Monthly Archives: November 2011

Problems with Jesus

By Spencer D Gear

Some provocative things have been said about Jesus Christ down through the years. These are but a few examples:

“Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals” (Crossan 1994, p. 160).
This is some of the mass media publicity in recent years (from Johnson 1996, p. 20):

“Scholars Say Jesus Was Often Misquoted” (San Francisco Chronicle, 9 March 1987);
“Jesus Didn’t Claim to Be Messiah, Scholars Say” (San Francisco Chronicle, 18 October, 1987);
“Lord’s Prayer Not Jesus’s, Scholars Say” (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 15 October 1988);
“Jesus Never Predicted His Return, Scholars Say” (Atlanta Constitution, 5 March 1989);
“Jesus Didn’t Promise to Return, Bible Scholars Group Says” (Los Angeles Times, 5 March 1989).

Others think of Jesus this way:

“The Talmud places Jesus in hell, where ‘he is being boiled in hot excrement,’ and the Kabbalah characterizes both Jesus and Mohammed as ‘dead dogs'” (Hoffman 2002).

Bertrand Russell: “Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ every existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him” (Russell 1957).

Stephen Jay Gould, palaeontologist, “There may be no final answer to Pilate’s inquiry of Jesus (John 18:30), ‘What is truth?’ — and Jesus did remain silent following the question” (Gould 1990, cited in Shermer 2002).

In the midst of all this negativity about Jesus, there is also the other side. Chuck Swindoll put it well:

If our greatest need had been information,
God would have sent us an educator.
If our greatest need had been technology,
God would have sent us a scientist.
If our greatest need had been money,
God would have sent us an economist.
If our greatest need had been pleasure,
God would have sent us an entertainer.
But our greatest need was forgiveness,
so God sent us a Savior (in Swindoll 1998, p.315).

Recently I was in dialogue with a doubting person who engaged me in discussion on lots of issues about Christ and Christianity. [1] His questions (indicated as Q red below) are followed by my responses.

Jesus being God

Q. 1 The Jewish people, who started all of this, NEVER expected that the Messiah, when he came, to be the Almighty God.

This is an untrue statement. Let’s take a look at the Old Testamet (OT) evidence:

Psalm 110:1, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Jesus confirmed that this referred to him in Matt. 22:41-46.
In Ps. 110:1, two different words are used for “Lord.” The first is Yahweh (Jehovah) and the second is Adhoni. The latter could mean “lord” (as in Gen. 23:6; 1 Sam. 22:12; 2 Sam. 12:32) when it is a “respectful form of address between man and man, or a word that may refer to the Lord in the highest sense of the term. . . In what sense it is to be understood must be determined from the connection” (Leupold 1959, p. 775).

In what sense is it in Ps. 110? “Sit at my right hand” indicates Adhoni ranks as an equal with the Lord and is thus regarded as divine. Adhoni’s sceptre will be extended “from Zion” and he “will rule in the midst of [his] enemies” (v. 2). “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” If the Jews did not see this as a reference to Messiah’s deity, they were blind and devoid of spiritual wisdom.

Hundreds of years before Christ’s birth, Isaiah declared that the Messiah would be uniquely the Son of God (deity): “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

That the divine character of the “child” is here asserted appears also from the fact that Isaiah uses the same title unequivocally for God in 10:21.… The Hebrew literally, ‘God’s hero,’ using a title for God (‘el) that signifies “the Strong-one” (Leupold 1971, p. 186).

Isa. 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

This verse is a more controversial example because Immanuel, even though it means, “God with us,” does not necessarily mean that the child is divine.

This name could merely stress that in the prevailing emergency God would not forsake his people. Yet the other possibility must be cheerfully conceded, namely this, that in his own person this child could embody this truth [of divinity]. He himself would be God among his people. It is impossible to say with any certainty in which direction the word points. No explanation of v. 14 will ever be entirely satisfactory (Leupold 1971, p. 158).

However, Matt. 1:22-23 confirms that Immanuel refers to Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Q. 2 Most Christians have made a god out of Jesus and in so doing realise that they have forfeited the unique monotheism of the OT.
Jesus proclaimed himself as God. Jesus Himself jettisons the idea that his deity is a fabrication of Christians. Listen to the words from Jesus’ mouth:
“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30);
“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9);
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” (John 14:10);
“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:11);
“If you knew me, you would know my Father also” (John 8:19);
“He who hates me hates my Father as well” (John 15:23);
“That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him” (John 5:23).
“Whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me” (Mark 9:37);
“Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
Jesus took on himself the title of “Son of man” (Mark 14:62), which was an accepted Messianic title from one of Daniel’s visions.
He accepted the description of “Son of God” when challenged by the high priest (Mark 14:61);

Others confessed Christ as God.

When Simon Peter confessed his faith in Jesus, he said, “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29);
After Christ’s resurrection, Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28);
John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14 confirms that this Word was Jesus because he “became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”
John 5:18 records how the Jews were trying all the harder to kill him, “Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
Note that in John 8:58, the identical terms are used by Christ as are used by Jehovah in God’s discourse with Moses (Ex. 3:14, “I am who I am.”). Cf. John 8:24 where Jesus said, “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
The Jews stated clearly what they understood Jesus was saying about himself: “‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'” (John 10:33).
Heb. 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” Heb. 1:2: “Through the Son he made the universe.”
Paul to the Colossians said, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9);
Phil. 2:10-11, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

It is, therefore, an invention to say that “most Christians have made a god out of Jesus.” Jesus clearly declared himself to be God. Others, including his enemies, understood he was stating his divinity. The OT Jews expected the Messiah to be God.

There have been plenty of detractors who have tried to reconstruct the above evidence, but it will not wash. The evidence is in.

C.S. Lewis got to the core of the challenge for a logical thinking person:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool; you can spit at him and kill him for a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to (Lewis 1952, pp. 55-56).

Jesus as the Messiah & the Second Coming

Q.3 Jesus could not have been the Messiah, for the Old Testament (OT) clearly states that the Messiah would usher in world peace etc. The opposite happened.

Yes, the OT does state that the Messiah is the “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). But what does that mean and how will it be fulfilled? We tend to think of peace as tranquillity, an absence of hostility. The basic idea of the biblical word, “peace’ [OT Hebrew shalom; New Testament (NT) Greek, eirene] is

completeness, soundness, wholeness. . . Peace has reference to health, prosperity, well-being, security, as well as quiet from war (Eccles. 3:8; Isa. 45:7). . . Peace is a condition of freedom from strife whether internal or external. . . In the NT the word has reference to the peace which is the gift of Christ (John 14:27; 16:33; Rom. 5:1; Phil. 4:7. The word is used many times to express the truths of the mission, character, and gospel of Christ. The purpose of Christ’s [first] coming into the world was to bring spiritual peace with God (Luke 1:79; 2:14; 24:36; Mark 5:34; 9:50). There is a sense in which he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34). This has reference to the struggle with every form of sin. Christ’s life depicted in the gospels is one of majestic calm and serenity (Matt. 11:28; John 14:27). The essence of the gospel may be expressed in the term ‘peace’ (Acts 10:36; Eph. 6:15), including the peace of reconciliation with God (Rom. 5:1) and the peace of fellowship with God (Gal. 5:22; Phil. 4:7) [Feinberg 1984, p. 833].

The gospel is one of peace (Eph. 6:15). Christ is our peace (Eph. 2:14-15). God the Father is the God of peace (I Thess. 5:23). It’s the tremendous privilege of every Christian to experience the peace of God ((Phil. 4:9). This is because Christ’s death on the cross left a legacy of peace (John 14:27; 16:33).

The benefits of this kind of peace are experienced by the believer NOW as well as in the eternal glory to come (see Rom. 8:6; Col. 3:15).

This led Greek lexicon (dictionary) compiler, Joseph Thayer, to say that peace in the Greek accusative case is “a conception distinctly peculiar to Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatever sort that is” (Thayer 1885/1962, p. 182). See Rom. 8:6.

The unbeliever fails to see that the Messiah’s coming means peace in two stages. His first coming and death on the cross provided peace with God for the believer.(Rom. 5:1). In fact, one can have peace with God and still experience a sword (Matt. 10:34) and persecution (John 15:20).

With Christ’s first coming into the world, there is a sense in which he brought division and strife between one person and another, one race and another, one church and another, even between family members. This is because faith in Christ causes people to support or denigrate Christ and Christians. This can divide one from another. The life of the believer is often filled with storm and stress and for some it ends in martyrdom, as for missionary, Graham Staines, and his two young sons, Philip, aged 10, and Timothy, aged 6, in the east Indian state of Orissa in January 1999 (The Courier Mail 1999, p. 1). See the details in the Graham Staines Murder Case.

In this [20th] century, an average of 300,000 Christians has been martyred each year, according to David Barrett, editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia. . . Martyrdom, Barrett wants to show, is not an “outrageous exception, but a part of a surprisingly regular 2,000-year pattern where persecution and suffering are the normal lot of the body of Christ” (Christianity Today 1990, p. 12).

Ultimate peace will only happen at Christ’s second coming when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11:9). At that time, “the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. . .” (Isa. 11:6). This will be fulfilled in the millennium (Rev. 20) to be followed by “a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21).

At that time, when Christ shall reign on the earth, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new” (Rev. 21:4-5).

There are two stages of peace that the Messiah will bring. At his first coming, it was peace with God through Christ’s death and resurrection. At his second coming, there will be peace over all the earth forever.

Q. 4 But Christians thought they had saved the day with their doctrine of the “second coming.” Without it, Christianity would have died long ago. The parousia teaching is simply that we are to be patient, all the things that Jesus never fulfilled will be taken care of when he comes again. And there is clear evidence that Jesus and his followers thought that he would return in the lifetime of his followers. 2000 years have just about passed and they’re still expecting it!!! I consider this is fanciful thinking. Christianity would have died in the water without the death and resurrection of Christ. The Bible is crystal clear:

“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so it your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God. . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. . . If only in this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men” (I Cor. 15:13-15, 17, 19).

Christians are encouraged by the message of the second coming of Christ because it will be the consummation of their salvation: “So we will be with the Lord forever” (I Thess. 4:17), but ultimate hope for the believer comes through Christ’s resurrection which guarantees their own resurrection.

So that we will not be “ignorant” about life-after-death issues, God inspired the apostle Paul to write about what happens at death for believers (I Thess. 4:13 ff). The second coming of Christ is based on the surety that “Jesus died and rose again” (I Thess. 4:14). For the Christian the future is glorious with the promise of Christ’s second coming, but the crux is the death and resurrection of Christ. There could be no “second coming” hope without this foundation.

There could have been an anticipation of Christ’s imminent second coming by early Christians, but Peter corrected this. In fact, it was the scoffers who were taunting the believers, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?” (2 Peter 3:4). So, it was the message of the scoffers in the first century and the scoffers today who are sceptical about Christ’s second coming. The taunts are as contemporary as ever.

There’s a definite reason for the delay in Christ’s coming: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

It is the Lord’s patience that delays his second coming!

The line from questioners today, “2000 years have just about passed and they’re still expecting it!!!” is similar to the message of scoffers of the first century. They need to get serious with the real reason for the delay – Christ’s patience in reaching scoffing rebels.

The historical evidence is that the early church lived in expectation of Christ’s return, as I do today. Clement of Rome, an early church father after the close of the NT, wrote in his First Letter to the Corinthians (dated about A.D. 96):

You perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, “Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;” and, “The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom you look (Clement I.23).

However, according to the NT, the early church did not live in anticipation of an any-moment coming of Christ.

The expectation of the coming of Christ included the events which would attend and precede His coming. The early fathers who emphasized an attitude of expectancy believed that this entire complex of events – Antichrist, tribulation, return of Christ, would soon occur. This is not the same as an any-moment coming of Christ (Ladd 1956, p. 20, emphasis in original).

George Eldon Ladd examined the writings of the church fathers up to the third century. He reached this conclusion:

In this survey of the early centuries we have found that the Church interpreted the book of Revelation along futurist lines; i.e., they understood the book to predict the eschatological events which would attend the end of the world. The Antichrist was understood to be an evil ruler of the end-times who would persecute the Church, afflicting her with great tribulation. Every church father who deals with the subject expects the Church to suffer at the hands of Antichrist. God would purify the Church through suffering, and Christ would save her by His return at the end of the Tribulation when He would destroy Antichrist, deliver His Church, and bring the world to an end and inaugurate His millennial kingdom. The prevailing view is a postribulation premillennialism. We can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church; and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century (Ladd 1956, p. 31).

Dave MacPherson documents how the pretribulation rapture position that is taught by some evangelical and fundamentalist churches today does not originate with the Scriptures, but with a Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, who had a “revelation” in 1830 of a two-stage rapture. She influenced the founder of the Christian Brethren, John N. Darby, who became an ardent promoter of the pretribulation rapture (MacPherson 1983, p. 64ff). However, this view has not been the historic position of the church.

A misunderstanding often occurs over Christ’s call for “watchfulness” in light of his second coming. Christ’s own words were:

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. . . Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. . . Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants of his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.” (Matthew 24:36-37, 42, 45-47).

The context of this passage makes it clear that Christ is not asking believers to be ready for an any-moment coming.

The true meaning of the command to watch is not to watch for Christ’s return. Scripture does not use this language. Nowhere are we told to watch for the coming of Christ. We are exhorted, rather, in view of the uncertainty of the time of the end, to watch. ‘Watching’ does not mean ‘looking for’ the event; it means spiritual and moral ‘wakefulness.’ We do not know when the end will come. Therefore, whenever it happens, we must be spiritually awake and must not sleep. If we are awake and Christ comes today, we are ready. If we are awake and Christ does not come until tomorrow, we will still be ready. Whenever it happens, we must be ready (Ladd 1956, p. 115, emphasis in original).

Jesus’ Death

Q. 5 Why did Jesus have to die? God’s creation turned out bad, we are told. So what to do! In order to make things right, someone had to be murdered!! If we believe the Trinity doctrine, we are left to believe that God arranged to have himself murdered in order to placate himself! Patently absurd!!

The idea of substitution of one person taking the place of another to bear pain and save life is known even today. In the 20th century, we heard of the heroism of such an action with Polish Franciscan, Father Maximilian Kolbe, in the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. A number of prisoners had been chosen to be executed when one of them shouted that he was a married man with children. Father Kolbe stepped forward and offered to take the condemned man’s place. The offer was accepted by the authorities, he was placed in an underground cell and was left there to die of starvation (Stott 1986, p. 136).

Here’s the problem: we are guilty and need forgiveness. We know it internally from our conscience which convicts us. But how is that possible when we understand the gravity of sin and the majestic holiness of God? We are faced with the realities of who we are and who God is. How can the holy love of God come to grips with the unholy lovelessness of human beings?
Because God cannot contradict himself, he must be himself and “satisfy” his just requirements – all in absolute consistency with his perfect character. The problem is not outside of God, but within his own being.

James Denney got to the point: “It is the recognition of this divine necessity, or the failure to recognise it, which ultimately divides interpreters of Christianity into evangelical and non-evangelical, those who are true to the New Testament and those who cannot digest it” (Denney 1903, p. 82, in Stott 1986, p. 133).God in his mercy willed to forgive human beings; he wanted to forgive them but had to do it righteously so that it was obvious he wasn’t condoning sin. How did he do this? Instead of aiming the full weight of his righteous wrath against sinful human beings, in his sovereign will it was God’s purpose to direct this wrath against himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. This is strange language to human beings who don’t fully understand God’s righteous nature and the abhorrence of sin.
How are we to understand this substitute?

The New Testament

The NT is unambiguous: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2). In other places there are allusions such as, “gave himself” (Gal. 1:4), “offered himself” (Heb. 9:14).

The background is the OT sacrificial system. He died “to be a sin offering” (Rom. 8:3, NIV) or “for sins” (1 Peter 3:18, NIV). The Book of Hebrews in the NT shows Jesus’ sacrifice to have perfectly fulfilled the OT “shadows.”

What did the OT sacrifices signify? [2] Two basic notions stand out: first, the sense that human beings have of a right to belong to God; second, the sense of alienation we also have because of our sin and guilt.

To deal with the first, God instituted the “peace” and “fellowship” offerings (see Lev. 7:12; Ex. 23:14-17). To deal with the second, the sin offering and guilt offering were provided, thus demonstrating the need for atonement.

The clearest statement of how the blood sacrifices of the OT had a substitutionary significance is in God’s explanation of why the eating of blood was prohibited: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11).

Three things stand out about blood:

It is the symbol of life. This goes back at least to Noah (see Gen. 9:4) and was repeated in, “the blood is the life” (Deut. 12:23);
Blood makes atonement. Only because “the life of a creature is in the blood” is it possible that the blood “makes atonement for one’s life.” Life was given for life. The life of the innocent victim was given for the life of the sinful offerer.
It was God who gave the blood for this atoning purpose. God said, “I have given it to you.” Why? “To make atonement for yourselves.”

Q. 6 The doctrine of the atonement is nothing but a replay of previous PAGAN religions with their angry gods, need for sacrifices and bloody altars.

Atonement from the pagans??

The Christian’s insistence that the gospel of Christ’s cross is the only basis for forgiveness of sins perplexes people. Why should forgiveness depend on Christ’s death? Before we forgive each other on the personal level, no death is needed. Why the big deal about forgiveness coming through his Son’s “sacrifice for sin.” It sounds very primitive and doesn’t seem reasonable for rational modern people. It is not surprising, therefore, to see an unbeliever link the OT (and NT) sacrificial system to “pagan religions.”

Nowhere does the Bible tell us how sacrifices originated. We simply find Cain and Abel (Gen. 4) already offering sacrifices and God favouring Abel’s sacrifice (Gen. 4:4, confirmed by Heb. 11:4). Thus it is confirmation that sacrificial practices go back to the dawn of civilisation. Some of the controversy has developed because

certain schools of Biblical criticism have asserted that the ritual system embodied in the Pentateuch cannot be earlier than the postexilic period. However, archaeological discoveries pertaining to the sacrificial systems of Mesopotamia and the Levant in the 3rd and 2nd millenia B.C. have shown that very complex rituals were practiced all across the Fertile Crescent long before the entry of the Israelites into Canaan. Since the Biblical claim is quite explicit to the effect that the patriarchal culture esp. in the sphere of religion, sprang from the great centers of civilization, Mesopotamia and Egypt (cf. Joshua’s unequivocal statement, Josh 24:2, 14), there is no reason to doubt that even the Israelites could have known and also practiced a sophisticated order of ritual (Rainey 1976, p. 195).

Let’s briefly look at a few examples:

The parallel between the biblical account of the sacrifice after Noah’s flood and the Babylonian account is striking, but the differences are even more noticeable. Noah built an altar and sacrificed burnt offerings on it. “The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma . . .” (Gen. 8:21, NIV). It is bold indeed to speak of the “pleasing aroma” since “the Babylonian version crudely made the hunger of the gods, ravenous without man’s gifts, a reason for their ending the flood” (Kidner 1967, p. 93).

This led Kidner to conclude that

the specific similarities between the Genesis story and most others are utterly outweighed by the differences, and it is only the Babylonian legend that shows any close resemblance to the story of Noah. . . By common consent this [Babylonian] version of events is altogether put to shame by Genesis. Even the incidentals, the dice-shaped ark and the sequence of the birds, suffer in the comparison, while the theology flounders from one ineptitude to the next (Kidner 1967, pp. 96-97).

The parallel between the Mesopotamian ritual of the “scapegoat” and the OT can only be made in general. It breaks down when one gets to the details. “There was no act of confession for sin; instead, the expulsion of demons was the goal of this rite, as is clearly seen in the incantation that follows it” (Rainey 1976, p. 196).

Hittite rituals have suggestive parallels with OT passages. One ritual involved the sacrifice of a dog that was cut into pieces and placed on either side of a kind-of gate, through which the participants were required to pass. Whether there is any connection between this sacrifice and that of Abraham (Gen. 15:10-11, 17) or the leaders of Judah (Jer. 34:18-20) ”is impossible to say (cf. Ezek 16:3, 45) (Rainey 1976, p. 198).

In Mesopotamia, “the sacrifices were necessary to the gods as essential food (cf. Deut 32:37, 38), the God of Israel is only said to enjoy the ‘pleasant odor’ of certain specific kinds of offering” [see Num. 28:2; Ezek. 44:7] (Rainey 1976, p. 200).

Many nations besides Israel practised sacrifices (see Judges 16:23). In Ugarit (ca. 1400 BC), there was a developed ritual system with names similar to the OT. Some scholars want to conclude that the Jewish sacrificial system owes its “origin to Babylonian, Canaanite or ancient nomadic rituals and fellowship meals. However, throughout its history, Israelite practice had many distinctive features of its own” (Williams 1989, p. 485).

The prophets reacted against abuses and pagan elements brought into Israel (see Isa. 1:11 ff; Amos 4:4 ff). This is a crucial point. The Jewish prophets, especially with Israel, condemned these foreign elements in a forthright manner. See Amos 4:4-5; Hos. 2:13-15; 4:11-13; 13:2. This was also the case for Judah (see Jer. 7:17-18; Ezek 8; etc.)

There are parallels between Israel’s sacrifices and offerings and the contemporary cultures of the ancient Near East, but this does NOT confirm that OT sacrifices are an imitation of the neighbouring pagan cultures. “It is the ideology expressed in the ritual complex as a whole that makes the Israelite religion unique” (Rainey 1976, p. 194).

Atonement from God

The sacrificial, substitutionary atonement, as detailed above, does not originate with people trying to appease pagan gods and transferring this ritual across to Judaism. Its origin is with Jehovah God.

The OT helps to give background for an understanding of Heb. 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness,” and Heb. 10:4, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” OT blood sacrifices were the “shadows.” Christ was the substance.

The OT Passover [3] demonstrated the concept of “sin-bearing.” The NT identifies Christ’s death as the fulfilment of the Passover. John the Baptist promoted Jesus as “the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36).

In the original Passover story, Yahweh (God) revealed himself as:

the Judge;
the Redeemer;
Israel’s covenant God.

Since Jesus clearly fulfilled the Passover in his sacrifice, we know that:

The Judge and the Saviour are the same person;
Salvation is by substitution;
God had to “see the blood” before there could be divine provision;
Each family rescued by God is purchased for God.

There is a second major illustration of sin-bearing demonstrating the principle of substitution. 1 Peter 2:24 points to it: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.” This refers back to the annual Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16:5 ff) when two male goats were taken as a sin offering to atone for the sins of the Israelite community. One goat was killed and its blood sprinkled in the usual way, while the high priest would “lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites – all their sins – and put them on the goat’s head” (Lev. 16: 21). The priest then drove the goat into the desert to “carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place ” (v. 22). Thus reconciliation was possible only through substitutionary sin-bearing.

The NT letter to the Hebrews makes clear that Jesus was both “a merciful and faithful high priest . . . (to) make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17). Christ did not enter the Holy of Holies “by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). For the Jews, the scapegoat who carried away the people’s sins had to be offered over and over again. While this is a “type” of Jesus’ sacrifice, Christ’s sacrifice took place “once” to take away sins (Heb. 9:28).

