stop&Go Maneuvers With Throttle and Brake Fuzzy Control,” IEEETransactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 7[2]:213-225.

Omid, M., M. Lashgari, H. Mobli, R. Alimardani, S. Mohtasebi, and R. Hesamifard (2010), “Design of Fuzzy Logic Control System Incorporating Human Expert Knowledge for Combine Harvester,”Expert Systems with Applications, 37:7080-7085.

Oosterom, M. and R. Babuska (2006), “Design of a Gain-Scheduling Mechanism for Flight Control Laws by Fuzzy Clustering,” Control Engineering Practice, 14:769-781.

Ray, Neil (2010), “The Cyborg Beetle: Progress or Ethical Deterioration?” The Triple Heliz, Issue 10.

“Researchers Develop ‘Robo-Roach’” (2001), VNUnet UK: UNU-MERIT—I&T Weekly, Issue 7, United Nations University, http://www.merit.unu.edu/i&tweekly/i&tweekly_previous.php?issue=0107&issue_show=7&year=2001.

Sato, H., C.W. Berry, B.E. Casey, G. Lavella, Y. Yao, J.M. Vandenbrooks, and M.M. Maharbiz (2008), “A Cyborg Beetle: Insect Flight Control Through an Implantable, Tetherless Microsystem,” IEEEMEMS2008 Conference, pp. 164-167.

Sato, H., Y. Peeri, E. Baghoomian, C.W. Berry, and M.M. Maharbiz (2009), “Radio-Controlled Cyborg Beetles: A Radio-frequency System for Insect Neural Flight Control,” IEEEMEMS2009 Conference, pp. 216-219.

Schwager, M., C. Detweiler, I. Vasilescu, D.M. Anderson, and D. Rus (2008), “Data-Driven Identification of Group Dynamics for Motion Prediction and Control,” Journal of Field Service Robotics, 25[6-7]:305-324.

“SDUST Created Remote-Controlled Pigeon” (2007), Shandong University of Science and Technology, http://www.sdkd.net.cn/en/news_show.php?id=65.

Song, W., J. Chai, T. Han, and K. Yuan (2006), “A Remote Controlled Multimode Microstimulator for Freely Moving Animals,” Acta Physiologica Sinica, 58[2]:183-188.

Talwar, S., S. Xu, E. Hawley, S. Weiss, K. Moxon, and J. Chapin (2002), “Rat Navigation Guided by Remote Control,” Nature, 417[6884]:37-38.

"Jesus Was a Vegetarian" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5095

"Jesus Was a Vegetarian"

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently I read the statement, “Jesus was a vegetarian.” Supposedly, since Jesus did not eat meat, neither should we. There are several problems with this line of reasoning.

First, people often use the “Jesus did x, y, or z” to demand that we should do the same things. But the truth is, just because Jesus did or did not do something does not necessarily have any bearing on what we should or should not do. Jesus did many things that we are under no moral obligation to imitate. For instance, could we say, “Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and so should you?” Or what about, “Jesus never rode in a car, and neither should we?” Would we be correct to demand, “Jesus never had electric lights, so cut off your power?” Or “Jesus never sent a text message, so stop texting?” You can quickly see the problem here. While it is the case that Jesus is the perfect example of how all humans should live, it is not the case that every aspect of His life is something that we should copy. Paul explained it well in Philippians 2:5 when he said, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Notice it is the “mind” of Christ, or His attitude, that we are to imitate. That means that while Jesus was seeking the lost He may have gone up on a mountain to preach, but we may need to use a microphone or a YouTube video. Or whereas Jesus walked from village to village, we may need to drive, fly, or ride a bus. Just because Jesus wore sandals that does not mean hiking boots are off limits for His followers.

