Podcast: Answering the Best Objections to the Resurrection (Timothy Paul Jones)

March 10, 2025 by: Crossway

This article is part of the The Crossway Podcast series.

Evidence for the Resurrection and Answers to Common Objections

In this episode, Timothy Paul Jones discusses the historical eyewitness evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, the details that distinguish it from other religious myths, and the textual reliability of the written accounts highlighting why these sources can be trusted today.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | RSS

Did the Resurrection Really Happen?

Did the Resurrection Really Happen?

Timothy Paul Jones

Written in a conversational tone, this concise booklet addresses the challenge of believing the story of Jesus’s resurrection, providing convincing evidence for this historical event and its impact. 

Topics Addressed in This Interview:

00:45 - Is the Resurrection of Jesus Just a Myth?

Matt Tully
Timothy, thanks so much for joining me today on The Crossway Podcast.

Timothy Paul Jones
It’s great to be with you.

Matt Tully
Today I want to pose a number of questions or objections that skeptics—people who aren’t Christians—might have related to the resurrection, this core doctrine of our faith. Something that, as Paul says, our faith would fall apart if it weren’t for the resurrection. I think it could be helpful not just for those who are having apologetic conversations with unbelievers, as many of us are, trying to explain and answer objections that they might have, but I wonder if there might even be some Christians listening who, if they’re honest with themselves, they might hear some of these objections and think, I don’t actually know what I think about that. I don’t know how I would answer that. That actually makes me a little bit nervous when it comes to the resurrection. So I wonder if we can play-act this a little bit. How does that sound?

Timothy Paul Jones
That sounds great.

Matt Tully
First question for you would be, Isn’t it possible that the resurrection accounts that we read in the Bible were just legends or myths that Jesus’s followers developed after his death? And they actually are pretty similar to some of the other myths of the ancient world, where there was this dying and rising again kind of god. I think of the myth of Osiris or Attis. Is the story of Jesus really any different from these other stories that all Christians would say, “Oh, that’s not true. That’s just a myth”?

Timothy Paul Jones
Well, that’s an important question to raise. And in fact, that’s something I actually really wrestled with when I was in college. I really went through a hard crisis of faith. And that was one of the things that to me was the hardest thing to get over. It really was. I really struggled with that. But here’s what I found is that anytime you have a legend that is something preexisting, some sort of an idea that’s preexisting, you’ve got to compare the resurrection with this and recognize there’s far more different than there is similar. So let’s think about that whole dying-rising-god type of thing that happens right there.

Matt Tully
Because there is precedent for that.

Timothy Paul Jones
Yes, there are. There’s certainly precedent for this dying-rising-god. It’s a real thing out there. You can find this pattern in particular places in certain cultures previous to the time of Jesus. But here’s one of the key things that’s different: those are always agricultural dying and rising. It’s something that happens on a yearly basis.

Matt Tully
The same god is dying repeatedly.

Timothy Paul Jones
And rising again over and over and over. So there’s this tie to the seasons, a tie to the agricultural cycle, and a repetitive nature of it. The other thing that you never see is a physical resurrection in those. It’s always a metaphorical or, at most, a spiritual resurrection. So that’s why, for example, it’s so crucial when you have in the New Testament Gospels Jesus is described in starkly physical terms. Yes, he has a spiritual body that can pass through walls and all of that, but it is also a physical body. He eats fish. He cooks fish. He’s at the beach there, calling his disciples out in the boat. All these things are happening. It is distinctly physical, and it is recognized that it is once and for all. And when you look at that, there ends up being more distinction between Jesus and these dying-rising-gods than there is similarity. But I would also add this: I’m actually not against somebody seeing a connection between these. Because the truth is that I think with all of these dying-and-rising-god myths, what we see in those is that they are a precedent for this in the sense that we all know we need new life and resurrection. We know we need a savior who does this. And so the pagans do this in the best way they know how, by tying it to the seasons. They do it the best way they know how, by tying it to their fields and their fertility and all of those things like that. They do it the best way they know how. But what we have in appearance in the pagans, we have in its essence, in its truth, in its reality in Jesus. And so all that they’re doing with their dying-rising-gods—yes, there was a precedent for that—it’s fulfilled physically and once for all in Jesus. It’s different—distinctly different—and yet I will also acknowledge the similarity and say that the similarity actually builds up a case for the truthfulness of the resurrection.

