What is the Gospel of the Kingdom?

Matthew 4:23 Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

Introduction

What was the chief message Jesus taught in his earthly ministry? As Matthew's Gospel introduces the reader to Jesus' public life and ministry, the answer is simple: The Gospel of the Kingdom. This phrase "Gospel of the Kingdom" is understood best when we break it down into its constituent parts. The term "Gospel" means "goodnews". Second, the phrase "of the Kingdom" describes the contents of this goodnews. What follows is a further explanation of the contents and meaning of the idea of "the Kingdom" in the Bible. Three main senses can be identified in explaining the Biblical concept of the Kingdom - with the first two deriving from the Old Testament and the third deriving from Jesus and the New Testament. The first two senses will be brushed over quickly, since the third sense brought out by Jesus dominates the Gospels and the reaminder of the New Testament.

The three senses in which we can understand the Kingdom in the Bible
The term "Kingdom" itself denotes itself in three main senses. First, the "Kingdom" refers to the realm and reign of God over the earth currently and from eternity (Psalm 22:28; 45:6). Second, the kingdom of God is promised to manifest itself fully on the earth (Ezekiel 40-48; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). These first two senses speak respectively of a "past, eternal, invisible reign of God" and a "future, visible reign of God". This at least summarizes the Old Testament Jewish understanding of God's Kingdom. The third sense of which the Kingdom is spoken of in the Bible is the idea of an "already/not yet" phase of which Jesus introduces in His ministry and which is unfolded more below.

Early Christmas presents illustrate the Gospel of the Kingdom

To hear that the "Kingdom of God" was no longer just something invisible "up there" nor only a reality "yet to come" must had ignited excitement. Since the Kingdom of God is a reality taught in the Bible, a Kingdom necessarily implies a "King". That King, as we have already stated, was no less than God Himself. To hear that the Kingdom was arriving far sooner than expected, and that God Himself may very well be in the midst of the people was jarring - to say the least. This in effect was what Jesus was communicating. 

When we speak of the Gospel of the Kingdom, we are referring to what Bible teachers call "an already/not yet" phase. To illustrate, if I told my children I was getting them an early Christmas present, and that the first part of that present was going to be arriving tomorrow, could they truly say they have their Christmas present? In one sense "yes" and in another sense "not yet". Perhaps I give them the batteries or the wheels or whatever the first part may be. Those pieces or parts function as a guarantee and a promise of the remainder yet to come. 

A helpful phrase when talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom: "Already, not yet"

Jesus in effect was declaring to His audience that first and foremost, the King had come. He of course being the King, truly God in human flesh (John 1:14). Secondly, the Kingdom of God was in one respect as good as here already. However, the Jews of Jesus' day had to get ready to put on the corrective lenses of the New Covenant teaching of Jesus. They were expecting a fully manifested Kingdom. However, Jesus' point in His Kingdom teaching was "well, not yet, however, follow me by faith, and you'll get a foretaste". Theologian George Eldon Ladd describes the Kingdom of God through the life and ministry of Jesus as "inbreaking" into this present age. 

Thinking of the Gospel of the Kingdom as heavenly cake-batter

What would end up occuring would be the Kingdom's chief manifestation occuring in the hearts of believers in this current age. Christians are as it were what I liken to a child eating cake batter. As a child, I can recall my grandmother making cakes. I always hoped she had some left over batter in the bowl. As the cakes baked, I would sit at the table and lick the bowl and cake-beaters clean. I knew full-well that what I was tasting was not "cake" in the strictest sense. However, it was giving me an idea and in another sense, a foretaste of what would be the finished product. I got me excited because I knew that in a few hours, I'd be tasting the fully-finished cake with frosting and all the trimmings. As a child, that was "good-news" indeed. When Jesus proclaimed the Gospel of the Kingdom, He was setting the stage for what would be the central truth of Christianity - namely the King has come, and He will be coming again. 

