Messianic Prophecy

[bartdanr]

Hi Folks,

I'm not sure if this is a Theo 201 or 301 type of question...so please forgive me if I post this in the wrong forum, and move it if necessary.

For many years I've struggled with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. One of the prime areas of my concern is the hermeneutical methods used by the NT authors when interpreting the OT. I remember when I first read James Sire's little book "Scripture Twisting" I was left with the uncomfortable feeling that some of the NT authors could have been accused of doing the same thing with the OT.

One example (out of many): Matthew's quoting of Hosea's "out of Egypt I called my son" being a Messianic prophecy. When I read this passage in the original context, there does not seem to be anything remotely Messianic--or even prophetic (in the sense of foretelling)--in the passage at all.

I know that one of the usual explanations is that Matthew (and other NT authors) use a Midrashic interpretive method that the contemporary Rabbis used. While this is all well and good, it seems that (1) just because the Rabbis used it, doesn't make it good; (2) this technique can be used to pull ANY meaning out of a text; (3) the Rabbis also made some pretty clear conclusions that were diametrically opposed to the truth-claims of Christianity (why accept their method but reject their conclusions?); (4) it's the same method that many "cult" groups use to come up with bizarre interpretations; (5) why is it ok for NT authors to use this method, but we are forbidden to do so?

At some points, I've been tempted on this basis to reject the NT as being a dishonest re-interpretation of of the OT Scripture. I've also been upset with some Christians who have relished condemning "cults" as totally twisting Scripture but not applying the same standard to the NT (the old "diverse weights and measures" problem that infuriates me at times, whenever I see it played out). I still consider myself a Christian, though my faith has been on a rocky road for many years (for this and several other reasons).

Thoughtful responses would be appreciated. Thanks!

[sc_q_jayce]

Arrrgh. Stupid backspace ate my post... grumble grumble.

In short answer to (5) - Who says you are forbidden to do so? The only issue is how well you could support it. The problem with bringing novel ideas into the scriptures is that... all the novel ideas are already done! Essentially with the birth of Christianity came the flood of new ideas which were tested and retested until the interpretations were considered orthodox. This is the result of numerous heresies and councils. A study of the early Christian Church would greatly assist here. Even most/all of the so-called new 'cultish' ideas today are just re-hashes of older, ancient heterodox ideas. Nothing new under the sun.

But have you had a chance to read this?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

[RBerman]

This is a really important topic! "The NT uses of the OT" is the academic specialty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Don Carson, who has edited a comprehensive survey on the topic which runs over 1200 pages. In brief, you're thinking like a 21st century man, not a 1st century man, and that's the reason for the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing when comparing Matthew 2 to Hosea 11, for instance. You've got to wrap your brain around the concept of typology. When Matthew says that Jesus "fulfills" Hosea's words, he doesn't mean that Hosea was making a prediction about Jesus' life, and then Jesus' life happened just like that, showing that Hosea knew the future. Rather, Hosea is writing about the nation of Israel, "God' son" (a huge topic of its own), which rebelled against its Father. Christ is the true Israel, the true Son who fulfills all the expectations of the Son.

That said, I suspect there are many other things playing into your gnawing skepticism besides an academic concern in the interplay between the NT and the OT. You admit as much in your last paragraph. I hope you're involved in a good church which can encourage you and keep you accountable for the sin in your life. You'll never make it alone. We're not made that way.

[timspong]

I agree with the OP in as much as if Matthew was written today it would be rightly accused of eisegesis and bad theology. However, as an apostle he had the authority to introduce revelation into preceding scripture as well as instituting completely new revelation.

[RBerman]

I agree with the OP in as much as if Matthew was written today it would be rightly accused of eisegesis and bad theology. However, as an apostle he had the authority to introduce revelation into preceding scripture as well as instituting completely new revelation.

I commend to you the book mentioned in my previous post. I can see how Matthew seems to be eisegeting from our point of reference, but that's a cultural artifact, not a reality.

[timspong]

I commend to you the book mentioned in my previous post. I can see how Matthew seems to be eisegeting from our point of reference, but that's a cultural artifact, not a reality.