Matt Tully
It’s interesting your comment about the way it’s tied to the seasons and tied to the cyclical nature of plants and crops that we’re used to. And I’ve heard other people mention the dynamic with plants and the foundational importance of these seasons for an agricultural culture like ancient Israel, that even the way that God designed the world to function naturally foreshadows, in a sense, the central importance of death and resurrection.

Timothy Paul Jones
Yes, you see that, especially in Augustine. Augustine sees this really clearly. I can think of a sermon he preached in the winter of 411, and Augustine hated winter. He hated it with a passion.

Matt Tully
All of the people in the northern United States can go read some Augustine if they feel sad.

Timothy Paul Jones
Exactly. He hated winter. In this sermon—it was in the winter, moving towards spring of 411—and he was talking about how awful winter was and things like this. But here’s what he does in that sermon that is so fascinating as he’s approaching Easter at this time: he talks about how God created the world in the beginning with the death and resurrection already in mind. You see, sometimes we think that Jesus died and was resurrected and, “Oh! Isn’t this as a sweet analogy that we have Winter and Spring? It makes a nice analogy.” Augustine’s like, “No, no, no, no, no. God created the world in the beginning with seasons because he already had Jesus in mind.” So he says creation itself testifies to the resurrection, because God created the world already thinking about the death and the resurrection of Jesus. And I think that’s just beautiful.

Matt Tully
God has embedded these patterns that are hints of what’s to come in Jesus.

Timothy Paul Jones
Yes, exactly.

07:23 - Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Gospel Accounts?

Matt Tully
Another question: Given the Gospel accounts were written decades after Jesus’s death and supposed resurrection, how can we trust that those were accurately reported historical events? Sometimes we might be surprised to learn—and I know that was my situation, where I didn’t realize until maybe college that these Gospel accounts were written literally decades after the events that they described. I thought they were happening and being recorded by disciples in real time. And that was a little bit shaking to me. It was a little bit like, “Wow,. If I asked somebody to tell me about something that happened thirty years ago or more, I might not feel as confident in their recollection.”

Timothy Paul Jones
I think it’s an important thing, and it’s one of the pushbacks you get from people like Bart Ehrman and people like that that are often skeptical about the truthfulness of the New Testament Gospels. And I want to say first that this notion that something is not reliable after decades is something that is distinct and unique to what we have post the creation of the printing press in the fifteenth century. So after the printing press, from that time to now, we are getting things from spoken reality to print far more quickly. It’s just gotten quicker and quicker ever since the mid fifteenth century. With the invention of the printing press to now, it has gotten quicker and quicker and quicker from spoken to printed. And just for us to recognize that wasn’t the case for most of human history. First off, to recognize that a span, which we do have in the Gospels, of three to six decades after the events actually happened, that’s actually not that different from histories of the Caesars or anything like that. So first off, we should recognize that some of our hesitance to accept that is grounded in our own historical situatedness and where we are in history. For the people in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries and later, that would not have seemed nearly as atypical as it does for us, who, if something miraculous were to happen in this room right now, it would be on social media within a few hours. And so it’s important for us to recognize that. But even with that stated, it is true that there is a gap, and that gap should at least concern us, or at least we should have an answer for that particular gap. But I want to point out a few things that actually support the truthfulness of the New Testament Gospels over that time. Here’s one really important thing to think about; it’s that the New Testament Gospels—what’s in them—never becomes oral tradition. I want to make a distinction right here that’s pretty important in sociology—on a sociological analysis of narratives. Oral histories is what you get when the eyewitnesses are still alive. Oral traditions are what you get when the eyewitnesses die out. Here’s the thing with the Gospels: they’re all written down while eyewitnesses are still alive. But not only that, the eyewitnesses are actually circulating in the churches. We get that just from offhand comments of Paul who speaks about Peter, who says Peter and his wife are they’re traveling around and some of the other apostles are traveling around in the churches. There’s this clear notion that the apostles are traveling around—people who were the eyewitnesses were traveling around. What happens in that is that the very people who actually originated some of these stories, the people who are eyewitnesses, they’re showing up in the churches where the stories are being told. That means the story can’t get too far from the original reality. So one of the analogies that is sometimes used—in some ways, it’s a very poor analogy—but an analogy that is sometimes used is the telephone game. You have somebody tell somebody a story, and then that person tells the next person, and then the next person, and then one by one all the way around the circle, secretly to each one. And they go all the way around the circle. Then by the end it’s garbled, and everybody laughs and says, “Oh, ha, ha. This is what the original story was in that.” Now, when I was in elementary school, I hated that game. I would always sabotage that game part way through.