The Christian's spiritual soul food

Jeremiah 15:16 "Your words were found and I ate them,And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O Lord God of hosts."

Introduction:

Before it was all said and done, Jeremiah would end up having the longest prophetic ministry of any prophet in the Bible. For over 50 years he warned the people of Jerusalem and Judah to mend their ways and get right with God. The King in Jerusalem and the court officials accused Jeremiah of treason and the people accused him of treachery. Jeremiah's situation was anything but comfortable. It was painful and he needed nourishment for his soul. How was it that Jeremiah was able to find comfort for his soul? In God's Word. Today's post briefly unpacks how God's word is the believer's true soul food. 

The Bible is the only true "soul food" for the believer

Truly it could be said that the Bible is the only soul food on the planet. Unlike any other book or any other food, the words of the Bible feed the soul and soothe the heart. Whenever Jeremiah speaks of "eating God's words", he is referring to meditating or thinking upon them. Jeremiah's comfort in life derived not from courting popularity - for there was none to be found. Neither did Jeremiah find comfort in his circumstances - since the nation he loved would be conquered and carried away into exile in Babylon. 

Overtime Jeremiah learned that his only sustenance in the spiritual famine of life were the words of God. Elsewhere other Biblical characters speak about this life-giving quality of the words of God being true food for the soul. Job for example refers to God's Word as being more precious than his "daily food" (Job 23:12). David expresses his hunger for God's word in Psalm 119:103 "How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" In the New Testament we find Peter saying to Jesus in response to a question raised by Jesus in John 6:67-69 "So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

As Christians, we need to daily take in the scripture to avoid spiritual malnutrition

Too often Christians attempt to carry on their daily Christian walk without taking the time to spend time in their Bibles. The late Dr. Adrian Rogers once said: "These two things has God ordained together that no man can part; dust on the Bible yields drought in the heart". We so often fill our souls with spiritual junk food, only to find ourselves unnecessarily weak and defenseless. Reading and meditating on the scripture requires dependence upon the Holy Spirit. In our flesh we are inclined to lean upon our own understanding rather than the words of God (see Romans 8:4-8). When we find ourselves not desiring God's word, that is when we need to ask the Holy Spirit to rekindle that desire.  The Spirit's main work entails making clear the contents of scripture (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-13). 

Whenever you and I neglect scripture, we will find ourselves neglecting other spiritual responsibilities. Soon, we will find ourselves going through the motions. We may look good for a period of time to most people while not even realizing that we are spiritually starved. This writer speaks not from anecdote but from personal experience. How much one takes in the scripture will determine how much godly living they live out in life. 

Closing thoughts

Only when we give ourselves regularly to the scriptures and meditate upon them will we then have power to fight the good fight of faith (see Ephesians 6:10-18; Hebrews 4:12). Moreover, by the scriptures is our faith quickened and our focus on Jesus rekindled as we walk out in obedience to the Lord (Romans 10:17; 12:1-2; Hebrews 12:1-2). May you and I take the time to read, meditate and apply the scriptures daily - the true "soul food" of the Christian. 

Why value, meaning and purpose is impossible without God

Isaiah 22:10-13 "Then you counted the houses of Jerusalem And tore down houses to fortify the wall. 11 And you made a reservoir between the two walls For the waters of the old pool. But you did not depend on Him who made it, Nor did you take into consideration Him who planned it long ago. 12 Therefore in that day the Lord God of hosts called you to weeping, to wailing, To shaving the head and to wearing sackcloth. 13 Instead, there is gaiety and gladness, Killing of cattle and slaughtering of sheep, Eating of meat and drinking of wine:
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die.”

1 Corinthians 15:30-34 "Why are we also in danger every hour? 31 I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”34 Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame."