Okay I'll reserve judgement until I get a chance to see what this guy is saying, it's on my wish list but will probably take months before I manage to get it here in Africa. I have heard these type of arguments before but wasn't really convinced. I personally believe that the apostles had a special revelation directly from God that carries with it the same weight of authority as scripture itself. We simply do not have the authority or the revelation to make similar allegorical interpretations. Although there are many that try!

I agree with the typology that Christ is the fulfillment of Israel, but I see Matthew as confirming the ultimate fulfillment of Hosea's prophesy. Indeed in Matthew he explicitly states "this was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet". Therefore it would have to be a great argument to convince me that Christ coming out of Egypt wasn't a direct fulfillment of that prophesy. Now that doesn't necessarily imply that Hosea himself had any notion of Jesus coming out of Egypt 750 years after the fact as he isn't ultimately the one who is giving the revelation, God is. I personally don't believe that authorial intent is absolutely necessary in prophetic writing.

These kind of allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament are all over Matthew and I don't think there is any problem with it whatsoever.

[RBerman]

Christ was a "fulfillment" of Hosea 11, but I think you're operating from a bad definition of what "fulfillment" means. See my first post in this thread. "Fulfillment" is not primarily about "I yesterday said that it would rain today, and behold, it's raining." It means literally that Jesus gives a "fuller" meaning to that text. Psalm 22 describes David's persecution, but how much fuller is its meaning when applied to Christ, of whom David was a type? Similarly the promises made to the Davidic king of Israel when he's called "the son of God" in Psalm 2. Hebrews applies that text to Christ. There's something really important going on here, but it's not as simple as, "Matthew is inventing illegitimate connections, but it's OK because the Holy Spirit gave him special insight."

Until you can get the book, I'd be happy to send you MP3s of a three-lecture series Don Carson did entitled "Why Does Hebrews Cite the Old Testament Like That?" which you may find helpful. They used to be available at SBTS.EDU. They're gone from there now, but I have them saved and can email or snail mail them to you if you're inclined to listen. PM me your contact info for whichever way you'd like to receive them. This offer is for anyone else reading the thread as well.

[bartdanr]

Thanks for all of the responses, I'll digest them and then reply more fully.

However, the 1st century vs 21st century thought-patterns: if this is the case, then shouldn't we also apply it to the apologetical arguments that "Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies" that really DO treat these OT passages as if they were fore-telling (and not "forth-telling" to use a preacherism)? That is, if Hosea wasn't really saying "several hundred years from now Messiah will come from Egypt", then the apologetical argument that Jesus' flight into Egypt was an example of Hosea knowing something by a revelation out of our time-space limitations is faulty. It still might be interesting that Jesus' life fulfilled a pattern similar (in some, but not all ways) to that of the history of Israel, but it isn't terribly convincing as an argument that Hosea (or any prophet) really knew the future or gave us signs that would be fulfilled that would clearly show us that when Messiah came, we would know who he was.

Could there be a two-fold type stream of Messianic prophecy? Matthew's use of Hosea, as a typological one, and, say, Isaiah 53 being more "literal" in an actual foretelling of the work of Messiah?

Daniel

[RBerman]

Isaiah 53 is also typological, being about the "suffering servant" Israel. It's a theme in Isaiah that runs through chapters 41-44, and then at the end of 52 through 53 we see the persecution and then vindication of the servant. But as in Hosea, Israel is a type of Christ, and the passage finds deeper (and yes, more literal) meaning when applied to the life of Jesus. I don't think that "Hosea knew the future" in the sense that Hosea was self-consciously predicting that the Messiah would one day go to Egypt and back. Nevertheless, the life of Christ shows that he deserves to be considered the fulfillment of the OT prophecies, because he recapitulated the experience of Israel, rewriting it with a better ending than the one Israel had experienced historically. Jesus was everything the OT said the King was supposed to be. Jesus was everything the OT said Israel was supposed to be. He qualified as "Son of God" not just because he was God, but because he did and was everything that the OT said the "son of God" was supposed to do and be. And so on.

But many Christians have a tendency to read the OT, recognize things that apply to Jesus, and then just run straight into the NT meaning without stopping to understand what those OT passages meant in their original contexts. For instance, you could read some commentaries on Song of Solomon that talk exclusively about Jesus, without any discussion of the role of the book as a romantic/erotic drama. Spurgeon, while generally great, is guilty of flattening the OT in this way, and he's not alone. But the life and person of Christ has so much more depth if you understand that the OT is saying something about Jesus by comparing him to something else, rather than just talking about him in isolation. Am I making sense?