Matt Tully
Yeah, there’s always someone in there who wants to throw in a little bit of a curveball.

Timothy Paul Jones
I was that kid. That was me. That was me every single time on that. But one of the things I want to say when somebody uses that is, okay, I will actually grant you that. I will grant you the telephone game. And here’s what I mean by that. The reason the telephone game works is precisely because the person who started the story in the beginning is still there at the end. It works for that reason.

Matt Tully
Because he can confirm or deny.

Timothy Paul Jones
Exactly. The person who started the story is still there. And so because they’re still there, they can say, “Okay, this was the original story that was told.” In the exact same way, in the early church when the Gospels were being written, the people who were eyewitnesses were still present and circulating. And so the truth could be checked against that. I think there’s one other little thing to add to that, and that is in terms of the resurrection in particular—the resurrection story—it does not emerge thirty years later. That’s important for us to recognize. There’s a distinction between, yes, the New Testament Gospels, as biographies and as a bias genre of literature that emerges describing Jesus, yes, that emerges thirty to sixty years after the resurrection. But it’s very clear that we have an established tradition about the resurrection, which Paul records in some level in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7. That is in circulation very early. Paul says that he “received it.” And if we look at the most likely times and places for him to have received it, it is within just a few years of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. And if all that we had—I want us to think about it this way—if all that we had was just 1 Corinthians 15:3–7—if that’s all we had—do you realize we actually have all we need to be confident that Jesus is somebody we ought to trust, because it says that he died, that he was buried. It’s very clear: thávontai: he was buried. “He was buried, and he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures.” It’s an affirmation of the Old Testament. It says he died on our behalf. He died for us—hyper. There’s substitutionary atonement right there. And it was done according to the Scripture’s affirmation of the Old Testament. He was buried, he was raised on the third day. We have everything that we need to say we ought to trust Jesus.

Matt Tully
The outline is right there.

Timothy Paul Jones
It’s all there. Now, praise God, we have more than that. But if we had only that and if only that were true, there’s still every reason to trust, to believe, to follow Jesus.

14:09 - Can We Trust the Eyewitness Accounts of the Resurrection?

Matt Tully
A related question or concern to this whole topic of trusting what was written down decades afterwards is just the issue of eyewitnesses. Often Christians will point to the fact that there were eyewitnesses. People saw Jesus after his resurrection. He appeared to all these people, as recorded in the Gospels. And yet we also have, in our modern day, we recognize the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. And we’ve actually encoded and tried to mitigate against that in our court system in how we think about eyewitness testimony and how we pressure test it and allow it to be cross-examined and how we require multiple eyewitnesses, at times, to confirm something as true. How do you respond to that? There could have been all kinds of reasons why people might have genuinely thought they saw Jesus and they encountered Jesus after the fact, but maybe they were just confused.

Timothy Paul Jones
It’s an important point for us to raise. It really is. And it’s one that we should take seriously, because it is true that eyewitness testimony is not 100 percent reliable. Let’s acknowledge that. We know that. If you have children, you know that your children can tell you vastly different stories about the same thing. And sometimes some of them are lying. Sometimes some of them are incorrect. But they could tell you vastly different stories.

Matt Tully
I read this article about 9/11 about a decade after the September 11th attacks in the US. They interviewed people right after the attacks, and then they interviewed them ten years later, and they documented all of these examples of a number of people—many of the people—contradicting themselves—what they had said they saw right after the attacks versus what they remembered seeing ten years later. And so it just raises that specter of how can we even know people might not even intentionally be misleading people?