The absurdity of life without God

What happens when people adopt a view of life that excludes God? In the two opening passages we see the attitude and the outcome. Though Isaiah and the Apostle Paul wrote over 700 years apart from one another, their observations concerning the absurdity of life without God are identical. The point of both passages is to show that if God did not exist, then the only alternative would be to "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

Now let's make something perfectly clear from both of these passages and thus from this post: I am not saying that lack of belief in God means that one cannot discover meaning, value and purpose in this life. Many atheists and people who claim to have no belief in God can be good parents and fine citizens. The issue at hand is not whether belief in God or lack thereof determines objective moral values and duties. Rather, the point these passages are making is that if God did not exist, there would be no meaning, value or purpose to discover in this life.  Afterall, on atheism, we should not expect to discover such values and duties, and yet atheists themselves will still champion causes for justice, tolerance and the value of human life, and yet such universal moral values are exactly what people know to be the case. 

The people in both these texts are living life as if there were no God. On their viewpoints (which would correspond to Atheism today), since there is no God nor God to regard, then there is no purpose, no value and no meaning to life. Worldviews that deny God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead have no basis for which to assert the value, meaning and purpose of human life. 

Authors such as the late Francis Shaeffer and theologian and philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig have illustrated how value, meaning and purpose are likened unto an upper story in a house, with man living in the lower story:

God

Meaning, Value, Purpose

--------------------------

Human beings

Since meaning, value and purpose are immaterial objective features of reality, this material realm (i.e our universe) could not possibly explain their role and function in our world. If we were to construct an argument as to why value, meaning and purpose are only possible with God, it would go something like this:

Premise #1: If God does not exist, meaning, value and purpose does not exist

Premise #2: Objective Meaning, value and purpose exist as part of our world

Therefore: God exists

Now its not too difficult to prove Premise #2 when you think about it. Whether someone believes the universe and life to have ultimate meaning (i.e significance) or not is to assign some sort of meaning. An atheist such as Richard Dawkins may claim in his book: "The God-delusion" that life is "pitiless indifference", while all the while railing against injustice. Physicist Steven Wienberg in his classic book: "The First Three Minutes" draws out implications from his reflections on the initial moments following the Big Bang. In his estimation, since the universe is all that exists, assigning meaning is pointless. However, Weinberg obviously doesn't consistently hold to such a notion, since he spent countless hours co-developing the scientific theory that explained the unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces that netted him the Nobel Prize in physics in 1979. To say that the universe is without meaning is to assign a meaning to it!

The atheistic worldview is inconsistent and breaks down in the realm of livability and practical application.

When we speak of "value" in premise #2, we are referring to moral values and duties. Morality deals with right and wrong and duties deal with good or bad. Morality is the behavior of individuals that stems from ethical norms that transcend cultures. There is an objective right and wrong. Duties have to do with the obligation I have to perform what is right and wrong. The question we must raise is: "are moral values and duties immaterial, universal and abstract or are they material, personally subjective and concrete?" The atheist would try to argue the latter, with people like Sam Harris for instance asserting that moral values and duties arise from physical brain states and are measured by human well-being. Yet did moral values and duties exist prior to the existence of human beings? If not, then Harris' view of "good and evil" being defined by the level of human well-being does not escape the trap of morality being a matter of personal choice or society. People who murder may find doing such makes them feel good, and thus promote their own sense of human flourishing and well-being. Thus we find meaning and values cannot be grounded in this material realm.

What about purpose? Does the universe, life and humanity have a purpose? Just like the previous two observations, purpose is connected to meaning and value. If meaning and value are derived from outside our material universe, then purpose is as well? Why? Purpose is a value judgment. Again, on atheism there is no purpose to the universe, life and humanity. Athiests like the late athiest Bertand Russell will on the one hand assert that life has no purpose, while all the while producing volumes of philosophical writings declaring that in the end, we have no purpose to discover, and thus we need to bravely hold onto the despair of it all. But now even such a statement begs the question: "why even bother to be brave?" 