The non-Christian may ask, “Why did Jesus have to die?” He “died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The “one (Christ) died for all” (2 Cor. 5:14). What happened to Christ on the cross? The most outspoken statements are that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) and Christ has “redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).
The sinless One bore the penalty of our sin instead of us.

John Stott summarised it:

When we are united with Christ a mysterious exchange takes place: he took our curse, so that we may receive his blessing; he became sin with our sin, so that we may become righteous with his righteousness. . . What was transferred to Christ was not moral qualities but legal consequences: he voluntarily accepted liability for our sins. That is what the expressions ‘made sin’ and ‘made a curse’ mean. Similarly, the ‘righteousness of God’ which we become when we are ‘in Christ’ is not here righteousness of character and conduct (although that grows within us by the working of the Holy Spirit), but rather a righteous standing before God (Stott 1986, pp. 148-149).

When we pull all of this OT material together, we can clearly conclude that the shedding and sprinkling of blood, the sin offering, the Passover, the meaning of “sin-bearing”, the scapegoat, and Isaiah 53 (which I haven’t discussed here) are applied in the NT to the death of Christ.
The biblical material clearly draws the conclusion that the cross was a substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died for us; he died instead of us. The sacrificial imagery has the clear purpose of stating that the sinless Jesus died in substitution for our sins (Stott 1986, p. 149). This view offends many. But the Bible expected this by speaking of the “offence of the cross” (Gal. 5:11).

As for the substitutionary atonement being “a replay of previous PAGAN religions with their angry gods, need for sacrifices and bloody altars,” that is not based on biblical evidence. As stated above, God is very clear: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11).

The one thing God could not do in the face of human rebellion was do nothing! The substitutionary atonement is “God’s demand on God, God’s meeting his own demand” (Forsyth in Stott 1986, p. 152). God had two options: he could either inflict punishment on human beings (which we deserve) or he could take the punishment himself. He chose the latter to honour his own law but save the guilty. God himself took his own judgment for those who want to receive it.

Who died? Did God die? That’s not what the Bible teaches. Suffice to say that our substitute, the one who took our place and died our death on the cross was neither Christ alone nor God alone. But it was God in Christ, who was truly and fully both God and man, and was uniquely qualified to represent both God and human beings and to mediate between them.

In order to save us in such a way as to satisfy himself, God through Christ substituted himself for us. Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice. The cross was an act simultaneously of punishment and amnesty, severity and grace, justice and mercy (Stott 1986, p. 159).

Q. 7 The Christian religion should really be called PAULIANITY, because Paul was the one who tied in the untimely murder of Jesus with the temple sacrifices of the Hebrews.

Yes, Paul strongly associated Jesus’ death with the Hebrew sacrificial system (Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor.5:14, 21; Gal. 3:13 ). So did Peter (1 Pt. 2:24), the writer to the Hebrews (2:17; 9:22, 28; 10:4), and John the Baptist (John 1:29, 36). But there was nothing “untimely” about the killing of Jesus. It was right on schedule, according to God’s plan, “At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6). “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons” (Gal. 4:4).

“When the time had fully come”, or, “in the fulness of the time” (NRSV, NASB, KJV), refers to the moment in which the previously determined time-limit was reached. . . The picture is that of a vessel that is being poured full and at a given moment is brimful. The pleroma [fulness] is not merely that last bit that fills the vessel but the whole brimful content of the container. . . This carries with it the implication that the moment of the pleroma was the most suitable for what was now about to happen. . . Nor can we prove on convincing grounds why this time was the most suitable for the coming of Christ (Ridderbos 1953, pp. 154-155).

William Hendriksen agrees with this conclusion. While this was a time when the Greek language spread throughout the civilised world, when there was a network of Roman roads, and Roman peace was enforced, thus making it a more ideal environment for the spread of the gospel, “it is God alone who fully knows why, in his inscrutable decree, he had decided that the long period of time (chronos) is which all the preparatory events were to occur would run out at that specific moment” (1968, p. 158, emphasis in original).

Paul was used by the Lord to pen a large portion of the New Testament, but there would be no “Paulianity” if it were not for the life and death of Jesus Christ. It must always be remembered that this Paul (formerly Saul) was “giving approval to [Stephen’s] death” (Acts 8:1) and “began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison” (Acts 8:3). He had a reputation for vicious persecution of the Christian believers (see Acts 9:1, 13, 21; 22:4, 19; 26:10-11).

Paul himself admitted his previous malicious history of persecution against the church and his attempts to destroy it (I Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13, 23; Phil 3:6). His explanation was: “Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 1:13-14).

It started when this violent sinner against God, Christ and the church, was confronted supernaturally on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9). When Jesus confronted him with, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4), Saul knew who it was who was calling him. His response was, “Who are you, Lord?” (9:5). The Lord’s response was: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting… Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do” (9:5-6).

It should not be surprising that this remarkable conversion and calling of Paul should see him embark on a special ministry. “Paulianity” is Christianity.

Every unbeliever should be confronted with this question from this very perceptive inquirer:

What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?

D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe addressed this critical issue in their book by that name (Kennedy & Newcombe 1994). Chapter titles include:

Christ and Civilisation: A Quick Overview of Christ’s Impact on World History;
In the Image of God: Christianity’s Impact on the Value of Human Life;
Passion and Mercy: Christianity’s Contribution to Helping the Poor;
Education for Everyone: Christianity’s Contribution to Education;
Government of the People, for the People, by the People: Christianity’s Impact on the Founding of America;
Freedom for All: Christianity’s Contribution to Civil Liberties;
Thinking God’s Thoughts after Him: Christianity’s Impact on Science;
Free Enterprise and the Work Ethic: Christianity’s Impact on Economics;
The Beauty of Sexuality: Christianity’s Impact on Sex and the Family;
Healing the Sick: Christianity’s Impact on Health and Medicine;
The Civilising of the Uncivilised: Christianity’s Impact on Morality;
Inspiring the World’s Greatest Art: Christianity’s Impact on the Arts and Music;
Amazing Grace: Lives Changed by Jesus Christ;
The Sins of the Church: Negative Aspects of Christianity in History;
A Cruel World: What Happens When Christian Restraints Are Removed?
Where Do We Go From Here? Fulfilling Our Purpose.

James Russell Lowell, the literary man who was Minister of State for the United States to England, was at a banquet where the Christian religion, particularly the mission enterprise, was being attacked by scoffers (this was over a century ago). He spoke up with these words:

I challenge any sceptic to find a ten-square-mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honoured, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief (Schenck 1910, p. 85, cited in Kennedy & Newcombe 1994, p. 299).

Problems with the Trinity

Q.8 But, hold on. . . they [most Christians] thought they could solve the problem of their celestial mathematics, stating that one plus one plus one is NOT three, but one!

Let’s admit up front that the doctrine of the Trinity “is difficult and perplexing to us” (Sproul 1992, p. 35). Another has said that “no man can fully explain the Trinity. . . the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man” (Martin 1980, p. 25).

The word, Trinity, does not appear in the Bible. Neither do the words, “total depravity”, but they are well supported biblical doctrines.

It comes from the Latin word trinitas, which means ‘threeness.’ But even though the word is not in the Bible, the trinitarian idea is there, and it is most important… In the minds of some, the difficulty of understanding how God can be both one and three is reason enough to reject the doctrine outright (Boice 1986, p. 109).

Christianity does not teach the absurd notion about God that 1+1+1=1, which an unbeliever described as “celestial mathematics.” That is a false equation because the term, Trinity, describes a relationship, NOT of three Gods, but of one God in three persons. It is NOT tritheism (three beings who are God). Trinity is an effort to define God in all his fullness, in terms of his unity and diversity.

Historically, it has been described as one in essence and three in person. “Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory” (Sproul 1992, p. 35). Essence is used to describe God’s being, while the diversity is to express the Godhead in terms of person.

God’s unity is affirmed in Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” God’s diversity is declared in Gen. 1:26, “Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” After the sin of Adam, “The Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us…” (Gen. 3:22). Concerning the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language…” (Gen. 11:7, emphasis added).

The OT prophets later confirmed this mysterious relationship within the Deity. In telling of his call to the office of a prophet, Isaiah tells of how God asked, “. . . And who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8, emphasis added). The use of the plural, “us” and “our,” must be noted. It is a significant issue.

God could have been talking to himself (even Jewish commentators reject that interpretation), to the angels, or to other Persons who are not identified. He was not talking to angels because the next verse (Gen. 1:27) gives the context. While referring to the creation of human beings, the Bible declares, “So God created man in his own image.” Human beings were not created in the image of angels, but in God’s image. So the Father, in Gen. 1:26 is addressing His Son and the Holy Spirit.

This diversity in the Godhead is clearly identified in Matt. 28:19, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

Historically, the heresy of modalism has attempted to deny the distinction of persons in the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different ways in which God expresses himself. On the other hand, tritheism, another heresy, has tried to affirm that there are three beings that together make up God.

All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.

There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers (Sproul 1992, pp. 35-36).

The Trinity does not refer to parts of God. It cannot be associated with the roles of God. All analogies break down. We can speak of water as being liquid, steam and ice, but all being water. To speak of one man as father, son and husband does not capture the full mystery of the nature of God. R.C. Sproul has rightly summarised:

The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three (1992, p. 36).

God tells us why we cannot adequately express or explain certain dimensions of His nature: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'” (Isa. 55:8-9).

Why the Need for Apologetics?

“Apologetics is the discipline that deals with a rational defense of the Christian faith. It comes from the Greek work apologia which means to give a reason or defense” (Geisler 1999, p. 37).

Q. 9 And I could never accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, because I believe that the all-knowing god could, and would, have caused to be written a book that did NOT need endless apologetics!

The discipline of apologetics is needed because of seeking and searching unbelievers like yourself. If we didn’t “suppress the truth by [our] wickedness” (Rom. 1:18), there probably would be little need for an apologetics’ ministry. I thank God for people who ask sincere and deep questions about the Christian faith. There are answers, good answers, to your questions if you are prepared to examine the evidence impartially. However, here’s the rub: When we “suppress the truth by our wickedness,” we block out God’s message to us.

Apologetics helps with clarification and explanation of the Gospel message, the nature of God, the nature of human beings and other questions about life and faith. Peter declared that apologetics will always be the Christian’s responsibility, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

But it is God’s proclamation through Christ that leads to salvation. Please do not put off seeking God. He declares, “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon” (Isa. 55:6-7).

As long as God leaves the proclamation of the gospel with human beings, apologetics will be a necessary part of evangelism. Would you like to be a robot for whom there is no need for an explanation about anything? Or would you prefer to be a free-will human being? Since the latter is God’s design for humanity, explanations of many things, including the Divine, will always be necessary. Yes, it is a challenge, but apologetics is one of God’s ways of confirming your free will.

I recommend a read of Norman L. Geisler’s (1999, p. 37ff) article, ‘Apologetics, Need for,” in which he gives these main reasons why it is needed:

God commands it.
The world needs it.

Also see Norman Geisler’s article, “The Need for Defending the Faith.”

“The real issue is, what happened after the crucifixion of Jesus that changed the minds of the disciples, who had denied, disobeyed and deserted Jesus? . . . We have to ask, Why is there no other first-century Jew who has millions of followers today? Why isn’t there a John the Baptist movement? Why, of all first-century figures, including the Roman emperors, is Jesus still worshiped today, while the others have crumbled into the dust of history? It’s because this Jesus–the historical Jesus–is also the living Lord. That’s why. It’s because he’s still around, while the others are long gone” (Ben Witherington III, in Strobel 1998, p. 141).

Notes:

[1] Here, NT = New Testament; OT = Old Testament. Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from The Holy Bible: New International Version (1978).
[2] For a more complete description of “sacrifice in the Old Testament,” see Stott 1986, pp. 134 ff.
[3] Read the original Passover story in Exodus chs. 11-13.

References:

Boice, J. M. 1986, Foundations of the Christian Faith, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

Christianity Today 1990, “Dying for Jesus,” March 19, 1990.

Clement of Rome 2004, ‘First Letter to the Corinthians’ (i.e. I Clement) [Online], excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers (vol. 9), ed.A. Menzies, American Edition 1896 and 1897, Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight, available from New Advent at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm [6 April 2005].

Crossan J. D. 1994, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco.

The Courier-Mail 1999, ‘Lives of charity meet a fiery end’ (January 25, 1999).

Denney, J. 1903, The Atonement and the Modern Mind, Hodder & Stoughton, London.

Feinberg, C. L. 1984, ‘Peace’, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. A. Elwell, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Geisler, N. L. 1999, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Gould, S. J. 1990, ‘In Touch with Walcott’, Natural History (July 1990), pp. 6-12, p. 12.

Hendriksen, W. 1968, Galatians (New Testament Commentary), The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.

Hoffman II, M. A.2002, THE HOFFMAN WIRE: ‘Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History’ Dec. 17 2002, available from: http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html [9 April 2005].

The Holy Bible: New International Version 1978, Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Online edition available from BibleGateway.com at: http://www.biblegateway.com/ [9 April 2005].

Johnson, L. T. 1996, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco.

Kennedy, D. J. & Newcombe, J. 1994, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Word Publishing, Milton Keynes, England.

Kidner, D. 1967, Genesis (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), The Tyndale Press, London.

Ladd, G. E. 1956, The Blessed Hope, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Leupold, H. C. 1959, Exposition of Psalms, Evangelical Press, London.

Leupold, H. C. 1971, Exposition of Isaiah (One-Volume edition, Vol. 1), Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Lewis, C. S. 1952, Mere Christianity, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.

MacPherson D. 1983, The Great Rapture Hoax, New Puritan Library, Fletcher, N.C.

Martin, W. 1980, Essential Christianity, Regal Books, Ventura, California.

Rainey, A. F. 1976, ‘Sacrifice and Offerings’, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 5), gen. ed. M. C. Tenney, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 194-211.

Ridderbos, H. N. 1953, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Russell, B. 1957, Why I am Not a Christian [Online], available from: http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html [9 April 2005].

Schenck, F. S. 1910, Christian Evidences and Ethics, Young Men’s Christian Association Press, New York.

Shermer, M. B. 2002, ‘This View of Science. Stephen Jay Gould as Historian of Science & Scientific Historian, Popular Scientist & Scientific Popularizer’, Social Studies of Science (August 2002) [Online], SSS and SAGE Publications, London, available from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf [9 April 2005]

Sproul, R.C. 1992, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois.

Stott, J. R. W. 1986, The Cross of Christ, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England.

Strobel, L. 1998, The Case for Christ, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Swindoll, C. 1998, Swindoll’s Ultimate Book of Illustrations & Quotes, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

Thayer, J. H. 1885, 1962, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. (Note: The first Zondervan printing of this edition was in 1962, but Thayer’s preface in the lexicon was written in 1885.)

Williams D. (ed.) 1989, New Concise Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England.

“May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Hebrews 13:20-21, NIV).

The Historical Jesus

Articles: The historical Jesus

In the link above, read some profound apologetic responses by Dr. William Lane Craig to the Jesus Seminar, the Historical Jesus controversy, and other challenges to Jesus Christ (this is an off-site link to Dr. Craig’s homepage). These articles include:

Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar;
Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus;
The Guard at the Tomb;
The Problem of Miracles;
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus;
Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ;
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus;
The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb.

hippo

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?[1]

3 Wooden Crosses

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

1. Introduction

I have two stories to tell. The first is factually, really true, true! It happened. At the end of this article, hopefully you will understand why I emphasised that this story is factually, true truth. Here’s the true story.

Recently I was talking with a fellow Christian who was devastated by a TV program that he had seen. This show featured some scholars who claimed that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were myth and could not be trusted as historical documents. My friend was deeply troubled and in a trembling voice said, “I am shocked. My faith has been shaken to the core. I am numb in disbelief. These were scholars speaking and I knew nothing about this. As a Christian, have I been living a fantasy all this time? Is this Christian stuff all a game? Should I eat, drink and be merry? Drugs, sex and rock ‘n roll here I come.”

The second story is fantasy; it’s a myth, but true, nonetheless. Hopefully, you’ll realise the significance of that statement at the end of the article. It goes like this:

My own fantasy is to enter a hall and find high ceilings, lovely chandeliers, walls lined with bookshelves, wines in the alcove, hors d’oeuvres by the windows, and a wide table down the middle of the room with the Bible sitting on it. And there we are, all of us, walking around, sitting at the table, and talking about what we should do with that book. Some rules are in order. Everyone has been invited. Christians have not been excluded, but they are not the ones in charge. All of us are there, and all of our knowledge and expertise is also on the table. There are historians of religion, cultural anthropologists, and political scientists but also politicians, CEOs, and those who work in foreign affairs. The ethnic communities of (any Australian community [3]) are all well represented, as are women, the disenfranchised, the disabled, and all the voiceless who have recently come to speech. Merchants are there, and workers, and the airline pilots. Everyone is present, and everyone gets to talk and ask questions. No one has a corner on what the Bible says. We blow our whistles if anyone starts to pout or preach. What we are trying to figure out is why we thought the Bible so important, whether it is so important, how it has influenced our culture, what we think of the story, whether we should laugh or cry at the “ending,” how it fits or does not fit our current situation, and whether the story should be revised in keeping with our vision of a just sustainable, festive, and multicultural world. Wouldn’t that be something? [4]

This fantasy is the vision that comes from scholar, Burton Mack, with similar views to those of the Jesus Seminar Fellows. His vision is the challenge that faces Christians who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, inspired by God, and a revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our Saviour.

[See Appendix B for an outline summary of this section]

2. My presuppositions

I believe the personal God exists;

He is the God who created this world, including human beings;

He is the God who speaks through general revelation (nature) and special revelation;

I approach the Bible as I read any other document of history that is not fiction: I listen to what it says and subject it to the normal rules of understanding any historical document.

Are the criteria of authenticity worthwhile as guides for determining historicity? [11]

D. A. Carson objects: “The criteria that have been established to distinguish between redaction and tradition are for the most part so imprecise as to be not much more than silly” [11a]. I agree, but here they are:

Multiple attestation or forms: This is “information or teaching that appears in more than one of the gospel sources”[12]

of Palestinian environment or language. The Greek text of a portion of the gospels seems to reflect a fairly literal translation of a Semitic original or it describes events/concepts distinctive of first century Palestine.[13]

of dissimilarity: “Where the gospels’ portrait of Jesus differs from the typical perspectives both of ancient Jewish belief and of early Christianity, then one may be sure of having authentic Jesus tradition. Because Jesus seemed to stand out so much from his contemporaries and because his first followers so easily deviated from his very demanding requirements, this criterion has appealed to many as most helpful.”[14]

D. A. Carson objects strongly to the criterion of dissimilarity, calling it “the worst of these [criteria]” because

An authentic teaching of Jesus (it is argued) is one that can be paralleled neither in the early church nor in surrounding Judaism. This criterion has been ruthlessly shredded in several essays. But it is still defended in some circles. At best it might produce what is idiosyncratic about jesus’ teaching but it cannot possibly produce what is characteristic about it. Is any method more than silly that requires that a historical person say something like what is said around him, and that, granted he is the most influential person of all time, so little influence his followers that no thought of theirs may legitimately be traced to him – even when those same followers deliberately make the connection . . ?

The criterion is hopelessly inadequate for the task assigned it. Worse, there is an irresistible temptation to reconstruct the teaching of Jesus on the basis of this select material, and the result cannot possibly be other than a massive distortion.

The criterion of dissimilarity is doubly ridiculous when placed alongside the criterion of coherence. Unbounded subjectivity [2] must be the result. Moreover, the other criteria for distinguishing redaction from tradition do not fare much better.[14a]

of coherence: “Whatever fits well with material authenticated by one of the other three criteria may also be accepted.”[15]

It is, therefore, questionable whether these criteria are of any value since they are created by scholars, many of whom are resistant to the canonical Gospels, and are not developed by deductive reasoning from the biblical text. I am reluctant to use them because they seem to come with too many trappings linked to the negatives of redaction criticism. Therefore, this paper does not employ them.

3. The Publicity Machine

There is a new breed of Bible bashers in the world today. These scholars have been in the closets of academic institutions. But no more. They are taking their message to the world through the popular mass media — newspapers, magazines, television, radio, writing their own books at a popular level. They have their message of tearing into the Bible in
Time[16], Newsweek and Life magazines, U.S. News and World Report and newspapers around the world.[17] This version of Jesus was on the front pages of Time and Newsweek magazines, and U.S. News & World Report at Easter time 1996.[18]

The publicity in Australia has been a trickle, but in the U.S., it has become a deluge. It may get that way in Australia, following the SBS TV series during 1999, “From Jesus to Christ.” Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar spoke at the United College (of the Uniting Church), North Parramatta [Sydney, Australia], September 1998.

There was a public forum at St Francis (Anglican) Theological College, Milton, Brisbane, on December 9, 1998, involving Dr Greg Jenks of the Jesus Seminar (of the Drayton Anglican parish, Toowoomba, Qld., Australia), and Dr Paul Barnett, Anglican bishop of North Sydney, defending the orthodox view. The Seminar was titled, “Behind and Beyond the Jesus Seminar: Implications for Christian Discipleship.” Dr Paul Barnett [18a] is author of the recently revised, Is the New Testament History? As of 2012, Dr. Jenks was on the faculty of St Francis Theological College, Brisbane.

This is a new kind of missionary group that has become very active. These preachers and academics are Bible-bashers of a different kind. As one Christian writer and defender of the faith said, they practice evangelism in reverse… they don’t want you to commit your life to the Christ of the Gospels; they want you to surrender that commitment. And they claim to have history, science and scholarship on their side. They promote themselves under the banner of The Jesus Seminar.[19]

Luke Timothy Johnson has some strong things to say against the Seminar. He is not known as an evangelical (but a Roman Catholic, former Benedictine monk and priest before becoming a biblical scholar)[20], Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.[21], a school not known for its conservative, evangelical views. He says that he wrote his book, The Real Jesus, “to blow the whistle on a form of scholarship I consider misguided and misleading.”[22] Johnson admits, however, that “those whose work I have challenged have not faltered for a moment in their pursuits.”[23] Part of this is related to the mass media frenzy that they have created.

These are some of the newspaper headlines these scholars have grabbed:[24]

“Scholars Say Jesus Was Often Misquoted.”[25]
“Jesus Didn’t Claim to Be Messiah, Scholars Say.”[26]
“Lord’s Prayer Not Jesus’s, Scholars Say.”[27]
“Jesus Never Predicted His Return, Scholars Say.”[28]
“Jesus Didn’t Promise to Return, Bible Scholars Group Says.”[29]

These samples could be repeated many times over, especially in the USA.[30]

These kinds of headlines do two things: First, they are negatively referring to the traditional Jesus of the Gospels; Second, scholars do this debunking.[31]

When I ask, “Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?” I am challenging the presuppositions and conclusions of Jesus Seminar Fellows and people of like mind. These are Bible Bashers of a different kind: these are people, mostly scholars, who do not want to take the Bible at face value. When the Bible speaks of supernatural things, it can’t possibly be dealing with historical things. Burton Mack, not of the Jesus Seminar, but with views that are similar, says that the Gospels in our New Testament “are also products of mythic imagination” and one of the “interesting question[s]” for him is “why the gospels are so hard for moderns to recognize as myth.”[32]

Robert Funk, as cofounder of the Jesus Seminar, tells us of one aim: “We want to liberate Jesus. The only Jesus most people know is the mythic one. They don’t want the real Jesus, they want the one they can worship. The cultic Jesus.”[33]

There is not a word in the Bible, Old or New Testament, to say that what they contain is myth. These scholars are distorting the Bible’s message; in my opinion, they have become Bible bashers of a new kind.