Timothy Paul Jones
I think when we get to the resurrection, here’s the first and most important thing about this, especially to do with the resurrection. People forget details and they get mixed up on a whole lot of details. But they will remember certain key moments and events. So in the first part of this, we’re talking about just the resurrection of Jesus. We’re not talking about the teachings of Jesus and some things like that yet, but we’re just talking about the resurrection. That’s the type of thing that sometimes people talk of a gist memory, that there’s certain things that people may not say it the exact same way, but they remember certain particular events that they all agree on. And let’s think of the analogy of 9/11. They may get a lot of things incorrect, perhaps even the order in which the planes tragically struck the buildings. They could even get things like that wrong. But that fundamental, most important central memory, that these planes struck these buildings and these buildings collapsed as a result of that, that is something that everyone remembers.

Matt Tully
Everyone agrees on.

Timothy Paul Jones
Everyone agrees on that. So if we can think about the resurrection, that’s that big event that everybody agreed on. Resurrection on the third day—every single one of these accounts agrees on that. But not only that, just as a side note, there are also other things that every single one of them agree on. Except for 1 Corinthians 15, every account gives Mary Magdalene as the first witness at the empty tomb. There are certain other things that are held in common by every single one of the witnesses. And so once again, even if that’s all we had—now, praise God, we have more than that, and I believe in far more than that. I’m not saying that that’s all we should believe. But if that was all that’s true, if all that’s true is resurrection on the third day, Mary Magdalene is first witness, Jesus actually died, he was buried, he was raised, and Mary Magdalene saw him alive, and then he appeared to multiple people afterwards—if that’s all we had, that is enough to trust that Jesus was somebody we trust and follow. And that’s what’s important for us to recognize. Now, just for a moment we can move a little bit into, and I know that’s not the main topic we’re talking about, but I do also believe that, in terms of the rest of the Gospels, that we also have the fact that there were multiple people that were, we could say, checking this. And I don’t mean literally checking over what was written and everything like that, but as these stories are told and passed on, they are stories which there were people who were eyewitnesses who were correcting, redirecting memories. And one other thing we should add in this is the notion of an exact word-for-word quotation is a very modern idea. They just didn’t think in those terms. They did not think in terms of an exact word-for-word quotation.

Matt Tully
That wasn’t that important to them.

Timothy Paul Jones
Yes, it just simply wasn’t the way they thought of things in that time period. What was important in writing a biography and what was important in writing a text that is historically accurate is something that is accurate to the intent of the speaker. And we even find that in some of the historiographical works in the first, second, and third century, that that’s how they’re thinking in terms of. And so in some ways, it’s much like the whole thing to do with things going quickly to press and being written down quickly. Sometimes it’s easy to read our modern cultural biases back into that time period and have an expectation that they themselves didn’t have about exactitude in terms of reporting things.

Matt Tully
We see that even the chronology of the Gospels, where there are certain events that are placed in different places, and part of that is just difference in what it meant to do history back then compared to today.

Timothy Paul Jones
Exactly. So they would put things in an order to fulfill a particular goal that they had for what they wanted to communicate. And this is accurate. It’s truthful. Matthew is trying to communicate something somewhat different about Jesus than Luke. Those two things are not in contradiction. But Luke is arranging his narrative to make a set of points that are somewhat different than what Matthew is doing. Not in contradiction; there is no contradiction between them. But they are doing different things, and that’s okay. And the same thing with Mark and with John. They’re each doing something somewhat different. It’s why it’s beautiful and important that God, by his Spirit, has inspired four Gospels. Because we get this full-orbed picture of who Jesus actually was.

20:39 - Did the Disciples Steal Jesus’s Body?

Matt Tully
Some skeptics today, and certainly even the skeptic Jewish leaders of Jesus’s own day after his death and resurrection, they’ll suggest that Jesus’s disciples stole his body. Someone stole his body. That became the foundation for this resurrection myth that then spread around, where many of Jesus’s followers who undoubtedly and sincerely believed that he had raised from the dead because his body was gone, but actually, it was just stolen by some of his followers. How would you respond to that? How can we know that that isn’t actually what happened?

Timothy Paul Jones
I think there are two different things that we can say in response to that that are helpful and that are accurate to the history. One of those is that Christianity clearly becomes a problem for the religious leadership in Jerusalem very quickly. If the disciples had stolen the body, or if somebody else had stolen the body, I think I’d have been looking for that body, seeing if I could locate that body.

Matt Tully
Try to find it and then say, “Nope. He’s right here.”

Timothy Paul Jones
Because that would squelch the whole thing immediately. And so I think that’s not so much something for which we’re drawing particular historical data. We’re simply saying this is something that they would have tried to do. And hiding a body, there’s a lot involved. Getting a body out, hiding it without anybody seeing it—all those things like that. It’s a little absurd when you think about it.