The second reason the “Jesus was a vegetarian” statement was so strange to me is because it is patently false. He certainly was not a vegetarian. He often ate meat. In Luke 24:42-43 the text says: “So they gave Him [Jesus] a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.” The passage could not be more straightforward about Jesus consuming fish. In addition, since Jesus was  a Jew who faithfully followed the Old Law, He was commanded to eat the Passover Lamb every year. In Exodus 12:5-8, we read that all the Jews were to take a Passover lamb, kill it on the  14^th day of the first month and “eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs.” In the New Testament, we see Jesus arranging this very procedure with His apostles. Luke 22:7-8 states, “Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He [Jesus] sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.’” This was just one of the many animal sacrifices that Jewish people ate on a regular basis.

Third, the New Testament makes it clear that killing and eating animals is perfectly acceptable to God. In 1 Timothy 4:1-4 the Holy Spirit foretold that some were going to depart from teaching the truth and were going to command people to “abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Notice that in this passage, the sense in which God calls animals “good” is the fact that they are good for food. The idea that God, Jesus, or the Bible somehow morally obligate people to be vegetarians simply is incorrect.

Does “Laud” in Romans 15:11 Authorize Clapping in Worship? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4803

Does “Laud” in Romans 15:11 Authorize Clapping in Worship?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A recent contention that has surfaced among some Christians, in an effort to justify handclapping in worship to God, is the notion that the term in Romans 15:11 translated “laud” in both the KJV and NKJV includes the idea of handclapping. Never mind the fact that students of the Bible, scholars, and faithful Christians have been pouring over the text of the New Testament for nearly 2,000 years, with Romans 15:11 having been read and studied by thousands of individuals for centuries; and yet, through all those years, how many concluded that handclapping could be found in the verse? To ask is to answer. Even as proponents of instrumental music have imagined that psallo in Ephesians 5:19 includes a manmade, mechanical contraption, only recently has someone invented the novel notion that “laud” in Romans 15:11 includes handclapping.

Let’s be honest: can there be any doubt that someone had to be looking for a place in the New Testament to impose his bias on the text? Even as a person could read Ephesians 5:19 over and over and over for the rest of his/her life and never see any instrumental music in that verse, even so, reading Romans 15:11 would never lead an unprejudiced person to conclude that God encourages or endorses handclapping in worship. The heart that approaches God’s Word with an agenda—a predisposition to find what he or she wants to find—is by biblical definition a wicked heart (Job 13:7; Jeremiah 23:16; Isaiah 8:20). To then compound that sin by teaching and promoting the concocted viewpoint is inexcusable and unconscionable. Corrupting the pure worship of the Almighty is deadly (Leviticus 10:1-3). Think of the innocent souls endangered by the wolves that advance their wild, unsubstantiated theories. Tragic. Sad, indeed.

The English term “laud” comes from the Latin word laudare (present active infinitive of laudō) meaning “to praise, commend, extol, honor, compliment.” This action is achieved orally with words. It has nothing to do with clapping. On the other hand, the English term “applaud” comes from the Latin word applaudere (from plaudō/plaudere), meaning “to strike, beat, clap.” Hence, “applaud” is defined as “to clap the hands (hit the palms of the hands together) as an expression of approval, appreciation, acclamation, etc.” (Lewis & Short, 1879). Conclusion: “laud” and “applaud” are separate and distinct Latin terms. They are not synonyms. (Interestingly, in Romans 15:11, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate had magnificate, to “magnify” or “extol”—et iterum laudate omnes gentes Dominum et magnificate eum omnes populi).

Of course, the Holy Spirit did not give us God’s Word in English or Latin. So we must go to the original languages to make certain we are grasping God’s intended meanings. The Greek term translated “laud Him” (NKJV) in Romans 15:11 is epainesatosan from epaineo meaning “to praise or commend.” The term occurs only six times in the New Testament, the other uses being Luke 16:8 and 1 Corinthians 11:2,17, and twice in vs. 22 (Moulton, et al., 1978, p. 351). In Luke, the master “commended” the unjust steward because he had acted shrewdly. In 1 Corinthians 11, the term is used to denote the “praise” (or lack of it) that Paul expressed toward the Corinthians—so translated all four times. Hence, in all six occurrences of the word, the idea of clapping is completely absent. Compare the following 20 English translations on Romans 15:11, where the word in question is indicated in bold type and underlined:

“Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people” (KJV).