They claim the Gospels are myth, but that doesn’t matter. You can accept the Jesus of faith in this story, so Christ’s not rising literally from the dead is no bother. He can live in your spirit without that historical stuff back there 2,000 years ago.

There was a public forum at St Francis (Anglican) Theological College, Brisbane, on December 9, 1998, involving Dr Greg Jenks of the Jesus Seminar (of the Drayton Anglican parish, Toowoomba), and Dr Paul Barnett, Anglican bishop of North Sydney, defending the orthodox view. The Seminar was titled, “Behind and Beyond the Jesus Seminar: Implications for Christian Discipleship.” In a letter to the editor in the Anglican newspaper from the Brisbane Diocese, Focus, which promoted this forum, Greg Jenks lets us into the methodology he adopts. He disparaged those who make “the mistake of taking the Bible literally.”[34]

What does the Jesus Seminar think of its critics? According to The Five Gospels, they come from the “skeptical left wing” and the “fundamentalist right.”[35] Yet, evangelical scholar, Dr. Don Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Chicago (Deerfield, IL.) describes the Seminar in terms of “left wing ideology” that is anti supernatural and engages in circular reasoning.[36] An extremely strong response against the Seminar has come from Howard Clark Kee, “a critical scholar with an international reputation.”[37] He declared that the Seminar was “an academic disgrace.”[38]

What I found very interesting was the scholars’ response to a request to have a discussion on TV in the USA with two evangelicals. Ravi Zacharias, one of the foremost defenders of the faith in the world, “was approached by a major news network [in the USA] to respond to these writings” [of the Jesus Seminar scholars]. Ravi

Suggested that they schedule a discussion between some of these liberal critics, and Don Carson [another leading evangelical scholar] and [Ravi Zacharias]. The network representatives reported back to [Ravi] that they had spent an hour trying to persuade one of the best known authors to agree to even a preliminary dialogue on the program. But the liberal scholar refused, saying he would not go on [the TV program] with an evangelical.[39]What is this saying about the Jesus Seminar’s ability or desire to defend its position publicly against people who are likely to issue a substantial challenge to their conclusions? I would have thought that scholars who were sure of their position and wanted as much mass media exposure as possible, would jump at a TV discussion on a prominent news channel.

If you don’t understand your Bible; if you are not convinced that the Bible consists of solid, historical, reliable documents, you will be hit for a sixer by these theologically liberal scholars who want to “educate the masses” about the REAL Jesus, who we will find, is ANOTHER Jesus. He’s not the Jesus I have come to believe from the Bible and from my personal relationship with him.

Time magazine says, “The scholars are coming out of the closet.”[40] Dr. Julian Hill, a Jesus Seminar participant, says that the Seminar was intended to deal with

“the enormous gap between scholars and the public… Most of the public really doesn’t know what scholars do. They are religiously illiterate.” The intention of the Seminar’s controversial findings, he said, “Is not a deliberate attempt to get at the church; it’s a contribution to religious literacy.”[41] The “Jesus Seminar” is a group of self-described scholars who have determined Jesus probably only said 20%[42] of the quotes attributed to him by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.[43]

4. The Jesus Seminar Approach

“The Seminar employed colored beads dropped into voting boxes in order to permit all members to vote in secret. Beads and boxes turned out to be a fortunate choice for both Fellows and an interested public.”[44]They colour-coded the words of Jesus. About 150 scholars voted on Jesus’ words as red, pink, grey, or black:

This is what they decided. There were two options given:[45]

Option 1:

“red: I would include this item unequivocally in the database for determining who Jesus was.

“pink: I would include this item with reservations (or modifications) in the database.

“gray: I would not include this item in the database, but I might make use of some of the
content in determining who Jesus was.

“black: I would not include this item in the primary database.

Option 2:

“red: Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.

“pink: Jesus probably said something like this.

“gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.

“black: Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.”[46]”

One member [of the Seminar] suggested this unofficial but helpful interpretation of the colors:”red: That’s Jesus!

“pink: Sure sounds like Jesus.

“gray: Well, maybe.

“black: There’s been some mistake.”[47]

The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar explained their process:

“Fellows of the Seminar voted, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus’ words. Dropping colored beads into a box became the trademark of the Seminar and the brunt of attack for many elitist academic critics who deplored the public face of the Seminar.”[48]These scholars say they want “to separate the Jesus of the creeds [the Jesus of faith] from the historical Jesus.”[49] “The scholars concluded that 82 percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels were not actually spoken by him.”[50]

The only words in the gospel of Mark that are supposed to be authentic are Mark 12 v.17, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” None of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. chapters 5-7) was accepted. Only two words of the Lord’s Prayer were accepted, “Our Father.” Nothing in the gospel of John was approved. But the scholars gave credibility to an “apocryphal book of sayings credited to someone named Thomas and used it to confirm or deny Jesus’ words.”[51]

What is even more startling is that the thesis of Funk and Hoover’s book, The Five Gospels, is based on comparing a book, The Gospel of Thomas, that is not credible as a source, with the Bible. It would be like judging the content of the Bible by a Christian novel or some heretical Christian writing.

Courtesy RZIM

One of the world’s leading defenders of the Christian faith, Ravi Zacharias describes the Gospel of Thomas as:

“A brief text found in the 1940s in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, a fragment that has been called the Gospel of Thomas, written in Coptic sometime around the second century. The authors take this small [document] in its random thoughts and with that[,] attacked the biblical gospels as a construct of some people trying to make Jesus what he was not. The methodology they employed is an affront [an insult] to respectable scholarship. One of the ironies of their argument is that the very assumptions they bring to test the authenticity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would utterly destroy the validity of this so-called Gospel of Thomas before doing any damage to the gospels.”[52]Evangelical scholar, Dr. D. A. (Don) Carson, put it concisely: “The Gospel of Thomas is neither the gospel nor is it by Thomas.” This view is “supported by many scholars, both liberal and conservative. What we have, therefore, gaining the attention of the media is a fringe and radical element.”

Courtesy Gospel of Thomas Collection

Don Carson’s view is that “they want their own canon [of Scripture].”[53] When you put the false canon beside the genuine canon, the false is hard to defend. But it’s the false canon that is gaining the media attention.

God’s authentic, reliable Word determines both history and faith. When the Jesus Seminar has invented fiction to suit themselves, they have made truth appear stranger than fiction.

5. Presuppositions of the Jesus Seminar:[54]

The Jesus Seminar laid its foundation on what the Fellows called “the Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom.”[55] They wanted to view the historical Jesus “through the new lens of historical reason and research rather than through the perspective of theology and traditional creedal formulations.”[56]

These are the seven pillars:

First, a “distinction between the historical Jesus, to be uncovered by historical excavation, and the Christ of faith encapsulated in the first creeds [of the early church].”[57]

Second, “recognizing the synoptic gospels [Matthew, Mark & Luke] as much closer to the historical Jesus than the Fourth Gospel [of John].”[58]

Third, “The recognition of the Gospel of Mark as prior to Matthew and Luke, and the basis for them both.”[59]

Fourth, “The identification of the hypothetical source Q [from the German Quelle, meaning ‘source’] as the recognition of the ‘double tradition’ — the material Matthew and Luke have in common beyond their dependence on Mark.”[60]

Fifth, “The liberation of the non-eschatological Jesus of the aphorisms and parables from Schweitzer’s eschatological Jesus.”[61]

Sixth, “Recognition of the fundamental contrast between the oral culture (in which Jesus was at home) and a print culture (like our own).”[62] Which means: the Real Jesus “will be found in those fragments of tradition that bear the imprint or orality: short, provocative, memorable, oft-repeated phrases, sentences and stories.”[63] So, forget about the supernatural.
Seventh,

“That supports the edifice of contemporary gospel scholarship is the reversal that has taken place regarding who bears the burden of proof. It was once assumed that scholars had to prove that details in the synoptic gospels were not historical…. The current assumption is more nearly the opposite..: the gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church’s faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first century listeners who knew about divine men and miracle workers firsthand.”[64]They warn with this “final general rule of evidence: ‘Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.”[65]Everyone approaches the Bible with a set of assumptions. Many of the Jesus Seminar’s fiercest critics are evangelical Christians who assume that biblical writings are accurate descriptions of historical events; that the writings are inerrantand were inspired by God (God-breathed).

The Seminar starts with a totally opposite set of fundamental beliefs. Most of its fellows would agree with these statements:

Jesus’ message was passed by an oral tradition between 30 and 50 CE; only in the 50s were the first writings made.

God did not uniquely inspire the Christian Scriptures; they were composed by men (and perhaps one woman) who promoted their own beliefs, and those of the specific Christian tradition that they belonged to.

Beliefs about Jesus and traditions changed and developed extensively between the time of Jesus’ execution and the writing of the first canonical gospel (Mark) circa 70 CE.

The authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus, in spite of claims to the contrary.

In the 4^th century CE, the Christian church selected those books for the New Testament canon which:

Expressed ideas supportive of the church’s developing theology, and/or

were widely accepted and used throughout Christendom.

Selection was not necessarily based on historical accuracy.

The Jesus Seminar also regards noncanonical writings as worthy of study. These include:

The Gospel of Thomas (a gnostic document of 2^nd cent.).

The Didache (a.k.a. “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles“), a very early Christian instructional manual.

Other supposed gospels, other epistles, etc.

A tiny, surviving fragment of the Gospel of John has been dated to about 125 CE. But the earliest copies of an entire book from the Christian Scriptures date from about 200 CE. No two are identical. Thus, we can never know precisely what the original copy of any of the books said.

The five most important Gospels that are studied (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Thomas) were written by unknown authors, probably with names different than are traditionally assigned.

R. W. Funk and the other authors of the book, The Five Gospels[66] wrote: “The Gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church’s faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first century listeners who knew about divine men and miracle workers firsthand.“[67]

Many, if not most, of the miracles described in the Gospels did not actually occur. There was no virgin birth no walking on water, no feeding of thousands with a few fish and loaves. Jesus did not bring Lazarus back to life. Jesus’ bodily resurrection, walking through walls, transfiguration, ascension into heaven, etc. are myths. There are no such entities as indwelling demons. Jesus probably healed mental and physical illnesses in the same way that religious healers work today.

Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar makes it very clear what he means by myth and he wants us to see that it is different from a fairy tale in his understanding. He says:

In short, a myth is a story about God and us. As such, myths can be both true and powerful, even though they are symbolic narratives and not straightforward historical reports. Though not literally true, they can be really true; though not factually true.The stories of Jesus’ birth are myths in this sense. Along with most mainline scholars, I do not think these stories report what happened. The virginal conceptions, the star, the wise men, the birth in Bethlehem where there was no room in the inn, and so forth are not facts of history. But I think these stories are powerfully true. . .

The stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection contain a mixture of historical memory and mythical narration. The stories of Jesus’ execution are closer to history than the birth stories; he really was crucified under Pontius Pilate around the year 30. . .

But as the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection are told, the authors of the New Testament make use of a number of symbolic motifs to suggest its religious significance [a motif is a main element, idea, feature, etc.(68)].”[69]

So what are these symbolic ideas that myths represent? Borg says that the death and resurrection of Jesus represent “the defeat of the principalities and powers, all those forces of bondage that enslave us.” They can also be “understood as a symbol and embodiment of the path of return to God: we die to an old way of being in order to be born into a new way of being.”[70]

“What happens when the story of Jesus a whole is framed by the stories of Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. The story as whole – the completed Christian story – becomes a story about God and us, a myth about God and us… This does not mean, of course, that the historical Jesus was God… The canonical Jesus [the Jesus in the Bible canon of Scripture] discloses what Jesus became in the experience and life of early Christian communities.

“We do not need to choose between [the historical Jesus or the canonical Jesus]… Both disclose what God is like.”[71]

Do you hear what he is saying?

The actual birth and resurrection of Jesus are symbols. They didn’t actually happen in history;

But that doesn’t matter as they represent our relationship with God.

What you read in the Bible (especially the Gospels) about Jesus, is what they early Christian communities wrote back into the Bible. It has noting to do with historical fact. The Gospels are the creation of the Christian church, not that of eyewitnesses who saw and heard Jesus.

This is an assertion by these people, not demonstrated from the Gospels or the writings of the early church leaders. This is modern fiction by critical scholars.

6. Questioning their Assumptions?[72]

One of the most important questions you can ask of any point of view (a question almost never asked by the media) is this: Why do they believe it? This allows us to determine whether the reasons lead properly to the conclusions.

Everyone has a starting point. The place the Jesus Seminar begins is carefully concealed from the public at large, but it’s the most critical issue. Why do they claim there is no evidence, say, for the bodily resurrection of Jesus? That is a key question.

Their reasoning goes something like this: It’s impossible for the Gospels to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can’t happen, like dead people coming alive again and food multiplying — miracles don’t happen. We live in a closed universe of natural order, with God (if there is a God) locked out of the system. If miracles can’t happen, then the reports in the New Testament must be fabrications. Therefore, the Gospels are not reliable historical documents.

Further, if miracles can’t happen, then prophecy (a kind of miraculous knowledge) can’t happen. The Gospels report that Jesus prophesied the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore, they could not have been written early, but after the invasion of Titus of Rome in 70 A.D. In addition, eyewitnesses could not have written them, as the early church Fathers claimed.[73]

Notice that the Jesus Seminar doesn’t start with historical evidence; it starts with presuppositions, assumptions that it makes no attempt to prove. This is not history; it’s philosophy, specifically, the philosophy of naturalism.

Robert Funk and the Seminar admit as much: “The gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church’s faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first century listeners. . .”[74]

The mass media report that the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are based on scientific, historical analysis: the resurrection didn’t happen; the miracles are myths; there is no authentic prophecy in the Bible; the Gospels were written long after the events took place; they were not written by eyewitnesses; the testimony of the early church Fathers can’t be trusted.

This is misleading because the Jesus Seminar doesn’t conclude that the Gospels are inaccurate. That’s where they begin before they’ve looked at one single shred of actual historical evidence. When you start with your conclusions, you’re cheating. You haven’t proved anything at all.

These are people with a mission. Robert Funk, the Seminar’s founder, says, “It is time for us [scholars] to quit the library and study and speak up. . . The Jesus Seminar is a clarion call to enlightenment. It is for those who prefer facts to fancies, history to histrionics, science to superstition.”[75]

This is a strong challenge to evangelicals, depicted here as preferring nice stories to accurate history. Sometimes the best defence is knowing the right questions to ask. These are the ones you need to ask when the Jesus Seminar hits the newsstands.

Why are their conclusions their assumptions? That’s cheating!

Why don’t they treat the Gospels like any other historical document, or even the Bundaberg News-Mail (my local newspaper) or The Courier-Mail (Brisbane), and leave the burden of proof with the document: Innocent until proven guilty?

7. Who Are the Scholars?

Jesus Seminar describes its start this way:

‘Convened in 1985 by Robert W. Funk the Jesus Seminar has become a lightning rod for international debate about the “historical Jesus” – that is, the real facts about the person to whom various Christian gospels refer. The Seminar’s on-going project has been to evaluate the historical significance of every shred of evidence about Jesus from antiquity (about 30-200 CE). Over the past fifteen years more than 100 scholars from North America & beyond have participated in its semi-annual meetings.”[76]Journalists frequently refer to the 74 “scholars” of the Jesus Seminaras representing the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Being a bona fide scholar, though, means more than just having a higher degree. Generally, a scholar is one who demonstrates a mastery of his discipline and who makes an academic contribution to his field’.[77]

John Dominic Crossan (Courtesy Wikipedia)

By this definition, only fourteen members of the Seminar qualify, including scholars like John Dominic Crossan (pictured at left) and Marcus Borg. Twenty others are recognizable names in the field. One quarter of the group, though, comprises complete unknowns (one is a movie producer), and half of them come from a cluster of three ultra-liberal theological schools: Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt.

Clearly, the Jesus Seminar cannot be viewed as a relevant cross section of academic opinion. This doesn’t mean that their conclusions are false; it means theirs is only one voice of many, viewed even by liberal scholars as suspect and on the extreme fringe. Dr. Gregory Boyd has written a substantial refutation of the Jesus Seminar’s view of Jesus.[78] His view is that “the Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking. It does not represent mainstream scholarship.”[79]

Luke Johnson says that it is “a small, self-selected association of academics.”[80] “This is not responsible, or even critical, scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade.”[81]

Professor Richard Hays of Duke University (North Carolina) reviewed the book, The Five Gospels, and said that “the case argued by this book would not stand up in any court… Nor does it represent a fair picture of the current state of research on this problem.”[82]

8. What Does the Jesus Seminar Believe?

The Jesus Seminar meets twice a year to dissect biblical passages. Their goal: separate historical fact from mythology. So far, they have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus — all dismissed as legendary additions with no historical foundation.

An article in the L.A. Times entitled, “Scholars Cite Lack of Resurrection Evidence,” also carried this subtitle: “Controversial Jesus Seminar evaluates New Testament, but members affirm that event’s religious significance does not hinge on the historical record.”[83]

According to this piece, there are two things the Jesus Seminar has to say about the resurrection of Jesus.

First, it never happened. There’s no historical evidence for it.

Second, it doesn’t matter. Christians can still celebrate Easter with its symbolic message of hope and new life.

Robert Funk calls Jesus a “secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor.” He then adds, “Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind.”

Isn’t that an odd thing to say about Jesus? Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. He didn’t work miracles. He didn’t give us the greatest teaching in the world. Instead, He was a stand-up comic, according to the founder of the Jesus Seminar.

9. Does Their Bias Make Them Open-minded or Closed-minded?

I agree with philosopher J.P. Moreland that Christian scholars have a point of view, like everyone else. The Christian’s bias should not inform his or her conclusions the same way biases inform the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar.

Because people like Robert Funk start with what he calls the “scientific” view that there can be no miracles, their bias arbitrarily eliminates options before the game even gets started. Funk must conclude the Gospels have been tampered with because his philosophy demands it. He can’t consider any evidence for a resurrection because he’s closed his mind to the possibility of miracles.

A Christian is not hindered in this way. The Christian believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of God’s intervention. Both are consistent with his worldview. This means he can be faithful to the evidence, unhindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates supernatural options before even viewing the evidence.

The bias of true Christians broadens their categories, making them more open-minded . The believer has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he/she can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The bias of the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, makes it close-minded and dogmatic. It must also be noted that some evangelicals can also be close-minded as well.

Newspaper articles cast the issue in the opposite way, though. One mentions a dean of a prominent Baptist seminary who says the Seminar’s work is driving a wedge between faith and history among Christians.

What is unfortunate about this representation is that it pits the “historical” and “scientific” analysis of the Jesus Seminar against those poor sods who rely only on “faith.” And since the facts of history are sabotaging the faith of some, Christians are now upset. It’s as if they were saying, “Please don’t tell me these things and confuse me with the facts. It might weaken my faith.” This casts believers as nincompoops, obscurantists who want to cling to fantasy.

But that isn’t the way it is at all. The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar don’t represent facts. Rather, their point of view and research methods are deeply flawed because of their prior commitment to a philosophic position that is already hostile to the events described in the text of the Gospels. It isn’t an issue of historical fact versus religious faith. The facts are actually on the side of the resurrection, not on the side of the wishful thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

10. Are the Gospels reliable history or are they mythic?

The so-called “search for the historic Jesus” is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no “new evidence” supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of a myth inserted in the Gospel records over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves. This is why the trend in the last 20 years has been for liberal scholars to become more conservative in their views on the reliability of the Gospels, not less.

Recent finds in archaeology, for example, show us that funerals were conducted differently in Galilee than in Jerusalem, consistent with the details in the Gospels. A person fabricating a story generations after the fact would not know this because of the devastation in Galilee by the Romans in 70 A.D.

This doesn’t prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it’s one of a number of things that have been discovered over time that point to the accurate detail of the Gospel accounts. This gives substance to the claim that the writers were eyewitnesses at the time of the events, OR associates of eyewitnesses.

We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar’s reckoning. This pushes Mark’s Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.

It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul’s interaction with the principal disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).

The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors.

There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. They give abundant geographic and cultural details not available to writers of the next century. We also now know that it was the habit of Jewish disciples to memorise entire discourses of their rabbi’s teaching.

There’s so much misinformation abroad about accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. But there’s another problem.

11. Would you follow a mythical Jesus who engaged in symbolic ways of how God and people should relate? Would you follow a Jesus who said he would rise again in three days, did just that, but then you discovered it was only a mythical way of showing darkness vs. light?

Even the members of the Jesus Seminar admit that Jesus was executed on a Roman Cross. But why was He killed? Who would follow this deconstructed Jesus? Who would care if He lived or died?

Leading Jesus scholar John Meier notes that a Jesus who “spent his time spinning parables and Japanese koans . . . or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field . . . would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one.”[84]

In Jesus Under Fire , J.P. Moreland sums up what the Jesus Seminar is asking us to believe based on nothing more than the strength of their philosophical assumptions:

“It requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate.”[85]

12. What about the resurrection factor? Does it matter?

The Jesus Seminar wants us to believe that nothing meaningful is surrendered as a result of their analysis. Even though the resurrection is false, they say, it still has significance because of the story it tells.

The Apostle Paul disagreed. “If Christ has not been raised,” he wrote, “your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”[86]

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, but instead was buried in a shallow grave and later dug up and eaten by dogs, as Robert Funk asserts, then Christians have nothing to celebrate. Rather, they should be pitied, according to Paul. Pretty stories not grounded in fact save no one. Only a risen Saviour can defeat death.

I’m with Paul. I pity the Jesus Seminar Fellows who think that we can hold on to some kind of vain, empty, religious confidence when all the facts of history go against us. If that’s true, then you and the Jesus Seminar and I are all still in our sins. That’s not something to celebrate on Easter.

As for me, I’m going to stand with Paul. I’m going to stand with Jesus. I’m going to stand with the resurrection.

13. An Approach to Refuting the Jesus Seminar

A. You must become a reader

You must develop an understanding of the content of the debate. Read several books on the subject (enemies and friends).

B. Response to: “You Can’t Trust the Gospels. They’re Unreliable” [87]

“Without assuming that the Gospels are ‘holy books’ or ‘inerrant,’ they can be shown to be reliable for historical purposes” [see Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ].