[mostlyharmless]

We should try and read the OT in the manner that the apostles and early Christians did. In fact if you read early Christian theologians like St Irenaeus they tell you straight out that it is the heretics that in general read scripture either literally or according to some sort of anti-Christian hypothesis. The Christian rather reads the OT in the light of the resurrection of Christ and their baptismal confession and so these uses of typologies are simply true. If the typological reading of scripture has any validity can you think of any event in history that all typologies would be fulfilled in beyond the incarnation of God? So for those who view typologies as true, Hosea's prophecy was not intended in his time to refer to Christ but was fullfilled by Christ according to God's will.

(1) just because the Rabbis used it, doesn't make it good;

Apostles using it not good enough for you or further Christ's use of it not good enough?

(2) this technique can be used to pull ANY meaning out of a text;

Not if you follow apostolic theological practice and are guided by the church.

(3) the Rabbis also made some pretty clear conclusions that were diametrically opposed to the truth-claims of Christianity (why accept their method but reject their conclusions?);

Because Rabbis reject the resurection of Christ and so read scripture with a different hypothesis(to use St Irenaeus' terminology) which of course ends up with a different conclusion. If you believe the apostolic witness to the resurrection of Christ then you read the scriptures with the same hypothesis and end up with the same interpretation. Which came first, the witness or the NT? Clearly the witness or gospel that was what was preached by the apostles and should be the basis of belief.

(4) it's the same method that many "cult" groups use to come up with bizarre interpretations;

Cults fail to follow apostolic faith so naturally they reach erroneus interpretations. In addition the literal method of scriptural interpretation is heavily used by cults but you do not reject that either.

(5) why is it ok for NT authors to use this method, but we are forbidden to do so?

We are not. It is a correct and proper method when done within the churches guidlines.


Basically the problems occur when you choose to read the scripture by yourself and expect to reach the same conclusions as the apostles. It doesn't work that way. The method is good, but you must only use it within the church, and according to the apostolic witness.

Does this mean you cannot pull out the OT and say, look here are 200 prophecies about Christ therefore you should become a Christian? Well probably, because the modern understanding of prophecy is not the 1st century one and you are actually spreading a lie to when you imply they are the same. Skeptics are quite right to gleefully point out that these are not prophecies in the modern understanding of prophecy.

Blessings

[bartdanr]

Arrrgh. Stupid backspace ate my post... grumble grumble.

In short answer to (5) - Who says you are forbidden to do so? The only issue is how well you could support it.

It's the methodology, not the conclusions that I find issue with. Someone could come up with 100% orthodox conclusions using questionable exegesis...but their orthodox conclusions don't "baptize" the methods to reach them.

The problem with bringing novel ideas into the scriptures is that... all the novel ideas are already done! Essentially with the birth of Christianity came the flood of new ideas which were tested and retested until the interpretations were considered orthodox. This is the result of numerous heresies and councils. A study of the early Christian Church would greatly assist here. Even most/all of the so-called new 'cultish' ideas today are just re-hashes of older, ancient heterodox ideas. Nothing new under the sun.

That's true.

However, keep in mind that this presupposes that what we call orthodoxy is, in fact, true. If you questions 'why is what we call 'orthodox christianity true'? you can't just reply 'because we claim it to be true.'

Also, on the Church councils: I've read a little of the ECFs and their times. I remember when reading documents from the Seventh Council, that anathamatized all those who didn't venerate icons. Yes, I know the elaborate theology surrounding icons, and I don't think those who venerate icons as idolators. But if the iconophiles really believe the Seventh Council as a work of the Holy Spirit, they have to admit that they consider me--and every other person who acknowledges Christ to be their Lord but doesn't venerate icons--to be accursed of God because we DON'T venerate icons. To me, that's extreme, and that's unorthodox.

But have you had a chance to read this?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

Thank's for the link! I had bookmarked the site years (and several computers) ago, and I'm glad to have the link again. One of the most thoughtful apologetic sites out there (many of the more popular them are frankly drivel.)