Therefore in reflecting on the philosophical and scientific evidence, we can see that even among foremost athiestic thinkers, the reality of objective meaning, value and purpose cannot be escaped. Even by asserting that there are no such things as value, meaning and purpose is to proclaim that there are indeed such features! Thus, premise #2 holds in the following argument:

Premise #1: If God does not exist, meaning, value and purpose does not exist

Premise #2: Objective Meaning, value and purpose exist as part of our world

When we consider how both premises together are logically airtight, the conclusion thus follows:

Therefore, God exists.

P2 How God is the explanation of the universe - Clarifications and Applications

Acts 17:17-19  "So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. 18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, “What wouldthis idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching iswhich you are proclaiming?"

Introduction:

In yesterday's post we considered how Christian apologetics utilizes logical arguments in demonstrating its truth claims. We further presented a classical argument for God's existence that aimed at establishing how God is the explanation of the universe. Today's post will take the time to tease out the argument and why the argument is practically relevant to you. 

A sample argument for how God is the explanation of the universe

With the idea of logical arguments explained, we can now consider a particular argument for God's existence that deals with how he is the explanation for the universe. Keeping in mind what we learned about what comprises a good sound, valid argument, we can offer the following argument as originally conceived by the 18th century mathematician G.W.F Leibniz:

Premise #1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

Premise #2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God

Premise #3: The universe exists

Premise #4: The universe has an explanation for its existence

Premise #5: The explanation for the universe is God

Therefore: God exists

Now let's look at this argument. Premise #3 is virtually without controversy, since almost no one would deny that the universe exists. Something as simple as looking up at the night sky can confirm this fact. so, premise #3 is the easiest premise to prove. Premises #1 & #2 are typically the most attacked premises. Concerning premise #1, athiests and skeptics will either say that the universe is simply "there" and has no need for explanation or that if God would exist, He Himself would need to have an explanation for His existence. The typical response to this first objection is to point out that God is a being Who must exist by necessity in any possible description of reality. The universe, however, does not have to exist, since it began a finite time ago. To say that the universe simply "popped into being" out of nothing doesn't make sense, and thus the universe needed to have a Cause that was greater and different than it and more importantly, possessing a Free Will and Personality. Thus concerning Premise #1, the objection leads us to reinforce, not reject, the truth of the claim: "Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, whether by necessity of its own nature (i.e God) or by an external cause (i.e something or Someone causing the universe). 

Premise #2 is typically objected by Atheists too, since it sounds like the argument is simply asserting that if the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation must be God. However, what the Atheist doesn't realize is that their own take on the universe is that on atheism, the universe has no explanation for its existence. The athiest will typically try to formulate their own response to premise #2: "If athiesm is true, then the universe has no explanation for its existence." Furthermore, in trying to assert this premise, the athiest is forming an argument that is logically equivalent to the original premise of the universe having an explanation for its existence, and that explanation being God. Either both premises will be true or false, but one cannot be true and the other false, nor vice-versa. To say that the universe doesn't have an explanation is in fact an explanation! There are other points that could be brought out to demonstrate why the athiest objection won't hold water, but for now we can rest sufficiently in the soundness of premises #1-2, which state again:

Premise #1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

Premise #2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God

Premise #3, as we've already noted, is virtually without question: "The universe exists

With premises #1-#3 established, the fourth premise then states: "The universe has an explanation for its existence", with premise #5 reading: "The explanation for the universe is God". Without going into further detailed explanation, if the reader considers how we worked through the first three premises, premise #4 logically progresses from those first three and premise #5 serves to clarify everything argued for and demonstrated in premises #1-#4.

Therefore, with premises#1-#5 demonstrated to be true and valid, the conclusion naturally follows: "Therefore, God exists". 

So why does this matter to you?