“Ask the person who rejects the Gospels’ historical reliability, ‘On what basis do you reject their general accuracy?’ If someone favors an unorthodox ‘Gospel’ of Jesus (such as Thomas) over the canonical Gospels, ask why.

“If the New Testament is textually flawed, then so is every other work of antiquity. To the contrary, these manuscripts are quite reliable.

“Typically, we assume historical documents are reliable unless we have good reason to doubt them. Why should this procedure be reversed — making biblical texts false until proven true?”[88]
See my 4 articles, ‘Can you trust the Bible?‘

C. Refuting, “Jesus’ Followers Invented the Stories and Sayings of Jesus” [89]

Because one writes with an evangelistic, theological or apologetic purpose does not mean the writing is unreliable, e.g.. Read the passion and zeal of writings of Holocaust survivors;

“Early Christians didn’t read back into Jesus’ teachings their own issues:

1. Many of the controversial issues in the epistles are not even mentioned in the Gospels (e.g.. circumcision, tongues, eating meat offered to idols, women in ministry);

2. Matthew, Mark and Luke offer a portrait of Jesus within one generation of his death.

3. The Book of Acts was possibly written before Paul’s death about A.D. 64, so the book of Luke was written even earlier;

4. First century Jews were concerned about accurately preserving tradition;

5. The Gospels’ simplicity does not reflect a fabrication, .e.g. the women witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection despite their lower status in society, Jesus’ baptism by John, Christ’s ignorance of the time of his second coming, his not doing miracles in some places;

6. Why invent so many miracles stories, when most Jews expected a political deliverer as Messiah, not a wonder-worker?[90]

A. Refuting the Jesus Seminar:

Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History? (rev.) (Aquila Press, Sydney South, Australia, 2003).

Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos/Inter-Varsity Press U.K., 1997).

Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, USA, 1999).

Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (After Jesus, vol 1) (Eerdmans, USA, 2005).

Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus (After Jesus, vol 2) (Eerdmans, USA, 2008).

Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ (After Jesus, vol 3) (Eerdmans, USA, 2009).

John Blanchard, Will the real JESUS please stand up? (Durham, England, Evangelical Press, 1989).

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1987).

Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A guide to Sources and Methods (Baker Academic, 2002).

—————-, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002 — for students.

Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus Under Siege (Victor Books, 1995) — for laity.

——————, Cynic, Sage or Son of God. (Victor Books, 1995).

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1960).

Paul Copan, “True For You, But Not For Me”: Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998).

Paul Copan (ed.) Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? (debate between William Lane Craig, Christian defender of the faith, and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar) [Baker Books, 1998].

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).

Gregory Koukl, “The Jesus Seminar Under Fire” (based on his radio show, “Stand to Reason,”) at: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5380 (retrieved 13 August 2006).

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998).

————, The Case for Faith (Zondervan, 2000).

Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire (Zondervan, 1995).

Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest (InterVarsity, USA, 1997.

Ravi Zacharias 1994, “They Want Their Own Canon,” from the web site, “Just thinking” (Winter 1994), available at: http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim/noindex/jtprint1.php3?jtcode=JT94WRZ (retrieved 29 March 2004).

B. Promoting the Jesus Seminar’s Agenda:

Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus AGAIN for the First Time (HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).

—————, The God We Never Knew (HarperSanFrancisco, 1997).

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (HarperSanFrancisco, 1991).

———————–, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).

———————–, The Essential Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).

———————–, Who Killed Jesus? (HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).

———————–, The Birth of Christianity (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).

———————–, A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir (HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.

Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels. (Macmillan, 1993).

Lloyd Geering [from New Zealand], “How Did Jesus Become God — and Why?” Available at:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Jesus_to_God/jesus_to_god.html (retrieved on 29 March 2005).

Jesus Seminar Forum: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/ (retrieved 29 March 2005).

Jesus Seminar Website: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html (retrieved on 13 May 2000)

Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (HarperSanFrancisco, 1993)

—————-, Who Wrote the New Testament? (HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).

B. A. Robinson, “The ‘Jesus Seminar'”, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm (retrieved 13 May 2000).

Appendix A

Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar[91]

Most Fellows of the Jesus Seminar would probably agree with the following conclusions:

The 4 canonical gospels were written chronologically in the order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John over the interval from about 70 to 110 CE.

The Gospel of Mark and there were two independent sources which the authors used as the basis of their gospels. Both Matthew and Luke also incorporated material from their own sources.

The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. It was part of a Gnostic Christian library which was apparently buried during a time of persecution of the Gnostics by Pauline Christians. It contains 73 sayings that are duplicates of those found in the canonical Gospels. It also has 65 sayings (or parts of sayings) that are unique. However, some of these scholars could see GThom as a writing independent of the Gospels.

The Gospel of John represents a religious tradition that is independent from the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke). They differ so much that either John or the Synoptic Gospels must be largely abandoned in the quest for an understanding of Jesus’ actual sayings and acts. The Jesus Seminar has largely rejected John.

Many of Jesus’ followers had previously followed John the Baptist.

Jesus rarely spoke of himself in the first person. The many “I am” statements in John originated from the Gospel author, not from Jesus.

Jesus did not claim to be Messiah.

Jesus is not claim to be God.

Jesus did not believe that his execution was necessary in order for those who trust in him as Lord and Saviour would be saved from eternal damnation.

Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God had already arrived in 1st century Palestine and was visible in the way that he and his followers treated each other. On the other hand, John the Baptist and Paul viewed the Kingdom as coming at a time in their future, sometime in the 1st century.

Jesus probably talked to his followers and preached in Aramaic. The books in the Christian Scriptures are written in Greek. Thus, even those parts of the Gospels that Jesus is believed to have said, are actually translations into Greek of his original words.

About 18% of the sayings of Jesus recorded in the 4 canonical Gospels and Thomas rated a red or pink rating (Jesus definitely or probably said it). The remaining passages attributed to Jesus were actually created by the Gospel writers.

In Mark, only one saying (Mark 12:14) was given a red rating; many are pink.

Matthew contains many sayings of Jesus which have been rated red or pink. But all of the words attributed to Jesus from the description of the last judgement in Chapter 25 until the end of the Gospel, were rated black (i.e. definitely not said by Jesus).

Luke also contains many pink and red ratings. But all of the sayings attributed to Jesus from his comment that the earth will pass into oblivion within a generation (Luke 21:32) to the end of the Gospel are all rated black.

The Gospel of John was unique among the canonical Gospels: none of the words attributed to Jesus were rated red. There was only one pink passage. One was gray (Jesus did not say this, but it contains ideas similar to his). The vast majority of sayings were rated black.

Appendix B

FOR Power Point use[5]

“We want to liberate Jesus. The only Jesus most people know is the mythic one. They don’t want the real Jesus; they want the one they can worship. The cultic Jesus.”[6]

“The narrative gospels are also products of mythic imagination. Jesus is now confronted… with the more interesting question of the reasons why the gospels are so hard for moderns to recognize as myth.[7]

“Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.”[8]

“The authors [from the Jesus Seminar] seem to have looked into the well of history searching for Jesus and seen their own reflection.”[9]

“What actually and historically happened to the body of Jesus can best be judged from watching how later Christian accounts slowly but steadily increased the reverential dignity of their burial accounts. His body left on the cross or in a shallow grave barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting.”[10]

Endnotes:

1. This article was written with considerable assistance from Gregory Koukl, “The Jesus Seminar Under Fire” (based on his radio show, “Stand to Reason,”), at: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5380 retrieved 13 August, 2006, “Stand to Reason” at P.O. Box 6568, San Pedro, CA 90734, Email: [email protected], retrieved from www.str.org (Accessed 13 August 2006).
2. In 2011, I retired as a family and general counsellor and counselling manager, after working the last 17 years full-time in the counselling field in Australia. I am ordained with the Christian & Missionary Alliance denomination, Australia and completed my research PhD in New Testament (University of Pretoria, South Africa) in 2015, with a focus on a dimension of historical Jesus studies.
3. The original said, “Los Angeles County.”
4. Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995, 310, emphasis added. Although Mack is not a member of the Jesus Seminar, his theological views are harmonious with that of the Seminar.
5. Interview of Robert Funk, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, with Mary Rourke, “Cross Examination,” Los Angeles Times, 24 February 1994, E1, E5, in Wilkins and Moreland, 2.
6. Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, 250.
7. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book), 1993, 5.
8. Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest (new expanded edition). Downers Grove, Ill. InterVarsity Press, 1997, 9. This was referring to Albert Schweitzer’s comment that he had come to the conclusion that most of these fresh attempts to say what we could really know about the historical Jesus actually told us more about their authors than about the person they sought to describe. The authors seem to have looked into the well of history searching for Jesus and seen their own reflection” (Witherington, 9).
9. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, 154.
10. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987, 247.
11. Ibid.
11a. D. A. Carson, “Redaction criticism: On the legitimacy and illegitimacy of a literary tool,” in D. A. Carson. and J. D. Woodbridge (eds). Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1992, 125.
12. Blomberg, p. 247.
13. Ibid., emphasis added.
14. Ibid., 248.
14a Carson, “Redaction criticism,” 125.
15. e.g.. Richard N. Ostling, “Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple,” Time, 10 January 1994, 38, in Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus Under Siege. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1985, 137.
16. Boyd, ibid., 12.
17. According to Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, vii.
18. Gregory Koukl of the organisation, “Stand to Reason” and the transcript, “The Jesus Seminar Under Fire,” 1995, 1, emphasis added [29 March 2005].
18a. Paul Barnett 2003, Is the New Testament History? (rev.), Aquila Press, Sydney South, Australia.
19. Luke Timothy Johnson, rear cover.
20. According to the university’s web page, the school was started by the Methodist Church.
21. Johnson, vii.
22. Ibid.
23. The following newspaper headlines are from Johnson, 20.
24. San Francisco Chronicle, 9 March 1987.
25. San Francisco Chronicle, 18 October, 1987.
26. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 15 October 1988.
27. Atlanta Constitution, 5 March 1989.
28. Los Angeles Times, 5 March 1989.
29. See Johnson, 20.
30. Based on ibid.
31. Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, 250.
32. Interview with Mary Rourke, “Cross Examination,” Los Angeles Times, 24 February 1994, E1, E5, in Wilkins and Moreland, 2.
33. “Biblical tyranny?” letter by Fr Greg Jenks, St Matthew’s, Drayton, in “Opinion,” Focus [the Anglican newspaper distributed in Queensland], December 1998, p. 4.
34. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book), 1993, 5. I was alerted to this in Johnson, 22.
35. U.S. News & World Report, 1 July 1991, in Johnson, 18.
36. Johnson, 18. I am an Australian family relationships’ counselling manager, doctoral student in biblical studies, an active Christian apologist, and may be contacted at: PO Box 3107, Hervey Bay 4655, Australia.
37. In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, 30 March, 1991; see also U.S. News & World Report, 1 July, 1991, in Johnson 18.
38. Ravi Zacharias, “They Want Their Own Canon,” from the web site, “Just thinking,” Available from: http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=17 (Accessed 3 April 2003), emphasis added.
39. Ostling, 38.
40. A. Ernst-Ulrich Franzen, “Seminar Examines Jesus’ Words,” Milwaukee Sentinel, 11 December 1993, 8A, in Boyd, Jesus Under Siege, 15.
41. According to the Jesus Seminar, it is 18%. Available at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm, (Accessed 13 May 2000); Copyright 1998, 1999, originally written: 1998, July 5; Latest update: 1999, Dec. 8; Author: B.A. Robinson
42. Koukl.
43. Funk, et al., 36.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 36-37.
48. Ibid., 34.
49. Donald A. Wells, Ph.D., “The Many Quests for the Historical Jesus,” in the website column, “From the Pulpit,” www.mind.net/rvuuf/pages/quests.htm. This essay was originally developed and delivered as a Sunday Service presentation for the Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Ashland, Oregon, on June 23, 1996, 2.
50. Ibid., 3.
51. The above information from ibid., 3-4.
52. Ravi Zacharias, “They Want Their Own Canon,” from the web site, “Just thinking,” Available from: http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=17 (Accessed 3 April 2003), emphasis added.
53. Ibid. emphasis added.
54. Unless otherwise stated, these assumptions are taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm, (Accessed 13 May 2000). Copyright 1998, 1999; Originally written: 1998, July 5; Latest update: 1999, Dec. 8; Author: B.A. Robinson. The author is a supporter of these assumptions.
55. Funk, et al., 2.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid., 3.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., 4.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid., 4-5.
65. Ibid., 5.
66. Funk et al.
67. Ibid., 4-5.
68. Noah Webster, Webster’s new Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged). Collins World, 1978, p. 1173.
69. Marcus J. Borg, The God I Never Knew. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997, 102.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 102-104.
72. This is based on Gregory Koukl.
73. Papias, about A.D. 125 said that “Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter’s eyewitness observations.” Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180 said that:

“Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue. . . Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter… Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living in Ephesus in Asia” [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4, in Lee Strobel,The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1998, p. 24).

74. Funk, et al., 5, emphasis added.
75. Robert Funk & Mahlon H. Smith, The Gospel of Mark, Red Letter Edition. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1991, pp. xvi- xvii.
76. Jesus Seminar Forum: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/ (Accessed 13 May 2000).
77. A partial list of scholars who have participated or are presently involved with the Jesus Seminar can be found at: http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html (Accessed 13 May 2000).
78. Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic, Sage or Son of God. Wheaton, Illinois: A Bridgepoint Book (Victor Books), 1995.
79. Interview with Gregory Boyd in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998, 114.
80. Johnson, 1.
81. Ibid., 26.
82. “The Corrected Jesus,” First Things, May 1994, 43-48, in Johnson, 26.
83. Los Angeles Times, March 11, 1995, in Koukl.
84. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus , vol. 1 New York: Doubleday, 1991, 177, quoted in Wilkins & Moreland, 21.
85. Wilkins and Moreland, 22.
86. 1 Corinthians 15:17-19.
87. From Paul Copan, “True for You, But Not for Me.” Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998, 99.
88. See a more detailed explanation in ibid., ch. 15.
89. Ibid., 105-106.
90. See a more detailed explanation in ibid., ch. 16.
91. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm, retrieved 13 May 2000; Copyright 1998, 1999, originally written: 1998, July 5; Latest update: 1999, Dec. 8; Author: B.A. Robinson.
Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at 7 October 2015.

Nudist beaches not smart idea for the Smart State

Welcome to Queensland –

the Smart State!

Courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

Surely there are beaches beyond measure in Australia for nudists! We should be able to find hundreds of secluded beaches around the country that would be ideal for nudists to use. We have thousands of kilometres of glorious coastline — 25,760 km to be exact. [2]

Why would anybody object to giving people the freedom they seek to engage in beach nudity? One nudist told ABC radio, “The ‘facts’ as put by the opponents of nude beaches are nearly always erroneous or based on religious teachings and leanings”. [3] Let’s check the facts to find if there are good reasons why nudist beaches do not serve the best interests of most Australians and why they are not a smart idea for the Smart State.

1. Children at risk at nudist beaches

On 15th February 1975, Maslin Beach, 40km from Adelaide’s CBD, became Australia’s first legal nudist beach.[4] In 2004, a 36-year-old male paedophile abducted three boys, aged 8, 9 and 10 at an Adelaide park, and took them for a naked swim at Maslin Beach. The boys were not found until the next day. The paedophile “pleaded guilty to abducting the boys and was found guilty of causing them to expose their bodies for his prurient interest” and was jailed for three years. [5]

One nudist went public in Qld., stating that “legal nude beaches have been a part of life in several Australian states and territories for many years without any problems.” [6] The Maslin Beach conviction refutes that stance. We will discover many other problems worldwide associated with nudist beaches.

2. Negative effects on local residents

A friend who lives at Coonarr Beach near Bundaberg (Qld., Australia) told me that she was walking alone on the beach in December 2005. Apparently a nude man had been sitting among the fallen trees near the beach and she hadn’t seen him when she walked one way along the beach. After she had walked past him, he apparently entered the ocean. On her return, he waited until she was almost to where he was, walked out of the water towards her, and was so close he could have touched her.

She was so frightened by this encounter as she couldn’t see another person anywhere on the beach. She has now discovered that he visits there frequently.

On another day, while walking with her husband on the beach, a nudist walked within 10 metres of them. She said that the man regularly walks nude on the beach, has shorts in hand and puts them on just to walk past the residences.

Recently a nudist couple was on the beach, only metres away from other beach-goers who were clad in swimwear. She said that the police were called but did not arrive for 1.5 hours.

A few weeks earlier another resident observed a nude man walking through the car park to the toilets. When confronted he replied, “But this is a nudist beach.” Nudist beaches are illegal in Qld.

Almost every day, this woman reports that there is a nudist visiting the beach. Most of them are men and she does not feel safe walking the beach near her house.

3. Clothing optional beaches are not family-friendly

The local councils prepared for the publicity when perverts are attracted to such beaches and their actions attract mass media attention? Why can’t all Qld. beaches be kept family-friendly with a reputation for the modesty they promote rather than the trendy idea of nudist beaches? Do councils want these kinds of headlines?

Dogging takes place on our nudist beach;

Indecent sexual behaviour on sand dunes at our nudist beach;

Cruising for sex with nudists;

Nudists want more – a beach for open-air sex!

Six nudists in the summer of 2005 were “fined in a crackdown on illegal naturism at a Merseyside [UK] beauty spot visited by families.” Nudists were arrested in sand dunes at Ainsdale, Mersyside and were fined £80 each “for public order offences.”

A spokesman for Mersyside police said that “after we received a number of complaints from both visitors and residents in the area, we decided to launch an operation to stop this type of behaviour. This type of activity is not acceptable to the many families with young children who like to go out and enjoy the sand dunes on a sunny afternoon.” A local councillor said that “naked sunbathers had been a problem in the past, but recently the dunes have been a haunt for ‘couples behaving inappropriately.’ This time it became even worse.” [7]

4. Nude beaches are not good for a tourist reputation

Is this the type of headline that a local Council wants to promote its region, “Sex in open air scandal”? The respectable seaside town of Budleigh Salterton, Devon, UK, has had its reputation tarnished by its nudist beach appearing on a pornographic website where it was promoted as a “dogging” site, “a hot spot where people go to have sex in the open.” “Dogging” is a colloquial term to describe an activity where couples and strangers meet to view others’ sexual activities. “The website claims the town’s beach is an ideal place to meet ‘exhibitionists and gays’ and also attracts couples who are willing to join others in sexual activities.” [8]

“Dogging” is not an isolated example of what happens at nudist beaches. It is reported at Brittas Bay, Ireland. [9]
Naturists in the Florida Keys are pushing for a legal clothing-optional beach in their region. Part of their argument is, “Like it is with Haulover [Miami, FL], the local chapter plans to have beach patrols or ‘beach buddies’ who would maintain a wholesome family atmosphere on the beach. ‘Everybody knows it’s about family, not about sex,’ he said of the group’s nudity.” They claim that they “lose quite a bit of European tourist business. They call, find out there is not nude sunbathing in the Keys, and they go to Haulover.” [10]

This is a feeble excuse to promote nudism as there are nudist beaches around the world, including Europe, that are experiencing dogging, voyeurism and exhibitionism.

5. Nudists promote breaking the law

A visit to the Free Beaches of Australia Inc. website [11] reveals how this organisation promotes legal and “unofficial” (i.e. illegal) nudist beaches across Australia. The website gives descriptions on how to reach the beach locations. These nudists are encouraging the breaking of the law.

The Brisbane Courier-Mail reported that “Bargara (near Bundaberg) nudist and Free Beach Australia spokeswoman, Patsy Brown, said Coonarr [Beach] had been used as a de facto nude beach for more than 10 years now with no problems and no arrests.” [12] However, nudist beaches are illegal in Queensland.

6. Nude beaches create problems we do not need

There are reports around the world of the deleterious consequences associated with nudist beaches.

a. In Oslo, Norway, nudists at an “open beach” at Huk “are being increasingly harassed by photographers, flashers and vulgar requests and police have had to respond several times” in the summer of 2005. “I don’t go to Huk any more,” said a 52-year-old woman who wanted to remain anonymous. She called the police “after feeling threatened by a man on the beach.” [13]

b. Nudists want more than just beaches for swimming and sun baking. A beach for public sex is now wanted: “The Dutch Naturists Federation (NFN) has called on the government to set aside certain beaches for people who like to have sex in public. Naturists feel that displays of public sex do not belong on regular nudist beaches, a spokesperson for the NFN said in a radio interview. Public sex involving couples and orgies in the open air are also said to [be] a growing phenomenon.” [14]

7. Police don’t need the extra work

I commend the superb work of the police force in Qld. Police have their hands full in dealing with illegal activities. They don’t need the additional pressure of pursuing nudist crimes.

BBC News reported: “Police strip to halt nudist crime” Why? “To try to help catch prowlers who are demanding sex from bathers on a nudist beach” at Studland Beach, Dorset. However, police chiefs said that the “undercover constables may wear swimming costumes or trunks and will not be naked” to try to deal with “the activities of several predatory males and concern from nudists that they were being approached.” [15]

A New Zealand nudist beach has caused extra work for police who “will begin patrolling a popular Bay of Plenty nudist beach after complaints about the behaviour of gay men in the sand dunes” where a man has been charged “with committing an indecent act in a public place after police visited Papamoa Beach.” [16]

8. Nudity is for private, not public, expression

It is common to hear nudists blast religious people for opposing public nudity, as one nudist did on ABC radio, “The ‘facts’ as put by the opponents of nude beaches are nearly always erroneous or based on religious teachings and leanings.” [17] As this document shows, reasoned arguments against nudism can be made without any reference to religious literature.

However, it’s important to note that the human body is not condemned or ignored in the Bible. The body has dignity as it is called “God’s temple” [18] for the Christian. This implies something special about the view of sex and the human form. The Bible is not prudish (read Song of Solomon), but the biblical emphasis is on modesty and decency, thus eliminating any indiscriminate display of public nudity.

Public nakedness should be a source of shame and embarrassment. Perhaps the resurgence and promotion of public nudity says more about our degenerate morality than its attempt to promote freedom.

Nudity is meant for private and not public display.

9. The Qld. Premier says that nude beaches are not wanted by the public

In a letter to a Coonarr Beach resident, dated 11th November 2005, the Chief of Staff of the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, wrote:

“The Premier does not support nude bathing. While the Premier is aware that there are some members of the community who would like to see the Government legalise the practice of nude bathing, he does not believe that the majority of Queenslanders support the introduction of clothing optional beaches.

“The Premier is not satisfied that the benefits for those Queenslanders who want clothing optional beaches are sufficient to justify the potential negatives of such a proposal. The Premier is also concerned that the introduction of clothing optional beaches could create safety issues for people legally using the beaches, as well as others who live nearby.