Yes, I've read that article several years ago and yes, he's right--by comparison, the NT authors are boring. If we graded adherence to a literal method on a curve, the NT author's approach would be close to the top in 1st-century circules.

He does acknowledge the diversity in 1st century Judaism, but that doesn't really address the issue: why believe in THIS particular understanding, and not another? He also emphasizes the Rabbinical approach, as opposed to the other approaches (maybe because (a) it's the version of Judaism that survived and (b) it's the version from which Christianity mostly grew). I'd like to see a Karaite rebuttle and response from him concerning their highly literal approach.

Is the decision to accept the psuedo-Rabbinical method merely an arbirary one, of having a conclusion and then shoe-horning the evidence to support it?

Matthew (or whoever wrote the gospel attributed to him) clearly believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, and his methods for supporting his conclusion may be in accordance with the standards of the time (at least the Rabbinical standards). However, that doesn't make them TRUE. It's only by special pleading that we say Matthew has the right approach but that someone using the same methodology but different conclusions is wrong. By saying "Matthew's conclusions were orthodox, and therefore true", we don't ask the burning question of WHY we believe "orthodoxy" to be true, other than a fidestic statement "I believe it's true because I believe it's true." (This is not to say that orthodoxy is not defensible, just an acknowledgement that this is not a defense but a faith statement.)

Also, I don't expect the revealed words of God to be comparable to contemporary literature in terms of standards of truth. If God is truly giving us revelation, and He knows that there will be people like us 2,000 years later, he will give it in such a way that transcends time and space and not be bound to the culture in which it was revealed. Of course, this discussion might very well lead to a discussion on the nature of revelation, plenery & verbal vs. man's ability to express the intexpressible, etc. God's will should not be bound in time and space...it shouldn't change every century or decade to conform to humankind's changing standards of truth.

Now, God could reveal His word in such a way that it looks just like contemporary literature...but then it begs the question, "why consider this to be the word of God if it doesn't look any different from the word of man?" Occam's razor might make us pause to think if our choice to believe the NT record as a reelation may just be an arbitrary one.

I'll still ponder this more, and study the link a little more in-depth. It's been years since I read it fully.

[bartdanr]

This is a really important topic! "The NT uses of the OT" is the academic specialty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Don Carson, who has edited a comprehensive survey on the topic which runs over 1200 pages.

Thanks for the suggestion...I've added it to my Amazon wish list, and I hope to get it soon. Looks like precisely the kind of book I'd like to read on the subject.

In brief, you're thinking like a 21st century man, not a 1st century man, and that's the reason for the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing when comparing Matthew 2 to Hosea 11, for instance.

Although I understand what you're saying, the implication is that revlation is not only produced within a particular culture and point in history, it is also largely confined to that culture and point in history for understanding. "Revelation" becomes something that isn't terribly universal or applicable to everyone. It kind of reminds me of the UltraOrthodox Jews or Amish who think (for some inexplicable reason) that God is most pleased with clothing from the early 19th century, or some Muslims who think that they have to dress like Arabs to be good Muslims.

I also have to think about the implications of "truth" and hermenutics being so bound to a particular time and place that the idea is discarded that a text has a definate meaning that is not subject to change. It seems to open the floodgates to situational "truth" and subjectivism.

You've got to wrap your brain around the concept of typology. When Matthew says that Jesus "fulfills" Hosea's words, he doesn't mean that Hosea was making a prediction about Jesus' life, and then Jesus' life happened just like that, showing that Hosea knew the future.

You may be right, but then it's pretty disingenuous of Christians to use prophetic fulfillment as evidence for Jesus' Messiahship they way that popular apologists do. They will merely state that Jesus fulfilled Hosea's prophecy, knowing full well how a 21st century person will interpret that (as a prediction of a future event.)

Rather, Hosea is writing about the nation of Israel, "God' son" (a huge topic of its own), which rebelled against its Father. Christ is the true Israel, the true Son who fulfills all the expectations of the Son.

Sure, I can clearly understand this concept. It makes a lot of sense.

That said, I suspect there are many other things playing into your gnawing skepticism besides an academic concern in the interplay between the NT and the OT. You admit as much in your last paragraph.

Oh, there is much more, mostly theological. I can't say that I've had a lot of tragedy, confronted with evil in this world, or wanting to live my life without any moral authority are really big on my plate, though. I know that these reasons may lead to doubt for some, but they really haven't been an issue for me.