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles! Laud Him, all you peoples!” (NKJV).

“Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; And let all the peoples praise him” (ASV).

“Praise the Lord all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him” (NASB).

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples” (NIV).

“Praise the Lord, all Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him” (RSV).

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him” (ESV).

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him” (NAB).

“Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and magnify him, all ye people” (Douay-Rheims).

“All Gentiles, praise the Lord; let all peoples praise him” (NEB).

“Praise the Lord, all you heathen, and let all nations sing his praises” (Goodspeed).

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; let all the nations of the world do him honour” (Knox).

“All you nations, praise the Lord, and all the people should praise Him” (Beck).

“Let all the pagans praise the Lord, let all the peoples sing his praises” (Jerusalem Bible).

“Praise the Lord, all Gentiles; praise him, all peoples!” (TEV).

“Extol the Lord, all Gentiles, let all the peoples praise him” (Moffatt).

“Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and let all the nations extol Him” (Weymouth).

“Praise Adonai, all Gentiles! Let all peoples praise him!” (Jewish N.T.).

“Praise the Lord, all ye gentiles; and let all the people praise him” (Phillips).

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; and sing his praises, all you peoples” (Confraternity).

No known English translation translates Romans 15:11 with the word “clap.” Those who advocate such a meaning apparently think they know more about the original language than the hundreds of Greek scholars who produced our English translations.

Since Romans 15:11 is actually a quotation of Psalm 117:1, one must examine the underlying Hebrew term. That word is shahvach, which occurs eight times (in the Piel) in the Old Testament (Wigram, 1980, p. 1225). The Hebrew authorities (Davidson, 1848, p. 697; Gesenius, 1847, pp. 800-801; Holladay, 1971, p. 358; Brown, et al., 1906, p. 986) identify three meanings:

to soothe, calm, quiet, hush, or still, as in Psalm 89:10 (still the waves) and Proverbs 29:11 (calm one’s anger);

to pronounce happy, commend, or congratulate, as in Ecclesiastes 4:2;

to praise, laud, glorify, as in Psalm 63:4, 117:1, 145:4, 147:12, and  Ecclesiastes 8:15.

It is meaning #3 that underlies the quotation of Psalm 117:1 in Romans 15:11. Like its Greek counterpart, it bears no connection to the meaning “clap.” The Hebrew language had other words for clapping (e.g., tahka—Nahum 3:19; sahphak—Job 27:23; nahcah—2 Kings 11:12; mahchah—Psalm 98:8).

Since the Bible is its own best interpreter, simply turn to Psalm 63:3 where the term is translated “shall praise.” The verse says, “Because Your lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shallpraise You.” Would those who insist that the word means “clap” contend that lips clap? That would be an interesting thing to see.

May God help us to be content with simple New Testament worship (John 4:23-24). May we seek to have God’s permission (authority) for everything we do in worship (Colossians 3:17). May we refrain from fleshly expressions that have their origin in human will (Colossians 2:23), human impulse (2 Samuel 6:6), and human pride (2 Chronicles 26:16). May we worship God—not to please ourselves—but to please Him (Galatians 1:10).

REFERENCES

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles B. Briggs (1906), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004 reprint).

Davidson, Benjamin (1848), The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970 reprint).

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Holladay, William (1971), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short (1879), A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Moulton, W.F., A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament(Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition.

Wigram, George V. (1980 reprint), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

God and Katrina by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1556

God and Katrina

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In the early morning hours of August 29, 2005,

Courtesy of ORBIMAGE

hurricane Katrina made landfall, devastating the Gulf Coast of the United States from New Orleans to Mobile, earning for itself recognition as one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history. Though the city was placed under a mandatory evacuation order, many residents remained due to lack of transportation, health, or age. The furry of the hurricane created three breaches in the Lake Pontchartrain levee system—causing a second, even greater disaster: heavy flooding inundated 80% of the city, making it uninhabitable. While the final death toll is still unknown, thousands are believed to have been killed. More than a million people have been displaced, creating a humanitarian crisis on a scale unseen in America since the American Civil War (“Hurricane Katrina,” 2005).