When we consider the above argument for God's existence, why does it matter? With God being the explanation for the universe, that means He is also the explanation for life and humanity. Humanity's quest for significance (i.e meaning); morality (i.e values) and goal for living (i.e purpose) must have a grounding in one of two things: either the universe or God. People who believe that they determine meaning, values and purpose or that the universe has somehow programmed people to desire such have opted for grounding the explanation for everything in the universe. But as we've already observed, the universe exists not because it has to, but because it was caused by God who by nature must exist. God is therefore the proper ground for understanding meaning, value and purpose. As the Apostle Paul will aim to argue, unless one's apologetic leads the listener from the existence of God to the Person and work of Jesus, the apologetic task will not be achieved. Thus, this is why the idea of "God being the explanation of the universe" is so practical and true.  

P1 How God is the explanation of the universe - A powerful argument for God's existence

Acts 17:17-19 "So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. 18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, “What wouldthis idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?"

Introduction:

Today's post is going to talk about a particular argument for God's existence that demonstrates how he alone is the explanation for the universe. Now before we press on, let me just say a word about arguments and apologetics. When we talk about apologetics, we are referring to that branch of Christian theology at aims to give valid reasons or "warrant" for the truth claims of Christianity. Another way of wording this definition would be to say: "explaining why we believe what we believe". 

As one reads the above opening verses, it appears that the Apostle Paul had his work cut out for him in facing the objections of the skeptical crowd in Athens. What Paul would begin to do is offer reasons and arguments for God's existence, with His final remarks reserved for demonstrating the specific reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. What we see Paul doing here in Acts 17 gives us precedence for doing apologetics and for using logical arguments for God's existence. Today's post will feature a particular argument as to why God is the explanation for the universe.

How logical arguments function in apologetics

A key method in executing the apologetic task is by way of what we call logical arguments. An "argument" is not being used here to in the sense of getting into a verbal shouting match with one's opponent. Rather, an argument is a form of reason that attempts to connect certain statements (or premises) to a concluding statement (or conclusion). If the premises of a given logical argument are true (that is, sound) and formulated correctly (that is, valid), then the conclusion necessarily follows and therefore one has a sound valid argument. 

Logical arguments are important in apologetics due to the accusation non-Christians make about Christian people being irrational and unreasonable. Faith and reason fit like hand-in-glove. As one writer said long ago: "Our faith is a faith seeking understanding". 

A sample logical argument

An example of a general logical argument (technically called a 'deductive argument', because it deduces the conclusion by going from general to specific information) may go something like this:

Premise #1: All men are mortal

Premise #2: George Washington is a man

Therefore: George Washington is mortal

The above argument contains two premises and a conclusion. According to the laws of logic, the argument is validly constructed - hence the argument is valid. Concerning whether or not the premises are true can be established by consulting science and history. We know that in premise #1, as basic scientific fact is that all men do die. Concerning premise #2, George Washington was a man who lived and was the first President of the United States. According to historical documents, George Washington was born February 22, 1732 and died December 14, 1799. So in this sample argument, we have historical and scientific evidence to demonstrate that premises #1 and #2 correspond to reality and thus are true. Whenever we have a valid and sound argument like the one above, the conclusion must follow. And therefore, we can conclude that George Washington was indeed a mortal man. 

A sample argument for how God is the explanation of the universe

With the idea of logical arguments explained, we can now consider a particular argument for God's existence that deals with how he is the explanation for the universe. Keeping in mind what we learned about what comprises a good sound, valid argument, we can offer the following argument as originally conceived by the 18th century mathematician G.W.F Leibniz:

Premise #1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

Premise #2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God

Premise #3: The universe exists

Premise #4: The universe has an explanation for its existence

Premise #5: The explanation for the universe is God

Therefore: God exists

In tomorrow's post we will further explanations this argument and draw out some life-practical applications for the reader. More tomorrow...

Three expectations to have when doing apologetics

Acts 17:4-5 "And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people."