I hope you're involved in a good church which can encourage you and keep you accountable for the sin in your life. You'll never make it alone. We're not made that way.

Actually, most of my doubt grew while I was faithfully attending a Church. When I stopped attending for several years, they doubts pretty well quieted down (I had pretty much become an atheist.) Then with 9/11, I (as well as countless others) started thinking about God again.

As far as "accountable for sin in [my] life"--well, I admit I'm a sinner and have to depend on God's grace. You may not have intended this (and forgive me if I'm misreading you), but it almost sounds as if (a) you think my real problem, why I doubt, is because I don't like being accountable for my sin, or (b) that questions are sinful. As I said, I know I'm a sinner and need God's grace to forgive me. As to the idea that questions are sinful (or a mask for my sin)--I have to quote The Lost Dogs: "If there's no room for doubt, there's no room for us."

[bartdanr]

I agree with the OP in as much as if Matthew was written today it would be rightly accused of eisegesis and bad theology. However, as an apostle he had the authority to introduce revelation into preceding scripture as well as instituting completely new revelation.

Thanks for the response, although it's an answer that begs the question. For comparison, a Mormon might simply respond that as a prophet, Joseph Smith had the authority to introduce revelation into preceding Scripture as well as instituting completely new revelation. It's the argument from authority and really doesn't provide any reason to accept Matthew as an authority.

[bartdanr]

Isaiah 53 is also typological, being about the "suffering servant" Israel. It's a theme in Isaiah that runs through chapters 41-44, and then at the end of 52 through 53 we see the persecution and then vindication of the servant. But as in Hosea, Israel is a type of Christ, and the passage finds deeper (and yes, more literal) meaning when applied to the life of Jesus. I don't think that "Hosea knew the future" in the sense that Hosea was self-consciously predicting that the Messiah would one day go to Egypt and back. Nevertheless, the life of Christ shows that he deserves to be considered the fulfillment of the OT prophecies, because he recapitulated the experience of Israel, rewriting it with a better ending than the one Israel had experienced historically. Jesus was everything the OT said the King was supposed to be. Jesus was everything the OT said Israel was supposed to be. He qualified as "Son of God" not just because he was God, but because he did and was everything that the OT said the "son of God" was supposed to do and be. And so on.

Although I believe Jesus was/is the Messiah, it isn't not strictly true that "Jesus was everything the OT said the King was supposed to be"--there's still what He is to fulfill in His second coming. (Of course, some liberal Christians might reject a literal second coming, but I'm talking about the historic faith). Jesus fulfilled SOME Messianic prophecy; but there is still MORE to fulfill in His second coming.

But many Christians have a tendency to read the OT, recognize things that apply to Jesus, and then just run straight into the NT meaning without stopping to understand what those OT passages meant in their original contexts. For instance, you could read some commentaries on Song of Solomon that talk exclusively about Jesus, without any discussion of the role of the book as a romantic/erotic drama. Spurgeon, while generally great, is guilty of flattening the OT in this way, and he's not alone. But the life and person of Christ has so much more depth if you understand that the OT is saying something about Jesus by comparing him to something else, rather than just talking about him in isolation. Am I making sense?

I think I understand. All Scripture--all literature, indeed, sacred or secular--should be studied from the perspective of trying to understand the author's original intent. It doesn't have to stop there, of course, but I think it is important to at least START there--to do otherwise is not fair to the text.

From the devotional perspective, I don't have a problem looking for types of Christ throughout the Bible...but exegesis shouldn't merely be devotional. Heck, I could try pulling types of Christ, redemption, grace, etc. from Star Wars--but that was neither the author's original intent nor was Star Wars inspired Scripture. Revelation is, and should be, something far greater than a devotional book or a Joseph Campbell-esque search for archtypes.

[bartdanr]

We should try and read the OT in the manner that the apostles and early Christians did. In fact if you read early Christian theologians like St Irenaeus they tell you straight out that it is the heretics that in general read scripture either literally or according to some sort of anti-Christian hypothesis. The Christian rather reads the OT in the light of the resurrection of Christ and their baptismal confession and so these uses of typologies are simply true.