Matt Tully
And that’s why they posted guards, right? They understood from the get-go that this was a potential threat to what they had done, and so they were trying to mitigate against it.

Timothy Paul Jones
Exactly. And the second thing that I think is important for us to recognize—and this one is far more important and is one that we aren’t simply making an observation about typical human behavior; we actually have evidence for this one, actual historical evidence. And it’s simply the fact that if the disciples had stolen the body—so on the other hand, if we say if somebody else had stolen the body, they’re going to find that body—but if the disciples had stolen the body, which seems more likely that the disciples might have done that, you have at least three disciples who died for the faith that they were professing in the risen Lord Jesus. Now, there were probably more than that, but I’m talking about the ones that we have such strong historical evidence for that it’s undoubtable. Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and James the apostle. Those three died for their faith in the risen Jesus. And as I said, this is not just evidence inside the New Testament; this is evidence outside the New Testament. And indeed, some evidence from people who weren’t even Christians, we have evidence for this. So for those three, there is no reasonable way to deny that they died for their faith in Jesus Christ. And here’s the thing: at least one of them (probably all of them), if the disciples stole the body, they were in on it, and you’ve got people dying for something that they knew was a hoax and something for which they weren’t getting anything positive out of it. It’s not like that by creating this new religion they were getting some sort of wealth or power or anything else. They’re gaining nothing through this new religion. They’re losing everything. They go all the way to death testifying. We know that they go to death from other sources outside the New Testament, and yet they don’t back down from it. They don’t back down. They go all the way to the point of death. People will die for lies in history. Millions of people have died for lies. But people don’t die for what they know is a lie. Even if maybe somebody would, you don’t have three people all dying for something they know was a lie. So if they went to that point, they truly believed Jesus was resurrected. They truly believed it. Now, whether they were right, whether they were wrong, obviously, I believe the evidence points to them being right. But whatever it was, they really did believe it.

Matt Tully
Because that was another question I had. Sometimes Christians will argue that because these people were willing to die and suffer for the sake of this Messiah that they believed in, that demonstrates that it must have been true. Again, we look at history and we look at the world today even and we see there are a lot of people who are willing to give their lives and sacrifice their lives for something that we as Christians would say is complete falsehood. Again, how do you respond to that idea that simply the fact that they were willing to give their lives demonstrates that it was true?

Timothy Paul Jones
I think it’s important for us as Christians to respond to that in a much more limited sense than we sometimes do. Martyrdom itself doesn’t demonstrate truth. Just martyrdom alone does not demonstrate truth. It’s martyrdom of somebody who would have known whether or not it was true or false. That’s what we’re talking about here. And I think it’s important for us to limit our argument to that, because otherwise we become rightly susceptible to somebody saying, “Look. This person died for this, this person died for this. Does that mean all those things were true?” No, it doesn’t mean all those things are true, but those people sincerely believed it was true. And so we bring two things together: people who would have known if it was true and people who died for it being true; people who believed it was true and would have known differently. That’s what we have to look for at the point that those two things intersect. And Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and James the apostle, for those three it intersects. We have good evidence that they died for their faith. We also have good evidence they would have known if it was false. And so that intersection is that point at which we should build our argument.

26:17 - The Simplest Explanation of the Resurrection

Matt Tully
Maybe as a final question, in philosophy there’s this notion of Occam’s razor. It’s the idea that essentially says the simplest explanation is usually the best one, usually the right one, so we start there. We see that demonstrated and we see the validity of that general principle in how we think about the world all over the place. So when it comes to the resurrection, isn’t the simplest explanation the one that requires the least jumping through hoops? To say that something else happened to Jesus rather than this kind of supernatural, miraculous resurrection? It’s something we’ve not ever witnessed with our eyes before and we don’t see in everyday life, but we do see conspiracies. We see people lying. We see people getting confused. Isn’t the simplest explanation one of those other theories rather than actual resurrection?

Timothy Paul Jones
Well, I think there’s two levels of how we should engage with that particular question. One of them is it’s important for us to admit—both as Christians or non-Christians—that the explanation that seems simplest is going to be driven, at least in part, by the presuppositions we bring to that. And so if you presuppose a universe in which there is no spiritual reality, yeah, the easiest and the simplest explanation is that it just didn’t happen.