“Queensland beaches should be available to be enjoyed by all Queenslanders and visitors to our State.” [19]

The Qld. Premier highlighted an incident on ABC radio “in which a child was assaulted at Brisbane’s South Bank to exemplify his concerns about nude beaches. While the beach at South Bank is not a nude beach, the Premier says he is not convinced people attending such beaches would be safe from sexual assaults.” [20]

Why did the Burnett Shire Council near Bundaberg, Qld., reject the nudist beach proposal? Free Beaches of Australia reported that “a letter from the Premier’s office to a resident of Coonarr [Beach] was tabled stating that the Premier was not in favour of legalising nude beaches. The councillors voted 100% against and the matter was closed, all over and done within about three minutes.” [21]

10. Governments are trying to reduce health hazards, not sponsor them

“Queensland has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world.” [22] This means that “every seven minutes a Queenslander is diagnosed with skin cancer” according to a TV advertising campaign” [23]

Having a deep summer tan on much of the body was considered a healthy Aussie summer look. Not any more! Governments have promoted the “slip, slop, slap” message and the wearing of sun-smart clothing to reduce the risk of sun cancer.

At such a time when the dangers of skin cancer [24] are well known in Australia, I believe it is irresponsible for governments to legalise nudist beaches that encourage greater exposure to the sun and elimination of protective clothing.

Nudism is a public health hazard.

11. Nudist beaches are world-wide, but that doesn’t make them right or good

Because nudist beaches may be happening on a worldwide basis, this is not a good reason for legalising them. This research has shown the problems associated with some nudist beaches. Because many are doing it does not make it correct. Our governments, having a duty of care for all their people, should take the responsible role and not legislate anything that allows or promotes activities that are a threat to people and involve more responsibilities for an over-worked police force.

12. Discrimination redefined

A nudist told ABC radio that local and state governments that reject nudism are law breakers. His reasoning was: “We are part of the fabric of society but as a group we have been discriminated against in this state for too long and it must stop. Discrimination is illegal in Australia, and the failure of local and state governments to provide legal nude beaches for us and many tourists to enjoy is quite frankly against the law.” [25]

The public relations officer of the Free Beach Association of Queensland, Anita Grigg, promotes the same view, calling on a Qld. MP “to take a stand against discriminatory laws on nudism.” [24]

This is an interesting twist to the meaning of discrimination. Can’t the nudists see that it is they who are discriminating against those who want to wear clothing on beaches? If we accept the nudists’ line of reasoning, it means that many laws discriminate against several kinds of people. Couldn’t the paedophile, thief and murderer accuse the government of discrimination against them also? This is an extreme attempt by nudists to draw attention to their cause.

The nudists are breaking the law in Qld. As this article indicates, there are reasonable arguments for governments to reject public nudism.

13. Conclusion

We have traversed the landscape of some nudist beaches and discovered that all is not well for the promoters of naturist freedom. Children and adults are at risk and illegal activities are promoted. As a duty of care to all people, the smart idea in the Smart State is never to legalise nudist beaches.

Here I have presented reasonable reasons to support the view of Qld. Premier, Peter Beattie, that he “is not satisfied that the benefits for those Queenslanders who want clothing optional beaches are sufficient to justify the potential negatives of such a proposal.” [27]

“Even the most rational approach to ethics is defenseless if there isn’t the will to do what is right” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) [28]

Notes

[2] Wikipedia, available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia [cited 25 January 2006].

[3] Paul McCarragher, “Clothing-optional beaches: a nudist’s perspective,” 21 December 2005, ABC (radio) Wide Bay, available from: http://www.abc.net.au/widebay/stories/s1535831.htm [cited 26 January 2006]. This link was unavailable on 27 January 2016, but the story was available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.nude/DWhiDufMnMg (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[4] Free Beaches of Australia Inc., available from: http://www.freebeach.com.au/nude-beaches/fba-origins/ (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[5] See the stories in the Adelaide Advertiser, 24 March 2004, 30 March 2004, 6 July 2004, 13 July 2004, 2 July 2005. For a report of the verdict and sentencing, see ABC South Australia (Online), “Man jailed for three years for triple abduction,” Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-07-08/man-jailed-for-three-years-for-triple-abduction/2054254 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[6] Paul McCarragher op cit.

[7] Jessica Shaughnessy, “Six fined for sunbathing in the nude” (Online) Jul 21 2005, Daily Post Staff, Liverpool.co.uk [Accessed 3 February 2007]. It is now available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Six+fined+for+sunbathing+in+the+nude.-a0134234099 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[8] “‘Sex in open air’ scandal,” Devon 24 (Online), 08 September 2005 (Online), [cited 3 February 2007]. This link was no longer available online, 27 January 2016.

[9] Available at: https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/ireland/25838 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[10] Alyson Matley, “Bare truth: Naturists want beach,” 19 May 2005, Available from: http://www.keynoter.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/news03.txt [cited 23 January 2006]. This link was no longer available online on 27 January 2016.

[11] Available at: http://www.freebeach.com.au/nude-beaches/ (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[12] Glenis Green, “Submissions sought on legal nude beach,” The Courier-Mail, 25 October 2005, p. 6.

[13] ‘Flashers pester nudists’, Aftenposten: News from Norway (online), 12 August 2005. Available at: http://hippiehollow.com/news/news_comments.php?id=44_0_2_0_C (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[14] Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10 August 2005, ‘Not under our boardwalk, we’re naturists’ (Dutch naturists want beach for sex in public). Available at: http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/country-news/Not-under-our-boardwalk-were-naturists_131516.html (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[15] BBC News, 20 July 2005, available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4700457.stm
[cited 23 September, 2005].

[16] Police watch on popular nudist beach. nzherald.co.nz, May 2, 2002. Available at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1843042 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[17] Paul McCarragher op cit.

[18] I Corinthians 3:16.

[19] I have a copy of this letter, but for the privacy of the people concerned, I withhold their names and addresses.

[20] “Beattie exposes nude beach fears,” 1 February 2005, ABC Sunshine & Cooloola Coasts, Queensland, Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/news/australia/qld/sunshine/200502/s1293453.htm (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[21] Patsy & Richard Brown, “Quest for Nude Beach at Bundaberg Fails,” Available from: http://www.freebeach.com.au/bundaberg%20report.htm [cited 26 January 2006]. This link was no longer available at 27 January 2016.

[22] Southbank Corporation, “Protecting Queenslanders Under the Sun,” Sponsor Profile – Suncorp, Available from: http://www.southbankcorporation.com.au/partners/profile-_suncorp [cited 27 January 2006]. On 27 January 2016 this link was no longer available.

[23] Heard on WIN TV, Bundaberg, Qld., Friday, 27 January 2006, at approx. 6.15pm during the Channel 9 National News.

[24] “Skin Cancer Prevention”, Available from: http://www.guide4living.com/skincancer/prevention.htm
[cited 26 January 2006].

[25] Paul McCarragher op cit.

[26] “Govt urged to relax nude beach laws,” ABC News Online, 27 January 2005. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-01-27/govt-urged-to-relax-nude-beach-laws/626320 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[27] Peter Beattie op cit.

[28] Alexander Solzhenitsyn Quotes & Sayings (Accessed 27 January 2016).

Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Philippians 4:8).

cubed-redmatte

Are the dead raised today? Biblical questions concerning Pastor Ekechukwu’s resurrection in Nigeria, 2001 [1]

(Courtesy macky.net)

By Spencer D Gear

A. To die once: fact or fiction?

The reports of the resurrection of Pastor Daniel Ekechukwu in Nigeria in 2001 (death certificate issued on 30 Nov. 2001) have caused both positive and negative responses. Here, I raise questions that go beyond those of the authenticity of this alleged resurrection amid some conflicting reports. See examples of the conflicting information in the testimony at the “Come Let Us Reason” website. [3] “Come Let Us Reason” reported:

Can God raise the dead? Yes of course He can. However the question we need to ask is, did He on this occasion? I’m talking about the newest sensational story coming from Reinhard Bonnke who was a guest on Benny Hinn’s program on Feb.28 2002 (and Kenneth Copeland’s program through the week of Aug.19, 2002). On Hinn’s program he showed a video produced by Cfan (Bonnkes minsitry- Christ for all nations) and gave testimony to a man being raised from the dead at a church he was preaching at in Nigeria, Africa. This video is now making the rounds everywhere as a fulfillment of many peoples prophecies of the great miracles that are supposed to occur in our time. Stories are supposedly pouring in from around the globe of thousands being saved. This is becoming a big story, but is it a fish story that keeps on growing as it’s told? I’ll let you decide.

There are contradictory accounts of how the accident happened that killed the pastor. [3a]

1. Are resurrections from the dead legitimate?

What are we to make of resurrections from the dead today? Since all things are possible with God, how are we to respond to this kind of report from Nigeria?

I am thinking particularly of biblical verses such as the following:

Hebrews 9:27 (ESV) “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment . . .” [4]
Hebrews 11:35 “Women received back their dead by resurrection.”
Luke 16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”

2. What about . . .?

What about the resurrections of Lazarus (John 11), the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8), the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7), the resurrection of Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36ff)?

How do we explain these resurrections in the Gospels and Acts if people are appointed to die once and then face judgment? The dilemma is similar with Pastor Eku’s resurrection.

B. Questions about Pastor Eku’s resurrection

1. The report reads, “Although some of what happened to Pastor Ekechukwu is certainly extra-biblical, none of it is unbiblical. Indeed, neither the story of pastor Ekechukwu’s resurrection or the story of your salvation is found in the Bible, making them both extra-biblical, but neither should be discounted on that basis!” (The italic quotes in this critique are direct quotations from David Kirkwood’s article documenting this resurrection….)

To justify extra-biblical information, it is hardly a fair and legitimate method to make my salvation experience to compare with Pastor Eku’s theology of life-after-death. The doctrine of soteriology is clearly defined in the Scriptures, as is the theology of life-after-death. If my Christian experience differs from the clear statements in the written Word of God (the Bible), my experience needs to be questioned. The same must be the case with Pastor Eku’s theology.

2. David Kirkwood’s report says that “the angels lifted him on either side, and Daniel realized that there were now two of himself.” Is this illusion, delusion, after-death reality, or something else? How can this be real with two of a person when only one died? There seems to be something questionable here!

3. From where does this doctrine of “the spirit man” come? I hear this language from some Pentecostal preachers in the contemporary church, but the biblical doctrine is that human beings are holistic people, a unity of body and soul/spirit. The biblical doctrine of anthropology deals with the whole person, not differentiating the “spirit man.” The report said, “The angels were holding him under each arm of his spirit man (which was perfectly whole).”

Here is not the place to investigate trichotomy, dichotomy or monism of human beings. I refer the reader to Wayne Grudem’s chapter on “the essential nature of man.” [5] He helpfully outlines the biblical data on the nature of human beings: [6]

Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably;
At death, Scripture says either that the “soul” departs or the “spirit” departs;
Man is said to be either “body and soul” or “body and spirit”;
The “soul” can sin or the “spirit” can sin;
Everything that the soul is said to do, the spirit is also said to do, and everything that the spirit is said to do the soul is also said to do.

Why the emphasis on “the spirit man”?4. “The next morning, when the mortician attempted to cut Daniel’s inner thigh in order to insert a tube by which he could inject more embalming fluid, he experienced a strange shock that pushed him away from the corpse. This did not surprise him, as he had experienced similar forces before and attributed them to occult powers (such things are widely practiced in Africa and highly respected by most African pastors whom I know). After a second attempt and a second shock, he concluded that Daniel must have been a member of a powerful secret society. He assumed, however, that after some occult sacrifices and incantations the powers in the corpse would subside, and he could then complete his work. (This mortician, of course, was not a Christian, but converted after Daniel’s resurrection.) Incidentally, Daniel said that people could smell the embalming chemicals coming out of his body for two weeks after his resurrection. They would hug him and hold their noses!”

I have a question: If this were God’s preparation for a resurrection, why would it resemble an occultic experience? I see some images today among contemporary Pentecostals who have the Holy Spirit’s ministry visualised as an electric current or bolt of lightning coming out of a person or “striking” a person. This type of imagery needs to be avoided as it provides overtures of the ministry of the Holy Spirit that is much like a powerful, electric force.

5. “Daniel’s wife experienced a dream in which she saw the face of her husband, and he was asking her why they had left him in the mortuary. He stated that he was not dead and that she should take him to Onitsha where German evangelist Reinhard Bonnke was preaching. She determined to do so, even though her family thought she was out of her mind.”

I have no trouble in accepting that Acts 2:17 will happen in the last days between Christ’s first coming and his second coming: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

How do I know that this dream of Daniel’s wife was the fulfillment of Acts 2:17?

While I also am a supporter of the gifts of the Spirit for today (I Cor. 12-14), this story raises such a lot of questions. The added information on the following website causes me to have grave reservations about this story. In fact, the doctrines of life-after-death in this story seem to be contra biblical. One critique is at: http://www.letusreason.org/popteac13.htm.

The information from Pastor Eku’s wife’s dream was that “he [Daniel] stated that he was not dead and that she should take him to Onitsha where German evangelist Reinhard Bonnke was preaching.” If this is a true statement or revelation in the dream, then this is not the story of a resurrection from the dead but a 42-hour near-death experience and then the human being was resuscitated. There’s a conflict here. The dream said that Dan was not dead, but David Kirkwood’s story stated that “Daniel said that people could smell the embalming chemicals coming out of his body for two weeks after his resurrection. They would hug him and hold their noses!”

Finally they drove to the Eunice Clinic, and there Daniel was confirmed to be dead by Doctor Josse Annebunwa. There was no breathing, no heartbeat or pulse, and Daniel’s pupils were fixed. The doctor said that there was nothing he could do. A death certificate was issued at 11:30 P.M., November 30, 2001

. . . The mortician, however, had to cut the clothing in order to clothe Daniel because his body was as stiff as a board” (emphases added).

Contradictions are not of God.

This also raises the controversial issue of how we are to interpret dreams. I most surely do not support Freudian dream analysis, but we have a credibility issue as well. The dream affirmed that Daniel was still alive, but the doctor confirmed his death and issued a death certificate. Which was it?

6. Where is there biblical support for the statements that “she [Dan’s wife] regarded Reinhard Bonnke as a man of God and that in the atmosphere of faith where he ministered this miracle was possible. The faith of Nneka dictated the whole event and her faith was honored. By whom? Who honored her faith? If not God, who else?”

The New Testament affirms the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, his disciples, and others in the New Testament, but I find no biblical support for the theology of “the atmosphere of faith.” Hebrews 11 states that supernatural actions took place “by faith” of Old Testament leaders such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. Other unnamed individuals experienced suffering (see Heb. 11:36ff.) and were “commended through their faith” (Heb. 11:39). These supernatural happenings and sufferings have been related to the faith of individuals. I find no biblical evidence for an “atmosphere of faith” at a gathering where Noah, Abraham or Moses was present to provide the environment for supernatural events..

“The atmosphere of faith” has reduced the Holy Spirit’s ministry to a force/atmosphere. Where do we have biblical support for such a view of faith?

7. “Many have indeed repented after hearing his testimony. If his story is all a hoax, the result of this hoax is real holiness, ” wrote David Kirkwood.

How does this stack up with Luke 16:31? “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”

We dare not minimise our Lord’s warning in Matt. 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'”

Performing miracles is not necessarily a sign of spiritual acceptance with God and assurance of a person’s entrance into God’s eternal kingdom.

I have further observations about David Kirkwood’s statement:

a. “Many” have “repented after hearing his testimony.”

I trust and hope that the testimony contained essential gospel content and not just the unbiblical invitation to “ask Jesus into your heart.” The verses of Romans 10:9-10, 17 provide some core elements of this gospel:

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

Paul stated elsewhere that this “gospel” that he preached was “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day. . .” (I Cor. 15:3-4). By repentance and faith are need for every person to be born again (see Acts 2:38; 26:20; Rom. 3:23-25) and to be declared righteous (justified) before God himself (see Rom. 3:28; 5:1).

b. Kirkwood’s assessment is: “If his story is all a hoax, the result of this hoax is real holiness.”

This story relates to a resurrection that happened in December 2001, according to Kirkwood. The death certificate was dated 30th November 2001 and Pastor Eku was supposed to be dead for 42 hours.. [6a] Nine months later the author (Kirkwood) is saying that “real holiness” has happened in the lives of the Christian converts. Isn’t this a little early to make such definitive claims?

The email to the “Berean Publishers” website with David Kirkwood’s article was dated September 22, 2002. [6b] Surely we are not to believe it certain that nine months after conversion an author can proclaim with assurance that “real holiness” is happening in new converts. Progressive sanctification takes time, but there should be a definite change in the new converts if there has been genuine conversion. Is this what Kirkwood means by “real holiness”? If so, I consider that better language would be something like, “Radical changes have already been seen in the lives of the new Christians who have sought repentance after hearing the gospel proclaimed in association with Pastor Eku’s testimony.”

Pastor Eku’s wife’s dream directed her to German evangelist Reinhard Bonnke. “The angel told Daniel that [that] man would help him spread the gospel of salvation.”

8. “This angel first told him that they were going to Paradise. There was no time expended in getting anywhere the angel took him. As soon as the angel said they were going to Paradise, they were there.”

This statement is consistent with the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross: “And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

9. “The angel told Daniel, ‘The mansion is ready but the saints of God are not. Jesus is being delayed because Christians in the church are not ready yet.’ (This is entirely scriptural; see 2 Pet. 3:12.)”

Second Peter 3:11-12 states:
“Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, [12] waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!”

10. “Although there were different kinds of tortures, all of the people in hell writhed in agony under an unseen force that would wrench them repeatedly. All of them were shouting, wailing and gnashing their teeth. Pastor Daniel told me that if every Christian could see what he saw, there would be no need to preach the gospel, as every Christian would become the gospel,” Pastor Dan said.

The statement, “There would be no need to preach the gospel, as every Christian would become the gospel,” is contrary to the command to proclaim the gospel as in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It also contradicts Romans 10:14, 17, “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

This is not meant to discount the importance of living the Christian life as a godly example before a watching world, but for people to come to Christ, more than a silent witness is needed. Words of proclamation are required.

11. “The most surprising thing is what happened next. The escorting angel told Pastor Daniel, ‘If your record is to be called here, you will in no doubt be thrown into hell.’ Pastor Daniel immediately defended himself saying, ‘I am a man of God! I serve Him with all my heart!’ But a Bible immediately appeared in the angel’s hand, and it was opened to Matthew 5 where Jesus warned that if one calls his brother a fool he is guilty enough to go into the hell of fire (see Matt. 5:21-22). Pastor Daniel knew he was guilty for the angry words spoken to his wife. The angel also reminded him that Jesus promised that God will not forgive our sins if we do not forgive others (see Matt. 6:14-15) because we will reap what we have sown. Only those who are merciful will obtain mercy (Matt 5:7). The angel told Daniel that the prayers he prayed as he was dying in the hospital were of no effect, because he refused to forgive his wife even when she attempted to reconcile on the morning of his fatal accident.”

Does this mean that a Christian’s unforgiven sin at the point of death sends him/her to hell? Does this failure to seek forgiveness of one another pronounce the death-knell on heaven and send a person to hell? When we fail to forgive each other, it certainly means we have a spiritual problem — God cannot forgive us (see Matt. 6:14-15). What about Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”?

The “Berean Publishers” website promotes an Arminian view of eternal insecurity. We could debate the pro’s and con’s of this theology (see my view), but there are many evangelicals who are committed to the inerrant Word of God, who would disagree profoundly with this assessment – based on Scripture. See J. Matthew Pinson (Gen. Ed.), Four Views on Eternal Security. [7]

Are we to use the theology of Pastor Eku’s after-death experience to differentiate between the eternal security views of Calvinism vs. Arminianism? To say the least, Pastor Eku’s doctrine of perseverance of the saints will be challenged biblically by many evangelicals.

There is much scriptural material to challenge Pastor Eku’s after-death theology of Christians’ unconfessed sin sending them hell. Biblically, we know that true believers can be “caught in any transgression”(Gal. 6:1) or “sin” (1 John 1:8-9). Some Christian “brothers” are called “people of the flesh” (ESV) or “worldly” (NIV) in I Cor. 3:1, 3. Not all believers will receive the same rewards in heaven (I Cor. 3:12-14). What are we to make of the person who committed incest who is delivered to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (I Cor. 5:5)? In fact, some “will be saved, but only as through fire” (I Cor. 3:15). Contrary to Pastor Eku’s theology, these verses plainly teach that a Christian does not have to be a sinless, fully repentant person at death to get into heaven.

12. “Pastor Daniel wept at this revelation, but the angel told him not to cry, because God was going to send him back to the earth to grant the rich man’s request (see Luke 16:27-30). A man would come back from the dead and warn people of hell. The angel said that Daniel’s resurrection would serve as a sign and be the last warning for this generation.”

It was “the rich man’s” view in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) that he would request Lazarus to go back to the rich man’s family and warn them. Abraham objected, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them” (v. 29). The rich man’s unbiblical theology was: “No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent” (v. 30) This is the unbiblical view of the resurrected Pastor Dan.

The Lord’s view, through Abraham, is: “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’ ” (v. 31).

Was this message of the rich man and Lazarus for the Jews or is it applicable to us today?

13. “Finally, Pastor Daniel was led to the top of a mountain, at which there was a large hole full of darkness. There the escorting angel handed Daniel to a man standing there whom he did recognize a first, but soon realized it was German evangelist Reinhard Bonnke. The angel told Daniel that man would help him spread the gospel of salvation.”

This sure sounds like a public relations’ exercise for Reinhard Bonnke. However, I do not want to slight Bonnke’s ministry if he clearly proclaims salvation through Christ alone and channels the converts into Bible-believing and Bible-teaching churches. See some assessments of Reinhard Bonnke‘s miracle crusades and ministry.

14. “As you may imagine, pastor Daniel greatly emphasizes in his preaching the need to forgive those who have wronged us, lest anyone suffer the fate he almost suffered. How important it is that we obey Jesus’ commandments regarding forgiveness and walking in love toward each other, as well as all the rest of His commandments.”

What about the biblical teaching on judgment following death (2 Cor. 5:8; Heb. 9:27)?

15. “It is indeed time for the church to repent and “pursue peace with all men, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Do not listen to false teachers who say that holiness is not essential to ultimately gain eternal life. Jesus warned that only those who do the will of His Father will enter the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. 7:11). Do not listen to teachers who say that if you are once saved you are guaranteed that you will always be saved. Jesus warned His closest disciples (see Matt. 24:1-3) of the possibility of their not being ready when He returned and being cast into hell (see Matt. 24:42-25:46).”

How is this “holiness” achieved? What about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness when we are justified by faith in Christ? Romans 5:17 states: “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”

I cannot support the statement by David Kirkwood above concerning Matt. 24:1-3. These Matt. 24 verses are relating to the destruction of the temple.

The use of Matt. 24:42-25:46 seems to be associated with Kirkwood’s particular interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Was this resurrection of Daniel meant to confirm an Arminian view of eternal insecurity? Is this revelation of one raised from the dead meant to give the definitive answer to end the eternal security debate? I surely hope not. Our responsibility is to “rightly divide the word of truth” and not build our theology on the experiences of a resurrected, fallible human being.