Today's post answers the question: "what to expect when doing Christian apologetics?" When we consider apologetics, the task involves giving reasons as to why we believe what we believe about the truth claims of Christianity. This task can be likened unto a farmer plowing the field and breaking up the fallow ground for reception of seed. Apologetics and it's closely related cousin of evangelism overlap and interlock. Evangelism has been defined as presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and leaving the results up to God. So, much like evangelism, the common fears of rejection accompany the efforts of apologetics. Certainly the Apostle Paul had his fair share of responses. In Acts 17 we can discern three expectations one should have when engaging in the work of apologetics. Such expectations can equally be applied to evangelism, preaching or teaching Sunday School. Notice....

1. Expect rejection. Acts 17:4, 10-12

The very thing all Christians is true - "rejection" - must be assumed and not denied. Despite common objections, ridicule and mockery; Christians have the duty and obligation to give reasons for the hope that is within them (1 Peter 3:15). The Jews who opposed Paul in his missionary journeys through Macedonia followed him. Such opposition may on the surface seem only to impede and destroy the apologist in their efforts. However, God uses both good and bad circumstances and intentions to guide as where we need to go. Paul's rejection in Thessalonica moved him onto the major apologetic encounter he would have in Athens near the end of Acts 17. So expect rejection, however also expect....

2. Expect conversions. Acts 17:10-12

I wanted to reserve this expection as the second point to get the inevitable negative expectation of rejection out of the way. Is not the point of apologetics and evangelism to prayerfully see the Holy Spirit use our presentation to bring about the conversion of sinners? Now when I say "conversions", I must hasten to add that conversions may take time. 

I recall ministering among Muslims years ago. Roughly 30 of us had engaged in public meetings for better understanding with Muslims for two years. Although we saw no converts, we did see a few intellectual objections wither. Apologetics requires patience and prayer. Eventually, there will be conversions. As Paul traveled throughout the Greco-Roman pagan infused world of Macedonia, he did see people convert to Jesus Christ. Again, despite the opposition, such antagonism served as a backdrop to bring into sharp relief the integrity of Paul and his companions in their apologetical task. Sometimes God can use our lives, as well as our arguments to convince unbelievers that what we believe gives confidence in the face of opposition. So, when doing Christian apologetics, expect rejection and expect conversions. But there is one more expectiation...

3. Expect God to use you in both. 

We read in Acts 17:14-16 "Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there. 15 Now those who escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left.
16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols." The one thing we learn about God's Sovereignty is that in His exercise of it among people and circumstances (such an exercise of sovereignty is also called God's providence), God is a very strategic God. What resulted from the combined rejection and reception of Paul's apologetic efforts? God used him and God moved Paul to where He needed him to be. On the ground level it may had appeared that Paul was running into walls and running in circles. However, God was strategically and providentially moving Paul down the entire length of the Macedonian region. 

If we can keep in mind that God can use anyone with a willing heart and a big view of Him, then no matter what happens, the expectation of being used by Him will overrule the discouragement from rejection and reinforce patience in prayerfully waiting for conversions. 

What is necessary for doing Christian apologetics?

Acts 17:1-3 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”

Introduction:

Today's post answers the question: "what is involved in Christian apologetics?" Dr. William Lane Craig defines apologetics as: "The discipline in Christian theology that entails giving reasonable warrant for holding to the truth claims of Christianity". When Dr. Craig speaks of "reasonable warrant", he is referring to justifying why one believes what they believe. Certainly the Apostle Paul had a mission to go into the regions of Europe - particularly Macedonia - so as to lay the ground work for evangelism. As a plowman prepares a field for reception of seed, apologetics sculpts furrows and rows in the culture for what will be the sowing of Gospel seed in evangelism. God had called Paul by way of vision to journey to Macedonia and engage the people of ancient Europe. Paul would eventually make his way down the region of Macedonia that included key cities such as Philippi and the larger cities referenced in the passage above. The more familar cities of Thessalonica and Corinth would also be included in this missionary journey. Eventually this trip would lead to one of the most dramatic apologetic encounters occurring at the famous "Mars Hill" - an ancient think- tank of philosophers and thinkers in Athens. 