Forgive me, but this sounds very fidesitic. Yes, if you accept the NT as the inspired word of God, then by definition, what it states is true. But this provides no evidence of the assertion--it's simply the assertion.

As far as the heretic's hermenutical approach: again, this assumes that orthodoxy is true and everything else is false. What of the objective (or as objective as one can be) observer who sees "orthodoxy" and "heresy" and has not yet committed to any particular belief. Why accept "orthodoxy" over one of its competitors?

If the typological reading of scripture has any validity can you think of any event in history that all typologies would be fulfilled in beyond the incarnation of God? So for those who view typologies as true, Hosea's prophecy was not intended in his time to refer to Christ but was fullfilled by Christ according to God's will.

I think typology has some validity, but as I pointed out in the OP, the approach can twist Scripture into saying anything and everything. It is no guarantee of the truth, it has no anchor. Only an a priori assumption--like Jesus is the promised Messiah--can keep you from pulling some wildly heretical idea out of Scripture when following this method. Yet if the a priori assumption (or anyother assumption) is imposed on the text, then one is not necessarily committed to finding out what the text really says, but rather as a sounding board for what they already believe. Meaning is imposed on the text, rather than pulling meaning from the text.

I agree that studying the ECF enormously aids in understanding where the writers of the NT were coming from. But since the ECF already accepted that the NT was inspired, the question of evidence that the NT authors were, in fact, inspired was not really the issue.

Apostles using it not good enough for you or further Christ's use of it not good enough?

Only if you assume that they apostles were, in fact, apostles. How do we answer the question "How do we know the apostles were really sent by God?" The answer given can (and often is) quite circular.

Not if you follow apostolic theological practice and are guided by the church.

Again, this assumes a priori that the apostles and "the church" is filled with the Holy Spirit. Again, this can be quite circular.

Because Rabbis reject the resurection of Christ and so read scripture with a different hypothesis(to use St Irenaeus' terminology) which of course ends up with a different conclusion. If you believe the apostolic witness to the resurrection of Christ then you read the scriptures with the same hypothesis and end up with the same interpretation. Which came first, the witness or the NT? Clearly the witness or gospel that was what was preached by the apostles and should be the basis of belief.

Yes, belief cambe before Scripture...but so does heresy come before false revelation (with the exception of an evil spirit who appears teaching heresy...the receiver of such a 'vision' may or may not have believed in such things before the 'revelation').

Cults fail to follow apostolic faith so naturally they reach erroneus interpretations. In addition the literal method of scriptural interpretation is heavily used by cults but you do not reject that either.

We use so-called 'literal' interpretation to interpret nearly everything we read. It is simply attempting to understand a work of literature from the perspective of 'plainest meaning' given the proper historical and grammatical text. I don't reject 'literal' interpretation for the same reason I don't reject the scientific method or logic--it works, and if one rejects it, it renders all literature unintelligible and maliable to our every whim.

Now, I don't say that the 'literal' method is the be-all or end-all of hermenutics. But if you reject it as being meaningless, you reject the value of ANY written document. And it's simply an ad hominum to say "because the heretics used the literal method it can't be true."

We are not. It is a correct and proper method when done within the churches guidlines.

Again, this can be very circular.

Basically the problems occur when you choose to read the scripture by yourself and expect to reach the same conclusions as the apostles. It doesn't work that way. The method is good, but you must only use it within the church, and according to the apostolic witness.

I think you'll recognize that many claim to have that authority and will gladly trot out their 'apostolic' credentials. Heretics didn't consider themselves heretics, either--they thought that THEY were the ones who were orthodox and the 'orthodox' were off-base. I'm asking why accept the truth-claims of any particular group or their Scripture. Appealing to authority only works if you've already accepted that authority.

Does this mean you cannot pull out the OT and say, look here are 200 prophecies about Christ therefore you should become a Christian? Well probably, because the modern understanding of prophecy is not the 1st century one and you are actually spreading a lie to when you imply they are the same. Skeptics are quite right to gleefully point out that these are not prophecies in the modern understanding of prophecy.

And therefore it is incumbent upon us as the Body of Christ to admonish the bretheren not to spread lies and make reason for the name of Christ to be blasphemed among the heathen. When an 'apologist' makes false claims, we should correct him or else we give ammunition to the enemies of Christ.

Blessings

To you as well! :)