As shocking and heart-rending as this event may seem, many other natural disasters have occurred in human history that exceed Katrina and even the 2004 tsunami in their toll of death and destruction. For example, throughout China’s history, extensive flooding has occurred countless times as a result of the mighty 3,000-mile-long Hwang Ho River. Several of the most terrible floods, with their ensuing famines, have been responsible for the deaths of more than a million people at a time. The southern levee of the river failed in Hunan Province in 1887, affecting a 50,000 square mile area (“Hwang Ho,” 2004). More than 2 million people died from drowning, starvation, or the epidemics that followed (“Huang He,” 2004).

In reality, such events have occurred repetitiously throughout the history of the world, and continue to do so—constantly: hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, tornados, floods, tsunamis, droughts, and volcano eruptions. In fact, natural disasters kill one million people around the world each decade, and leave millions more homeless, according to the United Nation’s International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (“Disasters...,” 1997).

This circumstance inevitably elicits the pressing question: “WHY?” “Why would God allow such loss of life, inflicted on countless numbers of seemingly innocent people?” The number one argument marshaled by atheists to advocate their disbelief in God is the presence of widespread, seemingly purposeless suffering. They insist that if an infinite Being existed, He would exercise His perfect compassion and His omnipotence to prevent human suffering (e.g., Lowder, 2004; cf. Jackson, 2001). Even for many people who do not embrace formal atheism, the fact that God apparently seems willing to allow misery and suffering to run rampant in the world, elicits a gamut of reactions—from perplexity and puzzlement to anger and resentment.

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWERS

But the Bible provides the perfect explanations for such occurrences. Its handling of the subject is logical, sufficient, and definitive. It sets forth the fact that God created the world to be the most appropriate, suitable environment in which humans are enabled to make their own decisions concerning their ultimate destiny (Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). We humans have been provided with the ideal environment in which we may freely accept or reject God’s will for our lives. Natural disasters and nature’s destructive forces are the result of specific conditions that are necessary to God’s providing humanity with this ideal environment.

God is not blameworthy for having created such a world, since He had a morally justifiable reason for having done so. Human existence on Earth was not intended to be permanent. Rather, the Creator intended life on Earth to serve as a temporary interval of time for the development of one’s spirit. Life on Earth is a probationary period in which people are given the opportunity to attend to their spiritual condition as it relates to God’s will for living. Natural disasters provide people with conclusive evidence that life on Earth is brief and uncertain. God has even harnessed natural calamities for the purpose of punishing wickedness (see Miller, “Is America’s Iniquity...?”, 2005). [NOTE: For further study on this thorny issue, see Thompson, 1997 and Warren, 1972.]

Christians understand that no matter how catastrophic, tragic, or disastrous an event may be, it fits into the overall framework of soul-making—preparation for one’s departure from life into eternity. Likewise, the Christian knows that although the great pain and suffering caused by natural disasters may be unpleasant, and may test one’s mettle; nevertheless, such suffering is not intrinsically evil. Nor is it a reflection on the existence of an omnibenevolent God. The only intrinsic evil is violation of God’s will. What is required of all accountable persons is obedience to God’s revealed Word (given in the Bible)—even amid pain, suffering, sickness, disease, death, and, yes, hurricanes.

REFERENCES

“Disasters: A Deadly and Costly Toll Around the World” (1997), FEMA News, [On-line], URL: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/stats.pdf.

“Huang He, or Hwang Ho” (2004), Britannica Student Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9274966.

“Hurricane Katrina” (2005), Wikipedia, [On-line], URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina.

“Hwang Ho” (2004), LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://32.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HW/HWANG_HO.htm.

Jackson, Roy (2001), “The Problem of Evil,” The Philosopher’s Magazine Online, [On-line], URL: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/rel_six.htm.

Lowder, Jeffery (2004), “Logical Arguments From Evil,” Internet Infidels, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil-logical.html.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.

Thompson, Bert (1997), “Divine Benevolence, Human Suffering, and Intrinsic Value,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=229.

Warren, Thomas (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).