Matt Tully
And by definition, can’t happen.

Timothy Paul Jones
Exactly. It can’t happen. If you’re going to presuppose the possibility of both, of either that it could have been a materialist explanation or a spiritual one or some confluence of both, then I would contend that the simplest explanation is that Jesus was raised from the dead. And I say that because if you think about it, you don’t simply have to explain there was no body in the tomb; you have to explain a lot of other things too. What happened to the body? You have to explain why people would start giving their lives and risking their lives in response to this. Why people would continue to hold onto this truth, even despite the fact that they were being persecuted, when they were people who would have seen it. You have to start explaining other things. And so when we apply the law of Occam’s razor, which I think it’s a good thing for us to do, we have to recognize we don’t just have to explain the initial event. We also have to explain the things that came after the event. When you begin to look at it that way, the explanations that involve hallucinations, hoaxes, all these different other possibilities, they suddenly become really, really complicated. The explanation becomes complicated. The other one—Jesus rose from the dead and people responded to that by worshiping him, by following him to the point of death—that suddenly becomes a much simpler one when we take the whole of the evidence into account. Not just the initial event itself of somebody being raised from the dead or a body being gone from the tomb, not just that, but if we take the whole thing into account and recognize we also have to have an explanation that accounts for what happened in the months and years after that. Then, suddenly, the Christian explanation actually does become a much simpler explanation.

29:28 - How to Help Someone Who Denies the Resurrection

Matt Tully
You started off that answer by referencing just the presuppositions that all of us bring to any question or any issue that we’re thinking about. How do you help someone who is coming from a materialist worldview, where they just almost categorically think, Well, these things can’t happen. Miracles don’t happen. I’ve never seen one happen. I’ve never known anyone who said they saw one happen. It’s the same reason why I don’t think that one of the explanations is aliens came and got his body and took him away and they were invisible. There are things that are so far beyond our normal experience that we don’t even entertain them as possibilities. How do you help somebody who is in that spot to actually become open to the possibility of, let’s just say, the supernatural in the world?

Timothy Paul Jones
I think one of the things I want first for them to see is that they are being the ones at that point who is closed-minded. Often Christians are the closed-minded, bigoted people, in terms of people’s perceptions. The fact is we’re being more open-minded, because we have a multiplicity of different potential explanations for this. We presuppose that. The other thing I really want to do just at a more gentle, loving, working down to the core of their issues is I’m actually somebody like that. I’m going to ask them, “When did you start feeling this way? When did you start having this doubt about the spiritual realm?” Because something I found over and over is actually that the person who is doing that, usually there’s some point of doubt or hurt that we have to get down to with them. And so I’m actually not going to start by flinging evidence at them. I don’t think it’s helpful at that point. I’m going to ask them, “When did you start feeling this way?”

Matt Tully
What’s the story there?

Timothy Paul Jones
What’s the story of how you got here? Because I just have deep, deep confidence in Romans 1, where Paul says that everybody knows that there is a God. And if they came to a point at which they fundamentally just disbelieve in the spiritual completely, something has happened to lead them away from what their heart knows, to draw them away from that. And I want them to tell me that story, and I want to talk about that story, and then I want to move toward evidence. But long before I get to the evidence, I want to find out what got you here, how can I speak with love and with grace into what got you there? How can I care for you in what may be a point of deep pain in your life? How can I care for you and love you in that? And that’s actually the first thing I’m going to do before I ever get to the evidence.

Matt Tully
Timothy, that’s such a helpful way to even finish up this conversation. We’ve been so focused on evidence and arguments, but we can sometimes, as we do apologetics, we can lose sight of the fact that we’re talking to a person who has a history, has feelings, has fears. And oftentimes, the beginning of apologetics and even the end of apologetics is engaging with the person right in front of us and listening to them. So thank you so much for taking the time today to help us have a little more understanding of how we can engage with people on this topic.

Timothy Paul Jones
Thank you. It’s been great to be with you.

Popular Articles in This Series

View All

Podcast: Help! I Hate My Job (Jim Hamilton)

January 06, 2020

Jim Hamilton discusses what to do when you hate your job, offering encouragement for those frustrated in their work and explaining the difference between a job and a vocation.

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.