In the opening verses of today's post, we see Paul's method of apologetical groundwork as he entered in new territory. What were the essentials of Paul's apologetical method and message? Note the following thoughts from Acts 17:1-4:

1. A consistent method Acts 17:1-2a

As a general rule, Paul always bee-lined to the Synagogues (Jewish meeting-places) in keeping with the early church's mission of the "Jew first, and also the Greek" (Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16). The word translated "custom" speaks of Paul's "habit". A good apologist will have a method, an outline and overall goal in mind as they do their preparatory work for evangelism. An example of a consistent method may very well be in offering common arguments for God's existence, followed by demonstrating the reliability of the Bible and ending with the credibility of the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Such a method, called "classical apologetics", has existed in one form or another since the early days of the church following the death of the apostles. 

2. A communication of worldviews.

Acts 17:2b

Luke writes in Acts 17:2b that Paul "reasoned from the scriptures" with the Jews. The Greek word translated "reasoned" is a verb from whence we derive our English word "dialogue". Thus as Paul spoke in the Synagogue, or later on with the Graeco-Roman audiences, his aim was to engage these people in dialogue. Creating an atmosphere of having "meetings for better clarity" can go a long way toward removing caricatures that Christians and non-Christians bring into the apologetical discussion. Moreover, as non-Christians are given the opportunity to dialogue with Christians, inroads are opened up for the Holy Spirit to do His convicting work (John 16:8-12). Think of how often Jesus Himself had conversations with people. In apologetics, building relationships is essential if we ever expect to see eventual conversions.  

3. Constructing evidence and arguments for why one believes the truth claims of Christianity

Luke then goes further by stating in Acts 17:2b-3 reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” The two underlined English words detail what Paul did as he laid out the case for Christianity. 

First, the word "explaining" comes from a word that refers to "opening up the meaning" of the text of scripture. We could also say that Paul's intent was to hopefully "open the minds" of his hearers. Undoubtedly there had been much prayer invested in this endeavor, since much like preaching, apologetics will never succeed apart from the Holy Spirit's intervention. 

The second word describing Paul's apologetic effort is the term "explaining". This word in the original language gives the idea of "laying out each argument or bit of evidence side by side". I'm sure the reader has seen court cases on television where lawyers will have "exhibit A" and "exhibit B" and so on. To establish guilt or innocence is done by cumulatively present each individual piece of evidence to make the overall case. In legal settings, the gold standard of establishing truth is "beyond a reasonable doubt". 

In apologetical situations, the normal standards include "plausibility" and "greatest level of probability, given the evidence." Apologetical arguments on their own do not constitute enough persuasive power to deliver certainty. Now even though that may sound disconcerting at first, the point of apologetics is to dislodge intellectual and moral objections and to move the unbeliever from outright hostility to reasonable consideration of the Christian faith. Whatever distance may remain between, say, intellectual acceptance of Christianity to full certain faith in Jesus Christ can only be bridged by the Holy Spirit and the scriptures (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23). 

Apologetics functions to prepare the mind and heart of the unbeliever for what will be the presentation of the Gospel. It may take only one apologetical encounter, or one may not even get through the whole presentation before the person says they're ready to believe. Again, the Holy Spirit is the One who brings people to point of certainty in saving faith (James 1:18; Hebrews 11:1). 

Conclusion:

So, what is involved in doing Christian apologetics? In exploring Acts 17:1-3, we saw that the Apostle Paul had three major elements: consistency, communication and construction. He was consistent in his approach and methodology. He aimed for two-way communication between himself and those whom he brought forth the case for Christianity. As we already noted, the task of Christian apologetics must be conjoined to the Person and work of the Holy Spirit and prayer. Then finally, he had constructed arguments and evidence that gave justification for why he believed why he believed.