16. “Keep in mind that pastor Ekechukwu did not stand condemned just because of his one sin of unforgiveness. There were other sins he was confessing in the hospital as he was dying, but his unforgiveness annulled his prayers in which he was asking for forgiveness. If we expect God to forgive us, we must forgive others. That is what Jesus said.”

Does this mean that at the point of death one must have confessed every sin, but especially the sin of unforgiveness towards another person, to obtain the right to enter God’s eternal kingdom? Otherwise it’s to hell?

There are Scriptures that demand answers that Pastor Dan’s after-death revelations do not provide:

1 Cor. 1:30, “He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

Phil. 3:9 , “And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”

It is clear New Testament teaching that God declares believers to be justified/righteous, not on the basis of our actual holiness/righteousness, but on the basis of Christ’s perfect righteousness which God considers to belong to believers.
This is at the heart of the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants, especially dealt with at the time of the Reformation. The just shall live by faith!

The biblical doctrine of justification is at stake in the theology espoused by Pastor Dan in the story of his resurrection. We are not declared righteous, based on our own goodness, holiness or righteousness. We can never be declared fully righteous if righteousness depends on us. There is always sin that remains in our lives. Pastor Dan’s experience seems to counter the biblical doctrine of justification.

David Kirkwood’s article is using this extra-biblical experience of resurrection to challenge such fundamental doctrines as that of Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The aorist passive participle, dikaiothentes, that is placed at the beginning of the sentence before the main verb, conveys the sense that an event [justification] is completed before the verbal action of the main verb, “we have peace.” This gives the sense that “Since we have been justified [declared righteous] by faith, we have peace.”

I am convinced that the doctrine of justification by faith is assaulted in Pastor Dan’s theology promoted in this article. If it were not for Christ’s imputed righteousness to the believer, Paul could not say that believers have “the free gift of righteousness” [Romans 5:17 (ESV)] and that “the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23) for every believer.

I see too much of the Roman Catholic view of justification in this description of Pastor Dan’s experiences as told by David Kirkwood. The biblical (Protestant) view is that justification is based on imputed righteousness. The Roman Catholic view is that of infused righteousness which God puts into a person and changes that person internally in terms of moral character. The Roman view is that God gives varying measures of justification, based on the amount of righteousness that has been infused into us.

C. How do we deal with resurrections/no resurrections in the New Testament & contemporary experience? [8]

D.A. Carson’s article, “Unity and diversity in the New Testament,” [9] helped me to understand this issue more clearly. Carson provides an excellent framework for assessing this apparent contradiction of support and negation for such resurrections (and other controversial subjects). Carson’s analysis helped me gain insight in the following areas. [10]

1. Beware of making absolutes out of language that has no such intention

When Paul and Jesus, for example, addressed contemporary problems in a New Testament church, it is sometimes easy for us today to read their words and apply them universally for all ages. We see this with Paul’s use of the wearing of head coverings (1 Cor. 11:2ff), women to keep silent in the church (I Cor. 14:33-40), and the forbidding of women to teach (I Tim. 2:11-15).

Jesus also used strong antithetical language when addressing issues. He told us to “judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), yet in the same sermon, only a few verses later, he urged us to engage in judgment: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.. You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15-16).

How do we put these together, not judging and the call to judge false prophets?

One of the values of a theological discipline such as systematic theology, is that it forces Bible students to come to a balanced view, based on all the information in the Bible. We must not pit Jesus against himself or Paul against Paul in our teaching. This is a call for careful exegesis and analysis.

We must beware of making absolute for all times (e.g. all Christians must not judge each other; women are forbidden from teaching men) what had a contextual application in the first century church. [11]

2. Diverse circumstances

We must remember the many and diverse situations in the New Testament that become controversial when one author is compared with another author or an author’s teaching in one place is compared with his teaching in another place at another time. These writers wrote to many different situations with particular instructions to address the problems in those circumstances and to teach God’s word authoritatively.

For example, we can get into trouble and controversy when we compare the teachings of Paul with those of James on the place of works in or associated with saved people. The “faith of Abraham” is used by Paul to teach that people are justified by faith. Paul’s circumstances, the issues at stake in that church, led him to use the example of the faith of Abraham in that way.

However, James, in another situation and circumstance uses the faith of Abraham, not to teach about justification, but about faith without works being dead.

These two authors are not teaching contradictory messages, nor might they be ignorant of what each other is teaching.

Those who teach doctrine must be alert to how these biblical authors use these various arguments in Scripture, even though a given person (e.g. Abraham here) is used to stress two very different doctrines.

When we teach these doctrines (e.g. justification, works associated with the saved), we must use the local context to determine the meaning.

Remember, context, context and context so that we do not fall into the error of accusing Paul of contradicting James or vice versa. [12]

3. How God’s sovereignty functions

When we consider apparent differences of view on the same topic in the Scripture, it is fundamental that we examine the purpose of the writing before announcing our conclusions.

For example, it is wrong to conclude that because women were last at the cross and first at the tomb of Jesus to observe the resurrection, that women should be ordained as pastors. Because Jesus had twelve male disciples does not necessarily prove that women can’t be elders. There are other issues involved and we must not interpret outside of the context and purpose of a passage.

However, there are fundamental Christian beliefs where there are large areas of the unknown. Take, for example, the Incarnation, the Trinity and the relationship of God’s sovereignty to human responsibility. Romans 8:28 shows that God’s sovereignty can function in Scripture and life to cause God’s people to trust his sovereignty.

In areas of the unknown, while it is critical that the context of a passage must be carefully investigated, it is wise to stick with the specifics of Scripture. We must use the logical capacity that the Lord has given us, but in these areas where there is so much “unknown,” it is best to stick with the biblical data/examples. God is not a fundamentally contingent being – he is not limited to what we say or do. He can and does intervene sovereignly.

Human beings are called upon to believe, choose, obey, repent, etc., but people’s responsibilities, according to the Scriptures, never function so that God must depend on our actions to make the world function. [13]

4. How truths and arguments function in Scripture

We have various truths and arguments functioning together in Scripture, but some of them seem to lead to apparent contradictions. As in the issue we are discussing, how can there be a statement that we are appointed to die once and yet there are examples of resurrections in the Bible (and now in Nigeria with Pastor Dan) where people died or will die more than once? Sounds contradictory, doesn’t it?

The critical issue is “how various truths and arguments function in Scripture” [14] and how that should govern our use of them. While Carson’s principle was directed at practitioners of systematic theology, I am convinced that it can save us from many errors in interpretation in other areas of biblical doctrine. We so often miss the forest for the trees – stopping to peer at every Greek word in microscopic detail and forgetting that it’s part of a big picture that involves context, context and context (the words and phrases around the statement under contention, the paragraph in which the verses are located, the chapter and book in which they are found, and the analogy of the whole of Scripture..

My problem with this issue of resurrection lies in the fact that it appears that Heb. 9:27 and Luke 16:31 suggest that people are not raised from the dead, but Heb. 11:35 and other references suggest that there are genuine resurrections. The God of truth does not speak with a forked tongue.

Let’s start with Heb. 9:27 (“And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment”). The paragraph seems to include 9:23-28 (at least in the NIV and ESV), and the main point of it is to highlight Christ’s work as heavenly, true, original, superior, and final. What function does 9:27 play in this argument? It is merely to find something convenient with which to compare the finality of Christ’s work. Its purpose is not to teach us absolutes on life-after-death. The analogy is to provide an example to show that Christ did not “offer himself repeatedly” (v. 25) or “to suffer repeatedly” (v. 26), but “he has appeared ‘once for all’” (v. 26) to deal with sin by his one sacrifice. Verse 28 makes it clear that human beings dying once, as a general rule, is to show that Christ has been “offered once” as a sin bearer. The rule of human beings “appointed” to “die once” (v. 27) is a general illustration, but it does not pre-empt the possibility of Lazarus’s resurrection or that in Nigeria in December 2001.

One death is what commonly happens to almost all people, but this verse has nothing to say about possible exceptions to that rule. It is talking about the finality of Christ’s work, not the possibility of resurrection for dead people. It is a generalisation by way of example — nothing more.

For Luke 16:31, it is a little harder to determine the purpose and larger context. But it seems that a similar argument can be made for this verse. The context of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is that of 16:1, or maybe 15:1-2. However, both of the contexts are minimal, and it’s not nearly as easy to fit it in as it is to fit the parable of the lost son into 15:1-2. If chapter 16 of Luke is part of the same occasion as chapter 15 (unlikely, in my view), then probably what has happened at the end of ch. 15 is that the Pharisees have rejected the implicit appeal in Jesus’ equating them with the older brother. Jesus is now instructing his disciples about the Pharisees’ attitude (cf. 16:14-15). Thus 16.19-31 could be read in the light of the Pharisees’ reaction and Jesus could be saying something about the unbelief of first century Jewish culture. If the contexts weren’t connected, Jesus is probably trying to teach his disciples something about how they should relate to people in their own culture (as is 16.1-15).

D. Conclusion

The fact that Jesus said something about first century Jewish culture doesn’t mean that he would say the same thing for 21st century Nigerian or Australian culture. Because the writer of Hebrews used life-after-death as an example of Christ’s sacrifice, it does not make Heb. 9:27 a definitive statement against the miracle of resurrection for all times. It was an illustration on the subject being discussed in Heb. 9:23-28.

Nineteenth century commentator, John Brown, put it well: “If Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, and some others, underwent it twice, they are exceptions to the general law. When men die, they do not die that they return to life, and then die again.” [15]

This article is not an attempt to squirm out of alleged biblical contradictions (people die only once — but there are those who were resurrected according to the biblical record). This is a call for biblical interpretation that functions within the immediate and larger contexts of the document in which it is written.

What does all this mean? We can’t say that all people everywhere can only die once and that anyone who says that they did otherwise is contradicting Scripture. We have to weigh up their cultural context, what purpose the experience served, and what fruit was demonstrated. (This would apply equally to any near-death experience.)

This is by no means a final word on the subject (God has not given me such authority), but I consider that this is a reasonable base from which to work. Carson’s principle of how items of information function in their context is such a helpful methodology for biblical interpretation of all topics, but especially of those that are controversial and have apparent contradictory elements.

Endnotes:

[1] This article is a response to, “The Resurrection of Pastor Daniel Ekechukwu,” David Kirkwood. Retrieved on October 5, 2002 from: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/. At this URL, you will need to use the “Search” facility to find the article.
[2] I retired as an Australian family relationships’ counselling manager in 2011 to pursue doctoral studies. I completed my PhD in New Testament in 2015 (University of Pretoria, South Africa) and currently live in Brisbane, Qld., Australia. To contact me, please use the contact form on this website.
[3] See “The Rich man’s prayer is answered! Bonnke raises the dead,” “Come Let Us Reason” Ministries, retrieved on October 12, 2002 from: http://www.letusreason.org/popteac13.htm
[3a] Ibid.
[4] Unless otherwise stated, all biblical quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2001 (ESV).
[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994, ch. 23, pp. 472-487).
[6] Ibid., p. 473 ff.
[6a] “The Rich man’s prayer is answered! Bonnke raises the dead”, “Come Let Us Reason” Ministries, retrieved on October 12, 2002 from: http://www.letusreason.org/popteac13.html.
[6b] See “The Resurrection of Pastor Daniel Ekechukwu,” David Kirkwood. Retrieved on October 5, 2002 from: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/. At this URL, you will need to use the “Search” facility to find the article.
[7] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002. This book includes the views of Classical Calvinism (Michael S. Horton), Moderate Calvinism (Norman L. Geisler), Reformed Arminianism (Stephen M. Ashby), and Wesleyan Arminianism (J. Steven Harper).
[8] The content of this section is substantially that of my son, Paul Gear.
[9] D. A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology” (pp 63-95) in D. A. Carson & John D. Woodbridge (Eds.), Scripture and Truth. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1983/1992.
[10] The headings in this sections are mine.
[11] Carson wrote: “Paul, like Jesus before him, tends to absolutize the language used in addressing the current problem. . . Jesus, preacher that he is, regularly uses strong, antithetical language to tackle each side of a complex question. One of the values of systematic theology, therefore, is that Jesus’ or Paul’s approach to a host of issues is likely to receive more balanced scrutiny than by the reductionist methods of those who pit Jesus against Jesus and Paul against Paul” (Carson, p. 87).
[12] Carson’s explanation of this concept was, “The question of the diverse circumstances that call forth New Testament writings sometimes becomes more controversial yet when author is compared with author – Paul with James, for instance, or John with Paul. . . If the ‘faith of Abraham’ is used by Paul to teach that people are justified by faith and by James to teach that faith without works is dead, it does not necessarily follow that the two authors are ignorant of the other’s work or in disagreement with it.”, ibid., p. 88. He also wrote: “Systematic theologians should be careful to note how various truths and arguments function in Scripture and they should be very cautious about stepping outside of those functions with new ones” (ibid,. p. 93).
[13] Carson explains it this way: “[I]t is surely worth observing, for instance, that God’s sovereignty functions in Scripture to engender confidence in His people (e.g. Rom. 8:28) and to ensure final judgment, but it never functions to reduce man to the status of an irresponsible robot. Similarly, man is encouraged to believe, choose, obey, repent, and so forth, but his responsibilities in these areas never function in the Scriptures (as they sometimes do in other Jewish literature) to make God fundamentally contingent. . . To limit oneself primarily to copying the functions found in Scripture is to adopt a methodological control that will ensure that one’s systematic theology is a little more biblical than would otherwise be the case” (ibid., p. 94).
[14] Ibid., p. 93, emphasis added.
[15] John Brown, Hebrews. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1862/1961, p. 429.

The call is for workers to be “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:16)
Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 7 October 2015.

Why I Am Not An Atheist!

(Courtesy clipartist.net)

By Spencer D Gear

A.W. Tozer wrote that “what we believe about God is the most important thing about us.” Philosopher, Mortimer Adler, agreed: “More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.”

I am not an atheist or an agnostic for at least two reasons:

First, take a look at the world around us! There is such order and design in the universe. If we were nearer to the sun we would fry, but we’d freeze to death if we were further away.

When I examine how human life is sustained, I am amazed. Plants produce oxygen which human beings need. We produce carbon dioxide which plants need. What about human reproduction? How are fingers, legs, hair, skin, blood and brains formed?

Atheism leaves me cold amongst such grandeur in our world.

Second, when I look at human beings, I see two opposites. There’s incredible beauty and good will among us, but there is unbelievable evil and suffering around us.

Australians give multiple millions of dollars every year to help the starving and oppressed. Others have left lucrative trades and professions to go to war-torn and destitute countries. What about the hospitals that have been built and staffed? Don’t forget about the welfare agencies, both government and private, that make life easier for the hurting.

But there is another side: frustration, apathy, violence, nastiness, ugliness. And yet in the midst of this mess, people have a cry for meaning and purpose, for love, freedom, forgiveness, hope, even a cry for God.

I notice society is on the skids. I have met people sucked into the sexual freedom philosophy whose lives are in ruins. I have never yet met a person who jumped into bed with as many people as he/she wanted and ended up saying this is the great life with no negative consequences.

George Bernard Shaw, atheist, writer and the brains behind My Fair Lady wrote something provocative shortly before his death in 1950. H. G. Wells, in his book, Mind At the End of Its Tether, tells of what Shaw said: “The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. I believed it once. In its name I helped destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me and witness the tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith.”

Atheism is powerless. When did you last hear somebody proclaim, “I have become an atheist and it has revolutionised my life, giving me new purpose and meaning. I was an alcoholic who was violent towards my wife and now I have become a reformed man.” Atheism doesn’t have that power.

God does! There are hundreds in this city who can declare, “If anyone is in Christ, he/she is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

With confidence, God can say: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 53:1).

An Interesting Change

Antony Flew

(Courtesy Apologetics 315)

One of the contemporary world’s most famous atheists, philosopher Antony Flew, has changed his mind and is now a believer in god. Even the secular media reported this story. Christianity Today wrote that Flew was not the first atheist to become a theist. There were atheists in the Victorian era who came to similar conclusions. The secular web stories are denying this story is true.

In 2001, Antony Flew denied this change of mind. See: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138
In 2004, “Antony Flew Considers God…Sort Of.” See: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369).

However, an exclusive interview between Dr. Antony Flew and Dr. Gary Habermas in 2004 should lay to rest the view that Antony Flew has not changed his mind. Read it in My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism, in which he states that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.”

The New York Times (16 April 2010) reported, “Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87” (died 8 April 2010, Reading, England).

God writes the final chapter of ALL people’s lives! Where ill you be one minute after your last breath?

1 Peter: How to live triumphantly in trials

By Spencer D Gear

It is estimated that the apostle Peter wrote this epistle in the the mid A.D. 60s. He wrote to believers who were discouraged and scattered because of the persecution they were encountering. Here they are called “elect exiles of the dispersion” (1:1 ESV). Because they were suffering for their faith, he urged them to look to the example of Christ (3:8ff) and remember that they will be partakers “in the glory that is going to be revealed” (5:1).

The following are expositions from I Peter that I have preached in local churches in Australia.

1 Peter 1	1 Peter 2	1 Peter 3	1 Peter 4	1 Peter 5
vs 1-2 vs 3-5 vs 6-7 vs 8-9 vs 10 vs 10-12 vs 13-16 vs 17 vs 18-19 vs 20-21 vs 22-25	vs 1-3 vs 4-8 vs 9-12

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 1And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 5:6-11 ESV).

I Peter 1:22-25, The Christian’s New Way of Life: Purity, Truth and Love

All through life

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

A. Introduction

Would you please suggest to me three major characteristics of a Christian’s new way of life after becoming a Christian. What should a Christian lifestyle be like? If you had never ever seen a Christian, what major character traits would you see? Just three of them please! [I’ll wait.]

You may not remember the name, Tertullian, but he was one of the great defenders of the faith in the early church. He was an apologist. He was born about A.D. 160 to a Roman centurion in Carthage (Northern Africa). He wrote these words:

It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for [they] themselves are animated by mutual hatred; [of us they say,] how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put to death. And they are wrath with us, too, because we call each other brethren.[2]

We have come to the last 3 verses in I Peter 1, and we have some teaching here on three aspects of biblical Christianity that are under as much threat in Australia today as they were in Asia Minor (Turkey) in the first century.

Based on I Peter 1:22-25, the message from this passage is: The Christian’s New Way of Life: Purity, Truth & Love.

Note what is happening in Australia today with this new way of life.

Purity: We want our waterways to be clear and to provide pure & clean water. But as for the moral slide of our country, we are heading towards God’s judgment with loose living. We might call it sex, love and rock ‘n roll, but God calls it sexual immorality.

“In Melbourne [in July 2003] . . . the Uniting Church of Australia voted to allow homosexual ministers. They are the first (but probably not the last) Australian church to do so.”[3]

As for truth, I was in a public meeting in Bundaberg a few years ago when the speaker said, “There are no such things as absolutes.” I challenged him and a person in the audience challenged me: “There are no absolutes.” And you know what? He was absolutely sure about that. When we proclaim, “There are no absolutes,” it means that there is no such thing as truth, no right, no wrong. And that’s an absolute in itself.

The current culture has experienced a paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism. Postmodern thought is a rejection of absolute, objective truth. One author described the changes this way: “Permanence and solidity in social structures are now bygone commodities, not to mention abiding values and the concept of truth. . .”[4]

Don Matzat puts it so well:

The concept of error or wrong has been removed from the postmodern vocabulary with one exception – it is wrong to say that someone’s world view, religion, culture, philosophy or experience is wrong. The only absolute truth that exists in the postmodern mentality is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and as far as the postmodern scholar is concerned, that is absolutely true.[5]

Matzat continues:

Our culture is saying truth is no longer that which corresponds with reality. Truth emerges out of a specific community or culture. Christians have their truth. Muslims have their truth. The New Age advocates have their truth.

Individually, truth is that which will produce a better reality for me or give me an excuse for having messed up my present reality. It is my truth if it works for me.[6]

What about love today in Australia? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics

The [year] 2002 crude marriage rate of 5.4 marriages per 1,000 population represented the second lowest marriage rate on record, following 5.3 per 1,000 in 2001. The highest crude marriage rate ever recorded was 12.0 per 1,000 in 1942. The crude marriage rate has been declining since 1970. This decline in the marriage rate can be mainly attributed to changes in attitudes to marriage and living arrangements that have occurred since then.[7]

Note what the Australian Bureau of Statistics says about de facto relationships: “Between 1996 and 2001 the census count of people aged 15 years and over in de facto marriages rose by 28% from 744,100 to 951,500.”[8] They are not marriages at all. They are de facto relationships. About one million of them in the year 2001.

You talk to a 16-17 year old down the street and ask them about love and the most likely response you’ll get will be something about sex. A 16-year-old young man told me a few weeks ago that he was “sexually active” with his 15-year-old girlfriend. The Scriptures call it sexual immorality.

Let’s unpack I Peter 1:22-25, The Christian’s New Way of Life: Purity, Truth & Love, to see how our society measures up. What would God say to Australia today from this passage of Scripture?

B. This salvation brings a new way of life: purity, truth and love (v. 22)

Please observe three things that Peter says about this new way of life through Christ’s salvation.

1. First, this is the “state” of Christians: “You have purified yourselves” (v. 22)

¨ This is not a ceremonial, ritual cleansing like the Hebrew sacrificial system. It is not physical cleansing of their bodies. These believers knew that “to purify” meant “moral purity.”

+ This is what James meant in 4:8: “Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”

+ Or a John wrote in 1 John 3:3, “Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.”

¨ “You have purified” is difficult to translate into English because we don’t have an exact representation of this Greek perfect tense in English. But it means that this purifying began in the past [at salvation] and is continuing now for the believer.

¨ A believer who is not morally pure is a contradiction in terms. These Gentile believers had come from a very loose lifestyle in Asia Minor, but they had been redeemed. This meant that their moral way of life was radically different from the mainstream of society.

¨ If you call yourself Christian, your lifestyle of purity is different than for normal Aussies. This is the lifestyle of difference – moral purity. This does not mean that your moral failures in the past cannot be changed. In fact, the Christian life is one of moral purity that stands out from the way of the world.

How do believers who may have lived a previously immoral lifestyle attain moral purity?

Second, It starts at salvation, but v. 22 tells us the means for it to continue. . .

2. By obeying the truth

¨ What is truth? Here, it is obedience to the truth of God’s word. When believers live a life of obedience to God’s Word, they will live a life of purity.

¨ In Acts 15:9, Peter spoke on behalf of Gentile Christians and said: “[God] made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.”

¨ When we read and study the Bible, we discover that

+ God’s view of sexuality is: no sex until marriage and faithfulness in marriage.

+De facto relationships are not God’s way to purity. All de facto relationships are outside of God’s rules for moral purity.

+Please understand that moral purity means more than just sexuality. What are the morals about right and wrong in working for your boss? What about obeying government? If you go to I Peter 2:1, you’ll see some more examples of moral impurity that must be gone from the Christian life. We cannot be malicious towards others; we must get rid of all deceit in our lives. Hypocrisy (saying one thing and doing another) must have no part in the Christian life. Moral purity means that we are not envious of anything or anyone. Slander of every kind must be gone from the Christian’s life.

Brothers and sisters, this Christian life is one of challenge and change. If we act morally like the world, our Christian life must be questioned.

How do we purify ourselves? “By obeying the truth.” I have a grave concern for the current generation of evangelical Christians. Forget about the liberals. They don’t preach the Gospel or support the authoritative Word of God, so we can’t deal with them as Christians.

However, if we have been born again and the Word of God is not faithfully preached from our pulpits, what chance do God’s people have of “obeying the truth” from what is preached from the pulpit? Desley and I have visited way too many supposedly evangelical churches who do not obey what Paul said to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:1-2): “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.”

This is an awesome charge for anyone who dares to teach any of God’s people: Preach the Word. Not preach your own opinion. Preach what the text says.

I was leading a church service recently and asked the preacher to share with me his sermon topic so that I could build the service around his theme. This is what he emailed me: “I will be preaching, talking, arguing, speaking or even some would say waffling from [and he mentioned the passage] roughly within the limits.”[9]

If Christians are “to purify themselves,” it must be through “obeying the truth” of God’s Word. You can’t obey what you don’t know. Therefore preaching the Word of God and not my human opinion is critical in churches today. Just as important is getting a daily dose of God’s Word in your own lives. How many of you have a consistent, daily, systematic reading of God’s Word? Honest now? How many of you meditate on God’s Word and its application to your lives daily. I do not know how we can maintain a life of purity in a wicked world without getting God’s view from his word – daily!

If you use the KJV, you will note that it reads: “obeying the truth through the Spirit.” The words, “through the Spirit” were in some of the MSS at the time the KJV was translated in 1611, but older MSS, closer to the time of the apostles, have been found and they do not include the words, “through the Spirit.” However, we can understand why a scribe might have added “through the Spirit” and it is “correct enough but it is not a part of the text”[10] according to the best and oldest MSS evidence.

If you . . .

First, purify yourselves by
Second, obeying the truth of God’s word, what will happen? There will be a result.

3. Third, you will “have sincere love for your brothers” (v. 22)

The Greek word for “brothers” means brothers and sisters in Christ.

The first Christians shared their goods and helped one another. Their common love for Jesus led them to love one another as Jesus commanded, thus allowing them to live in harmony and peace with one another. Seeing this, non-believers remarked, ‘See how they loved one another.'”[11]

Remember Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels (Matt. 22:35-39):

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

When we love God, purify ourselves by obeying the truth, there will be worldview difference in the way we love. This is actually a command to love one another that doesn’t show up in the NIV.

Yes, we are commanded to love our non-Christian neighbours. Peter says one of the defining differences among the Christian community is not only that we are commanded to “love our brothers and sisters, ” but also that “you [must] have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.”

“Sincere love” here means “unhypocritical (unfeigned, sincere, honest) brotherly affection.” It means “not wearing a mask such as ancient actors wore on the stage to represent some fictitious character. There is always the danger that we pretend like an actor instead of having actual affection.” [12] This is not agape love, but philia love.

Here, Peter is teaching what John taught in 1 John 3:18: “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

1 John 4:19-21:

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

What does loving one another without a hypocritical mask look like in this group of Christians?

Sometimes our love towards another is not appreciated and is met with coldness, and maybe is rebuffed. That’s no reason to stop loving.
I know that some people seem to be more lovable than others. But this verse does not say: “Love your brother and sister if they are lovable.”
Peter wants us to love one another without half-heartedness.
Remove all evil thoughts and feelings from your hearts towards other brothers and sisters.
Love needs to have a free reign to demonstrate its genuineness.
All impurity conflicts with God’s gospel of truth.
There must be absolute truth in our relationships. We mean what we say and say what we mean.
Are there factions and divisions among you. You can’t truly love your brothers and sisters in Christ if strife continues between you. Make it right today, in the name of Jesus, if such exists in this fellowship.

Jesus said: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This is the litmus test of discipleship. Do you know the Lord? Are you a disciple of Christ? Do you love one another in this church? Or are there tension, factions and strife? If we do not love one another, we are not demonstrating biblical discipleship to other Christians and to a watching world.

This salvation brings a new way of life: purity, truth and love (v. 22)

C. Why should we have purity, truth and love in our new way of life?

v. 23: “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.”

¨ You have been born again – we are familiar with this language, but what does it mean? We have been born into God’s family. That’s why we are brothers and sisters.

Not perishable, but imperishable seed. What does that mean? When I plant a cane stalk, the cane disintegrates, it perishes, in the ground in order to produce another plant, which is also perishable. However, when the seed of God’s word, the gospel, is planted in your life and you accept it, it becomes imperishable seed, i.e. the imperishable seed of eternal life. How come?

‘Through the living & enduring word of God.’

A normal seed that is planted perishes as it gives birth to a new plant, which produces seeds which also will perish. But when the see of the word of God, germinates in your life, you have new life that is eternal, imperishable.

For us living in an agricultural society, this is a wonderful illustration of the power of the Word of God to change people. I’m reminded of Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

In vv 24-25, we have a splendid reminder of just how fragile human life is from a worldly perspective:

For,”All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

This is a quote from Isaiah 40:6-8. Isaiah seems to be Peter’s favourite OT book, quoting from it on 6 occasions.[13]

What are these two verses telling us?

D. This salvation majors on the PERMANENT and not on the TEMPORAL [v. 24]

1. This is a shocker for us human beings to acknowledge.

ALL people; nobody is exempt, and all the human glory that we profess (like talents, achievements, wealth), are like grass and flowers – they wither & fall off. We are temporal human beings. There is nothing permanent about our human existence and the things we accumulate will with and fall. The Psalmist reminds us: “As for man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower of the field” (103:15). Jesus said: “If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?” (Matt. 6:30).

Last week, we saw a fearsome example of how frail human beings are. Talk about grass withering and flowers falling off, what could be more devastating to the hopes of human beings than the force of hurricane Katrina and the damage it did in the USA.

BUT . . . BUT. . .

“the word of the Lord stands forever.”[quote from Isaiah 40:6-8] And this is the word that was preached to you.

Even if you forget everything I have said today, please make this a permanent dwelling in your thinking: “the word of the Lord stands forever.” Kingdoms will rise and fall. Your lives may experience considerable disappointment. But on one thing you can absolutely sure: “the word of the Lord stands forever.”

Please understand that when the critics, whether inside or outside of the church, want to attack the core of Christianity, they zero in on attacking the Word of God. Here are a couple of examples:

USA Episcopalian (that’s Anglican), John Shelby Spong, wrote: To believe the traditional understanding of “the inspiration of scripture as the literal, revealed word of God” is “not just naïve, but eminently rejectable. . . Scripture is filled with cultural attitudes that we have long ago abandoned and with behavior that is today regarded as immoral.”[14]
Marcus Borg: “The gospels are neither divine documents nor straightforward historical records. They are not divine products inspired directly by God.”[15]
Back in the 1960s, Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson wrote his devastating little book, Honest to God, in which he stated this about the Bible:

In order to express the ‘trans-historical’ character of the historical event of Jesus of Nazareth, the New Testament writers used the ‘mythological’ language of pre-existence, incarnation, ascent and descent, miraculous intervention, cosmic catastrophe, and so on, which according to Bultmann, make sense only on a now antiquated world-view.[16]

What’s “the word of the Lord”? Peter has just quoted it for us from Isaiah. It is very deliberate that Peter calls this “the word of the Lord” and not “the word of God.” Why? In the OT,

the word LORD signifies “the self-disclosed name of the covenant-God of Israel, Yahweh, ‘Jehovah.” In the New Testament it is a standard designation for Jesus Christ. With the term Lord Peter highlights Jesus’ divinity; he shows that the word of God is identical with the word of the Lord Jesus. For that reason, Peter concludes this section in these words:

25b. And this is the word that was preached to you. The word the apostles preached was the gospel of Jesus.[17]

Notice the emphasis of this passage: Keep your eyes on the temporal things of this world and you will not experience real, genuine hope. Hope comes from your relationship with God through Jesus Christ. That’s what will last forever. If you want lasting hope, don’t rely on:

¨ How much money you have, or other temporal things;

¨ Lay up treasure in heaven through your relationship with Jesus Christ.

E. Conclusion

Let’s draw some applications:

1. Based on this passage, we know that Christians are those who have been born again by God’s imperishable seed, the Word of the Lord. Rebirth is something that happens in the heart of a person. The effects of this rebirth will affect your intellect, your emotions and your moral character.

Based on this passage, there are three telltale signs that you are born-again:

a. First, you have morally purified yourself and that is a continuing process;

b. Second, you are striving to obey God’s truth; and

c. Third, you have committed your life to loving God and loving your brothers and sisters in Christ. Love in action.

2. This passage demonstrates the unity of both the Old and New Testaments. The believers in Asia Minor, to whom Peter wrote, accepted the Old Testament as the Word of the Lord, but they also accepted Christ’s gospel, preached by the apostles, as the Word of the Lord. Christ’s gospel of the NT, was on equal par with the OT.

I have a concern that we as NT believers do not read and meditate

on the OT as much as we read the NT. We cannot do without regular exposure to the OT:

The teaching of evolution in the public schools overwhelms many of our young people. How can you possibly refute it without an understanding of the Book of Genesis, especially the early chapters?
How is it possible to understand the wickedness in our world without the teaching of the fall into sin, Genesis 3? From when did you become a sinner? Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
What is God’s design for marriage? Genesis 2:24: “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
What happens to a people who promote homosexuality? Read of the judgment of God on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19.
What happens to a nation that turns from God? Read the book of Jeremiah. What about Obadiah v. 15: “The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head.”

We must understand the critical importance of regarding the whole Bible as the Word of the Lord.

Ramad was [one of] the most dangerous men in all of India. His gang attacked, plundered, and terrified the remote villages of the area. He was wanted dead or alive.

While ransacking a small home in one of the villages, he found a small black book. At first he started to throw it away, but he noticed that the paper was very thin and just the right size for roll-your-own cigarettes. Each evening after a meal Ramad would relax with a smoke.

He would take out the little book, tear a page out, and fold it over for the tobacco. One evening while folding the paper, he noticed the writing was in his own language. So each evening after eating, he would read a page of the little book and then smoke it. One evening he knelt down and asked Jesus to forgive his sins and to be his Savior. The small black book was the Bible.

He turned himself over to the police, much to their surprise, and turned from a bandit to a prisoner for Christ. The prison became Ramad’s mission field where he led many other prisoners to Jesus.

God’s word made the change in his life.[18]

Obeying the truth of the Word of the Lord, one of the key characteristics of being a Christian.

Notes:

[2] Tertullian, “The Apology,” ch. 39, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Available from: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-05.htm#P425_201743 [30 August 2005].

[3] Luke Tattersall 2004, ‘Sending a Clear Message,’ Matthias Media, The Briefing, Available from: http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/sep03_clearmessage.htm [30 August 2005].

[4] Ted Cabal 2001, “An Introduction to Postmodernity: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Can We Get Home?” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5:2 (Summer 2001), p. 4, cited in D. Massimo Lorenzini 2002-2004, ‘Postmodern truth versus biblical truth’, Taking Every Thought Captive, Frontline Ministries, Available from: http://www.frontlinemin.org/truth.asp#N_3_ [30 August 2005].

[5] Don Matzat 1997, ‘Apologetics in a Postmodern Age’, Issues, Etc. Journal, Fall 1997, Vol. 2 No. 5, Available from: http://www.stjohnyorkpa.com/ApologeticsinaPostmodernAge.htm (Accessed 20 March 2013).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005, ‘Year Book Australia Population: Marriages, divorces and de facto relationships,’ Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/992c91e65fb38b66ca256f7200832f7e?OpenDocument [30 August 2005].

[8] Ibid.

[9] This was the content of an email to me by a Baptist deacon (JB), 25 August 2005, with regard to his preaching at a Baptist Church in Qld., Australia, the preaching being on 28 August 2005. His actual words were: “I will be preaching, talking, arguing, speaking or even some would say waffling from Acts 17:15 to 34 roughly within the limits. I will get back to you more specifically tomorrow. Thanks …”

[10] Lenski, p. 71.

[11] Al Cariño, “Paralyzed with fear no longer,” May 19, 2002, Lifeissues.net, Available from: http://lifeissues.net/writers/car/car_73fear-nolonger.html [30 August 2005].

[12] R. C. H. Lenski 1966, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MASS, p. 71.

[13] 1:24-25; 2:6; 2:8; 2:9a; 2:9c; 2:22. He cites the Psalms twice in 2:7 and 3:10-12; Proverbs twice at 4:18 and 5:5; Exodus once in 2:9b, and Leviticus once at 1:16 (from Simon J. Kistemaker 1987, New Testament Commentary: Peter and Jude, Evangelical Press, Welwyn, Hertfordshire, n69, p. 73).

[14] Spong, J. S. 2001, A New Christianity for a New World, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 2.

[15] Borg, M. J. 1994, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 9.

[16] Robinson, J. A. T. 1963, Honest to God, SCM Press Ltd., London, p. 24.

[17] Kistemaker, p. 74.

[18] Peter V. Deison, in Roy B. Zuck 1997, The Speaker’s Quote Book, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 34.

I Peter 1:20-21, Faith and hope in God alone

Faith Hope Love

(courtesy ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

A. Introduction

Down through the years in conversation with ordinary folks or university professors, I have heard some interesting views about religion and Jesus Christ. I have been told:

“All religions are the same; how dare you say that yours is the correct one.” I sometimes say,
“If you believe that all religions are essentially the same, you are telling me that you haven’t read those religions very carefully.”
Christ said that he came, died on the cross, and rose again so that people could have abundant life now and for all eternity.
“Buddhism and Hinduism, on the other hand, teach that life is a great evil. What we should seek after is the ending of all personal life in nirvana.”[2]
“Islam . . . vigorously teaches that there is one God [but not 3 persons in the Godhead]. Hinduism . . . teaches that there are at least 300 million gods.”[3]
Islam’s holy book, the Qur’an, teaches that Jesus was not crucified on the cross for our sins (read that in Surah 4:157).[4] The NT is very clear that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
Jesus said, according to Matt. 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” The Qur’an says, “O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Sura 9:123).[5]
“Confucianism recognizes no god.”[6]

Please tell me: Are all these religions the same?

When push comes to shove, the difference with Christianity is the Person, Jesus Christ, who said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6). He did not say, “I speak the truth so follow me because I will teach you the truth.” He said, “I am the truth.” The uniqueness of Jesus Christ is what makes the difference between him and any other world religion.

Here in First Peter, ch. 1, we learn the radical difference between Christianity and ALL other religions. The difference is the Christ. These believers in Asia Minor were suffering “all kinds of trials” (1:6). 1 Peter 4:12 calls it a “painful trial” (NIV) or “fiery trial” (ESV). No matter what the persecution, you will not survive if you depend on “perishable seed” (1:23). You need the “imperishable” (1:23). We learned about Christ earlier in

I Peter 1:

v. 2, sprinkling by his blood;

v. 3, we have new birth for a living hope, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;

v. 11, the sufferings of Jesus Christ and the glories that would follow;

v. 13, Jesus Christ will be revealed again;

v. 19 we learned that we are redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus, a lamb without blemish or defect. Now in I Peter 1:20-21, we learn that

v. 20, Christ was chosen;
He was chosen before the creation of the world
He was revealed (what does that mean?)
When was he revealed? “In these last times” (So, when did the last days begin?)
Why was he revealed? “For your sake.”

This amazing Christ did not do this all for his own benefit. The Christ’s life and death were meant for all human beings. V. 21, through this amazing, one-and-only Christ, you

Believe in God
The resurrection is core
God glorified him. What does that mean?
It is in this God that you have faith and hope.

Most of the world’s religions are based on the teachings of each of their founders. You could have Buddhism without the Buddha because Buddhism is a matter of teachings. If Jesus Christ never existed, there would be no Christianity. Christ did teach, but Christianity does not have its foundation just on the teachings of its founder. Christianity would not exist without the birth, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s the unique person of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection that separates Christianity from all other religions.

Christ words are: “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:18) and John 14:19, “Because I live, you [who have faith in me] also will live.”

The main thrust of my message today is:

B. In any time, especially in times of terrorism, your faith and hope must be in God alone

When I speak of God alone, I am referring to the Godhead – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Here the focus is on the unique person of Jesus Christ. The Christian life is lived in the light of who Jesus is. Let’s look at vv. 20-21 today:

1. The unique Christ was foreknown (ESV)

The NIV translates as “he was chosen.” The KJV reads that Jesus “was foreordained.” The ESV, “was foreknown.” What does it mean? It’s a straightforward Greek word[7], but it’s in the perfect tense, meaning that Christ was foreknown in the past with results continuing into the present time.

It means to “foreknow, [to] know beforehand or in advance, [to] choose beforehand.”[8] God foreknew and chose what Jesus Christ was to do in the world “before the creation of the world” (v. 20) – better, “before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ virgin birth, dying on the cross for our sins, rising again for our justification, was not a hastily made decision by God in the first century. Before the creation of the world, the Godhead made this decision of redemption, to be made available for the whole human race.

When God foreknows something it is His guarantee that it will happen. Remember Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2:23, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” This is God’s decree that it will happen.

We need to note that this language of foreknowledge of Christ’s saving plan is written for the benefit of the human race. Here we learn one of the attributes of God. “God is not subject to time,” so “for him there is no ‘before’ and no ‘after’. . . Christ’s sacrifice was seen by God as eternally present. . . before time existed, thus in eternity, timelessly, God foreknew.”[9]

We must get a handle on God’s attribute of eternity – the timelessness of God. There is no before, now and after with him. God lives in the eternal present. This is emphasised by verses such as these:

Ps. 90:2, “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”

In Job 36:26, Elihu says of God, “the number of his years is unsearchable.”

Rev. 1:8: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'”

Jesus’ bold use of the present tense verb in John 8:58, “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!'”

Ex. 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM.” God is the eternal “I AM,” the one who eternally exists.

In the words of Bible teacher, Wayne Grudem, God’s eternity can be defined as: “God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time.”[10]

Do you understand how this applies to us?

1. God knew what would happen to the world before he created it, planned for Jesus to come as our Redeemer before the creation of the world, planned for the Redeemer before Adam and Eve sinned. What about the future?

2. This God whose plan for the world from eternity past goes into eternity future. He is utterly dependable and God’s foreknown plan will happen to this wicked world. It includes his allowing Sept. 11 2001, the tsunami, and the bombings in London. This world is running to God’s foreknown plan. It will come to an end in God’s time.

3. You can trust the Lord of the universe with your future. He’s an utterly just God who does all things well. If God sustained the Asia Minor believers through “fiery trials” (I Pt. 4:12) in the first century, he can sustain you and me if and when violence like London’s comes to Australia.

4. Matt. 24 tells us the sign of Christ’s second coming “and of the end of the age” (24:3) will be: “You will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. . . Many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. . . There will be great distress unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again” (24:9-11, 21, NIV).

It should give us great confidence in God and God alone that he who planned Christ’s coming before the creation of the world, knows exactly what will happen as the signs of the end of time and the end of the world. It is difficult to get our eyes off the violence in London and the havoc that terrorists create (bombs “killed at least 54 people and injured 700”[11]), but at times like this, remember to put your total and complete trust in the eternal God who is always present.

This unique Christ who was foreknown by God,

2. Was revealed (NIV)

Or, to put it another way, he was “made manifest” (ESV, KJV). This happened at an instant in time. It happened when Christ appeared on earth, starting with the virgin birth, his life, his death on the cross, his bodily resurrection, and ascension. This was when the Gospel was announced to the whole world.

Please note: When was Christ manifested or revealed? V. 20 says that it was “in these last times” (NIV). So, when did the “last times” begin? We often think of it as the rapture or Christ’s second coming. However, here it is stated that the “last times” began when Christ came to earth as the God-man. So to speak of the “last times” as the end of the world and Christ’s second coming is not exactly correct. The “last times” began about 2,000 years ago.

What Christ would do was foreknown by God, was revealed in these last times, but for what purpose?

3. “For your sake”

God’s planning for Jesus’ death and resurrection before the creation of the world was not for the benefit of God but “for your sake.” Are you grateful that you are included in the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection? What does that do for your motivation to reach Gin Gin and district with this glorious Gospel?

Now come to v. 21.

C. This unique person, Jesus Christ, is the one to whom you should turn (v. 21)

1.”Through him you believe in God”

Remember Jesus’ words to Philip:

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:8-9).

Jesus came to earth to reveal God in a concrete way. Note here one of the core facts about this unique Jesus.

2. God raised Christ from the dead

In I Peter, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is mentioned three times: 1:3; 1:21; and 3:21. Why is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ so important? Acts 2:24 states, “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”

Jesus said, “Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19).

Paul, the apostle wrote to the Corinthians, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (I Cor. 15:14). A dead Christ is useless for Christianity. If you don’t believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave, 3 days after he died, you can’t be Christian. Your faith is unfaith, i.e. you have a useless faith.

Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no future hope for believers. There is no heaven to gain and no hell to shun. Life after death is guaranteed because of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

In the ancient world, outside of Judaism and Christianity, the people did believe in “life after death in general” but “they did not believe in resurrection.” Resurrection for the Jew and the Christian “was not a disembodied ‘heavenly’ life; . . It was death’s reversal.”[12]

Therefore, it should not be surprising that people down through the years have launched vicious attacks on Christ’s resurrection. This has continued until present times. It has spewed forth from the printing presses around the world at the popular newspaper level, scholarly journals and scholarly books. I want to mention a few examples of destructive comments made against the resurrection of Christ, because the mass media turn to people like these for their profound negativity at Easter every year.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses try to explain away the empty tomb by stating that, “The human body of flesh, which Jesus Christ laid down forever as a ransom sacrifice, was disposed of by God’s power.”[13] They say, “the fleshly body of Jesus Christ was disposed of on earth by Almighty God and not taken to heaven by Jesus.”[14] The founder of the JWs, Charles Taze Russell, claimed that Christ’s body that was hung on the cross “dissolved into gasses” or is “preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love.”[15]

But you don’t have to go to the cults to have Jesus’ resurrection attacked. At Easter time 1999, Rev. David Kidd of the Bundaberg Uniting Church, wrote an article in The Bugle newspaper that was titled, The Resurrection of Jesus.[16] This is what he said: “The resurrection of Jesus.[17] It’s impossible. Even our brain dies after a few minutes of death. It’s just not possible.'”[18]

John Dominic Crossan, who taught biblical studies for 26 years at the Roman Catholic, DePaul University, Chicago (and is now retired)[19], wrote about “the apparition of the risen Jesus.”[20] What’s an apparition? A ghostly appearance, a phantom, “anything that appears, especially something remarkable or phenomenal.”[21] He says that “bodily resurrection has nothing to do with a resuscitated body coming out of its tomb.”[22] “Empty tomb stories, ” he says, “are parables of resurrection, not the Resurrection itself.”[23]

So, what happened to the body of Jesus? In his book, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Crossan wrote: “Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals.”[24]

What does all of this mean? Somehow this phantom Jesus, who did not rise from the dead, is experienced among believers in some powerful way. Come on folks! This is invention out of the mind of John D. Crossan. It’s an heretical version that attempts to shatter the fact that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. What does it do? Empties churches!

We note this especially in the diocese of former Episcopalian (Anglican) bishop, John Shelby Spong. In his book, Resurrection Myth or Reality?[25] he claims that “the angels of the empty tomb, the tomb itself with its massive stone and its female visitors, to say nothing of the entire burial tradition, must all be dismissed as not factual.”[26] So, what are they?

Get this, from a leader in the church: “All of the appearance narratives that purport to be the physical manifestations of the dead body that somehow was enabled to be [revived][27] and to walk out of a tomb are also legends and myths that cannot be literalized.”[28]

The Anglicans of Spong’s diocese voted with their feet while he was bishop of Newark, New Jersey. One report said that

He has presided over one of the most rapid witherings of any diocese in the Episcopal Church [USA]. The most charitable assessment shows that Newark’s parish membership rolls have evaporated by more than 42 percent. Less charitable accounts put the rate at over 50 percent.[29] [He’s now retired.]

What gets me about some of these fellows is that they should be working with those who practise magic (if the subject were not so serious), but instead, they are allowed to devastate the church – from within the church and, as is the case with Spong and the pastor in Bundaberg, are paid by the church to do so. This is a BIG statement about the nature of those denominations that allow this kind of heretical doctrine to come forth from the pulpit, and from a bishop of the church.

A reviewer of one of Spong’s books put it so well: “Rather than build his own home, his own churches, his own infrastructure, his own congregations, Spong would rather kill Christianity, and take over its shell.”[30]

Yet, eminent British New Testament Scholar and Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr. N. T. Wright said:

I simply cannot explain why Christianity began without it [ie without the resurrection of Christ]. . . There were many other messianic or would-be messianic movements around in the first century. Routinely they ended with the violent death of the founder. After that, what happens? The followers either all get killed as well, or, if there are any of them left, they have a choice: They either quit the revolution or they find themselves another messiah. We have examples of people doing both. If Jesus had died and stayed dead, they would either have given up the movement or they would have found another messiah. Something extraordinary happened which convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah.[31]

N. T. Wright has since written these 817 pages to support the resurrection and refute those throughout church history, including current scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, who deny the literal resurrection of Jesus. Wright concluded: “The proposal that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead possesses unrivalled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity.”[32]

The Apostle Paul agreed. In I Cor. 15:14-17 he stated:

If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If you are mad at me for mentioning names of people who teach false doctrine, I am simply following the example of the apostle Paul who, in Galatians 2:11ff, condemned the apostle Peter, and named him. Peter had been eating with the Gentiles, but when certain Jews came from James, Peter drew back and separated from the Gentiles. Paul named Peter as a hypocrite and we have had it in writing for 2000 years.

Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:14, “Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done.” We have had this also on record for 2,000 years.

When people are preaching false doctrine in the church or anywhere, when people are harming the church and God’s people, we need to name them, correct them, and proclaim the accurate biblical message.

Why have I spent this time on what the Bible says about resurrection and those who attack the resurrection? Because this is core Christianity and I urge you to keep it at the centre. I will stand up and defend the bodily resurrection of Jesus wherever it is challenged because it is central to Christianity and life after death.

Please notice in v. 21. . .

3. God “glorified” this Christ

What does that mean? God “glorified” the Christ of the cross and through his resurrection. Literally: “glory was given to him.” On the meaning of “glory”, go back to I Peter 1:11, where it is said of the OT prophets that they were “trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”

In John 17: 1, 4-5, Jesus prayed for himself before his arrest before the crucifixion: “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. . . I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”

Luke 24:26, Jesus to hid disciples asked, “Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”

So the glory that Christ experienced was through his death, resurrection, ascension and going back to the father. What is “glory”? What does it mean that “glory was given to Christ”? Doxa, glory, means “the luminous manifestation of his person”; Christ’s “majesty and power” are dominant. For Christ to be glorified, it means that “something radiates from the one who has it.”[33] We honour and magnify him because of His death, but especially, in this context, because of his bodily resurrection from the dead.

And so . . .

C. Through this unique person, Jesus Christ, you believe in God and it is essential that you place your faith and hope in this God Him alone (v. 21)

You will be tempted to fear terrorism, your “fiery trials”, the state of Australia’s economy, or your family situation. Turn on the Tele, listen to the radio, read the newspapers, go to school, on the job, and wherever you go, you can be sucked in by all of these wonderful offers of the best way to success.

We have just had a week of world history that should convince you that you cannot place your faith and hope in anything in this world. If you do, terrorists will rob you of your faith and hope. Devastation in Australia may cause you to lose your joy.

This book of I Peter was written for those who were going through “fiery trials.” To them, Peter says, in v. 21, “Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.”

If you place your faith and hope in anything other than God Himself, you should be in the deepest despair at times like this. With John Howard saying that there could be sleeping terrorist cells in our own country, you dare not place your faith and hope in anything earthly.

As we learn in the verses that follow, “for ‘all flesh is like grass

and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (I Peter 1:24-25).

D. Conclusion

There was a small town in the [State of] Maine [USA] that was proposed for the site of a great hydro-electric plant. A dam would be build across the river and the town submerged. When the project was announced, the people were given many months to arrange their affairs and [to] relocate.

During those months, a curious thing happened. All improvements ceased. No painting was done. No repairs were made on the buildings, roads, or [footpaths].[34] Day by day the whole town got shabbier and shabbier. A long time before the waters came, the town looked uncared for and abandoned, even though the people had not yet moved away. One citizen explained: “Where there is no faith in the future, there is no power in the present.” That town was cursed with hopelessness because it had not future.[35]

If your faith and hope for the future are based on anything this world has to offer, you are doomed to despair. Terrorists are here to stay. “Fiery trials” may be the lot for you as a believer in this world. Therefore, as Peter has taught us: “Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.”

Therefore, you need to meet regularly with a caring Christian community of believers who reinforce your faith and hope in God alone. Are you that kind of Christian community?

Notes:

[2] D. James Kennedy 1997, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questions about the Christian Faith, Multnomah Books, Sisters, Oregon, p. 105.

[3] Ibid.

[4] These verses read: “004.157, YUSUFALI version: “That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not” (available at: http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/4-157.html; accessed 20 March 2013).

[5] The Qur’an, YUSUFALI version, available from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/index.htm (Accessed 20 March 2013).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Proginosko.

[8] P. Jacobs & H. Krienke, 1975, ‘Foreknowledge, Providence, Predestination’, in Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology , vol. 1, The Paternoster Press, Exeter, p. 693.

[9] R. C. H. Lenski 1966, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 66-67.

[10] Grudem, W. 1994, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, p. 168.

[11] Bundaberg NewsMail 2005, “Charges laid over bombings,” July 16, 2005, p. 18.

[12] Wright, N. T. 2003, The Resurrection of the Son of God, series in Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, pp. 82-83.

[13] Things in Which It is Impossible for God to Lie 1965, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, p. 354, cited in Hank Hanegraaff 2000, Resurrection, Word Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee, p. 10.

[14] Ibid., p. 355, in Hanegraaff, p. 10.

[15] Studies in the Scriptures, Series II 1908, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p. 129, cited in Hanegraaff, p. 10.

[16] Rev. David Kidd, Bundaberg Uniting Church, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” The Bugle (Bundaberg), March 19, 1999, p. 19.

[17].”The Resurrection of Jesus” was the title of the article and the first sentence began with, “It’s impossible. Even our brain diesY,” so I am left to conclude that the article’s title was the introduction to the first sentence.

[18] The original article had closing inverted commas here, but there were no introductory inverted commas.

[19] According to his autobiography he was hired as an ex-priest and associate professor in 1969 and “took early retirement from DePaul in 1995.” He wrote that “institutional integrity . . . kept me at DePaul for twenty-six years” (John Dominic Crossan 2000, A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 95).

[20] John Dominic Crossan 1998, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p.560.

[21] Macquarie Dictionary.

[22] Crossan 1998, p. xxxi.

[23] Crossan, J. D. 2000, A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 166.

[24] Crossan, J. D. 1994, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 160.

[25] John Shelby Spong 1994, Resurrection Myth or Reality?: A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco.

[26] Ibid., p. 235.

[27] He used the word, “Revivified.”

[28] Ibid., my emphasis.

[29] Lasley, D. M. 1999. ‘Rescuing Christianity from Bishop Kevorkian, review of John Shelby Spong’s, Why Christianity Must Change or Die‘, for Anglican Voice, posted June 2 1999. Now available at: http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-June/000415.html (Accessed 20 March 2013).

[30] Ibid., Lasley 1999.

[31] “Peter Jennings Reporting, ABC television (USA), aired on Monday, June 26 2000. This quote is from Christian Research Institute 2000, “Point-by-point Response to ‘Peter Jennings Reporting: The Search for Jesus,’ available from: http://www.equip.org/free/DJ036.pdf [31 May 2005]., p. 51.

[32] N. T. Wright 2003, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, p. 718.

[33] S. Aalen 1976, ‘Glory, Honour’, in Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology , vol. 2, The Paternoster Press, Exeter, pp. 44-48.

[34] The original said, “sidewalks.”

[35] John Maxwell 1984, Your Attitude, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA., p. 120, cited in Robert J. Morgan 2000, Nelson’s Complete Book of Stories, Illustrations, & Quotes, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, p. 449.

6pointMetal

WhyteHouse Designs

I Peter 1:18-19, The Christ of the cross fills empty lives

(Drought, Australia, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

I. Introduction

Maybe it’s the nature of my employment, but I meet a lot of unhappy people. What really makes people happy? What causes so many people to be depressed and thinking of suicide? What causes marriages to bust up? Why do people choose to live in de facto relationships instead of marriage? Why is the rate of children with alleged ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) growing?

According to [neurologist Dr. Fred] Baughman, 500,000 children [in the USA] were diagnosed ADHD in 1985 and between 5 and 7 million were today.

Substantial growth has also been reported in Australia, a country of just [21][2] million people, where it’s estimated that at least 50,000 children are now on drugs prescribed for ADHD.”

”University of Queensland figures show that legal use of dexamphetamine in Australia has risen from 8.3 million tablets prescribed in 1984 to 38.4 million tablets in 2001. Over the same period Ritalin prescriptions rose from 1.5 million tablets to 19.3 million.[3]

Isn’t that alarming?

According to the Australian census in 2001, of people aged 15 years and over, there were 951,500 de facto relationships (in round figures: about a million people living as defactos). This was a rise of 28% from 1996.[4]

It should not be surprising, then, that marriage rates dropped by half between 1976 and 2001.[5] There are approximately 50,000 divorces a year now in Australia. Do you know how many divorces we had in 1901, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics? 398. There were 12,947 in 1971, but the floodgates opened with the Family Law Act of 1975 which took effect in 1976 (when there were 63,230 divorces).[6]

” In Europe alone, an estimated 60 million people suffer from depression.”[7]

Each year in Australia, approximately 2,500 people – roughly seven a day – resort to [the] tragic option [of suicide] in a desperate bid to end their pain and suffering. This is higher than rates in the USA and the United Kingdom . . .

It has been estimated that for every person who completes suicide, there are another 20 to 100 more attempts . . .

For both males and females, there has been a shift in suicide death rates from older to younger age groups. This is shown by an increase in the suicide rate among adolescents and young adults, and a fall in the suicide rate for people aged 55 years and over. The peak age for attempted suicide is now in the early 20s for males and the early 30s for females.”[8]

What’s the solution to this increasing rate of gloominess and unrighteousness? I don’t believe the answer can be found in legalising prostitution, decriminalising illicit drugs, making divorce easier and promoting sexual immorality through defacto relationships, or in prescribing more dexamphetamine when there is no biological cause of ADHD.

This passage from I Peter is dynamic in showing us one of the most profound ways to bring lasting change for rebellious youth, depression (that is other than biological), family breakdown, materialism, suicide and other darkness.

Before I get into the main points from the text, we need to note four terms that are used in the Bible to show how Christ’s death on the cross meets four needs of sinners:[9]

1. First, “we deserve to die as the penalty for sin.” Heb. 9:26 states, “Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” We needed a sacrifice for our sins.

2. Second, “we deserve to bear God’s wrath against sin.” I John 4:10 reads, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (ESV). We needed propitiation (somebody to appease the wrath of God against us sinners).

3. Third, “we are separated from god by our sins.” 2 Cor. 5:18-19, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” We needed reconciliation with God and Christ’s death provided that.

4. Fourth, “we are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of Satan.” 1 John 5:19, “We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.” Through Christ’s death, Heb. 2:15 tells us that Christ died to “deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (ESV).

We needed redemption — to be set free from lifelong slavery to sin. When we turn to I Peter 1:18-21, we discover that

II. Salvation means you are bought back from an empty way of life (vv. 18-19)

How can this be? It’s because we are dealing with the core of the problem and not just external behaviour. What am I saying? Just look at the text in v. 18, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers . . .”

A. Salvation through Christ means you have been ransomed/redeemed

We don’t understand this language much these days because we don’t come from a culture of slavery – for which we should praise the Lord. However, we do understand the “redeemed” language in terms of these kinds of contexts:

· “I redeemed myself when I painted the bedroom walls,” meaning: I made up for the lousy job I did last time. Or:

· “I redeemed myself and I’m now the manager again.” Or,

· “I redeem my mortgage.” I pay it off.

· I sell my watch to Cash Converters (or any pawnshop) and when I have the cash I go and buy it back – I redeem it.

· I don’t have many redeeming features. There’s nothing much good about my characteristics.

But these examples are not the exact concepts of what the Bible means when it speaks about this wonderful redemption we receive at salvation.

1. What is the Meaning of Redemption?

What does the Bible mean when it says that a person has been redeemed or ransomed? In the OT,

· God redeemed his people from the yoke of slavery in Egypt (Ex. 6:6). How did he do this? By sending 10 plagues on Israel’s enemies.

· In the world of the ancients, “slaves obtained freedom with a sum of money paid either by themselves or by someone else.”[10] Or “prisoners of war” could be released by the payment of a ransom.[11]

Redemption has to do with “deliverance from some evil or bondage

by payment of a price or ransom.” In the OT law, “the owner of a dangerous [bull] could be executed if the animal gored someone to death, but he could redeem his life by paying a ransom [see Ex. 21:30].”[12]

This concept is used in Mark’s Gospel to describe the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

The NT word for this costly redemption [from lutroÇ = I set free, redeem, rescue] is found only in 10 places. There’s another word meaning “simply deliverance without a price being paid. The price is Christ’s shed blood (Eph. 1:7; cf. 1 Cor. 16:19f.)”[13]

In the NT, the verb “to redeem” is found only in 3 passages:

· First, in Luke 24:21, “But we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.” This was on the road to Emmaus and the risen Jesus was drawing near to those disciples.

· Second, in Titus 2:13-14, “while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”

· Third, here in I Peter 1:18, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers.”

The Christian response to this gracious provision is to live a life of service to Christ, which means not submitting again to the life of slavery of sin. Gal. 5:1 puts it this way: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”

We must understand that the Bible tells us our real condition as human beings in the world and before God:

Rom. 6:6, could not state it more clearly. Before we submitted to Christ’s rule in our lives, we were “Slaves to sin.” John 8:34, “Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.'”

Rom. 6:23 confirms that the wages we earn from such sin is death.

Titus 3:3, “At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.”

But it gets worse . . .

Eph. 2:5 confirms that all of us, before coming to Christ, were not only enslaved by sin but also we “were dead in transgressions.”

This is the true state of all human beings. This is one of the major problems facing our society. We will not acknowledge the true state of all human beings. This is God’s view of what we are like before him. God’s description of ALL unbelievers is that we are “dead in transgressions/sin” and are “slaves of sin.”

My counselling colleagues could say things like: You have a low self-esteem that needs to be elevated. It’s your co-dependency that is keeping you bound. Or, you need to recover from your alcoholic disease; you need a “higher power,” but you need this special group of us, recovering alcoholics, to help your recovery, but you are always an alcoholic.

This is also one of the defining ways a church can be discerned to be truly biblical in its ministry. When you go to any church, ask them what their views are about the nature of human beings. Do they proclaim that all unbelievers are slaves of sin and are dead in sin? One of the sad notes for me in this seeker-sensitive emphasis in so many churches is that they dumb down the people of God and unbelievers who come to that church on how radically sinful we are before we come to Christ.

How can “slaves of sin” be set free? By being redeemed from sin. Somebody needs to pay the ransom for us.

For a wonderful understanding of redemption and the price that must be paid to win us back from sin, read one of the minor prophets, Hosea.[14] It is based on the marriage of Hosea to Gomer, his wife. His wife was unfaithful to him and the marriage looked like a human disaster.

“But it was a special marriage from God’s viewpoint. God had told Hosea that the marriage would work out in that fashion but he nevertheless told Hosea to go through with it in order to provide an illustration of God’s love. God loved the people whom he had taken to himself [the Israelites] even when they proved unfaithful by committing spiritual adultery with the world and its values. The marriage was to be a pageant. Hosea was to play the part of God. His wife would play the part of unfaithful Israel. She would be unfaithful, but the wilder she got, the more Hosea would love her. That is the way God loves us even when we run away from him and dishonor him.[15]

At the beginning of this small book of the Bible, Hosea described God’s commission:

When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, ‘Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD.’ So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son (Hosea 1:2-3).

The climax of Hosea’s relationship with Gomer was when she fell into slavery (possibly to pay a debt) and “Hosea was told to buy her back as a demonstration of the way in which the faithful God loves and saves his people.”[16]

Gomer was put on the auction block in the capital city. She had been a vivacious woman, and even in her grossly fallen state, she was still beautiful. When the bidding started, the offers were high.

“Twelve pieces of silver,” said one.

“Thirteen,” said Hosea.

“Fourteen.”

“Fifteen”

“The low bidders dropped out. But someone added, ‘Fifteen pieces of silver and a bushel of barley.'”

“Fifteen pieces of silver and a bushel and a half of barley,” said Hosea.[17]

There was no higher bidder and Gomer was “sold to Hosea for fifteen pieces of silver and a bushel and a half of barley. Now Hosea owned his wife.”[18] Hosea had redeemed her – bought her back. This is how Hosea tells it:

The LORD said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”

So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley. Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will live with you” (Hosea 3:1-3).

This is the meaning of redemption – to buy somebody out of slavery (to set a slave free by paying a price).

If we understand Hosea’s story, we understand that we are like the slave sold on the auction block of sin. We were created for intimate fellowship with God and for freedom, but we have disgraced ourselves by unfaithfulness. First, we have flirted with and committed adultery with this sinful world and its values. The world has even bid for our soul, offering sex, money, fame, power and all the other items in which it traffics. But Jesus, our faithful bridegroom and lover, entered the market place to buy us back. He bid his own blood. There is no higher bid than that. And we became his. He clothes us, not in the wretched rages of our old righteousness, but in his new robes of righteousness. . . He has said to us, “you must dwell as mine . . . ; you shall not belong to another. . . ; so will I also be to you. [19]

There are two basic consequences of redemption:

· First, we are free. It sounds like a paradox. We are purchased by Jesus Christ to be set “free from the guilt and tryanny of the law and from sin’s power.”[20] Gal. 5:1 explains it so well: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” We are not set free to be libertines to do whatever we want and even to sin as we want. We are set free to serve God and to do good.

· Second, we are called upon to totally commit our lives to the Christ who set us free. There is no place for lukewarm Christianity. Christ gave Himself so that we give ourselves for him. As James Montgomery Boice put it, “We must be willing, eager and determined to serve him. He died for us because of his great love. That love, an amazing love, ‘demands my soul, my life, my all.'”[21]

There was a young boy who lived in a New England seaport [in the USA] and loved to watch the boats come in from their daily catch. One day he decided to build a little [sailing] boat all of his own. He worked for weeks making sure each detail was just right. Finally the big day arrived. He went down to the wharf and proudly put his boat into the water. As he triumphantly observed his new [sailing] boat, he noticed that the wind had suddenly changed, and the tiny boat was being swept out of sight. The little boy was heartbroken. Every day for a month he went back to see if his boat had been washed up on shore.

Finally, one day in the market he saw his boat in a store window. He excitedly ran into the store and told the proprietress that it was his boat. The woman only responded by saying that the boat would cost him two dollars. After pleading with her to no avail, the boy finally pulled out the money and gave it to the storeowner. As the boy was leaving the store, he said, “Little boat, you are twice mine. You are mine because I made you, and now you are mine because I bought you.”[22]

What was your life like before you surrendered to Christ for salvation? This passage gets straight to the point. It was

B. “The empty way of life” (v. 17 NIV, NET Bible)

Other translations define it:

· “the futile way of life” (NASB, ESV “futile ways”, NRSV, NJB),

· “useless way of life” (CEV),

· “aimless conduct” (NKJV),

· “vain conversation” (KJV)

· “empty folly” (NEB),

· “worthless way of life” (ISV).

That doesn’t sound very positive and it isn’t. Folks, we must never preach the good news unless people understand the bad news. The good news means nothing to people who don’t understand their true position before God. Here it literally says that our former way of life is “vain conduct,” meaning “a lifestyle that is without purpose, unfruitful, useless.”[23] That’s how the Bible describes your life without Christ – empty, worthless, useless, vain, aimless, or futile.

Doesn’t that sound like the world and its problems, personal sins, and the mess our country is in with murder, rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, domestic violence, corruption in government departments, etc.?

Where did it come from? Peter says that it was . . .

C. “Handed down to you from your forefathers” (v. 18)

We are not told whether this way of life came from our parents and

their heritage. We are not told if it refers to:

· Jews who were observing the traditions of their forefathers, or

· Pagan forefathers of the Gentiles,

· Or forefathers of both Jews and Gentiles.[24]

But since this epistle is written to “God’s elect, strangers in the world scattered throughout” Asia Minor (1:1), there is the definite possibility that it refers to all people – Jews & Gentiles.

All of us have received a terrible heritage and we pass that shocking background on to our own children and they to their children. It’s a useless way of life that has been passed on to us and we cannot help but pass it on to others after us.

But we must understand this from God’s perspective: We are sinners from conception. Psalm 51:5 puts it so clearly, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Imagine seeing that proclaimed on the billboards down the highway or on radio, TV and newspaper! This is the BAD news about all of us BEFORE salvation. We are sinners from conception. We are sinners from birth. If it were not for this BAD news, the GOOD news would be meaningless.

It is only sinners who need a Saviour. Those who are good living people but are not sinners have absolutely no need of a Saviour. If you have been a good person all your life, why would you need Christ? It is absolutely essential that we proclaim Christ as the Saviour of sinners, people who are sinful at the core of their being.

We who are “slaves of sin” were created by God himself but we need to be bought out of slavery to sin. How can this be done?

We need to be “set free by payment of ransom.”[25] We cannot be bought back from our “slavery to sin” by paying bucks, like the little boy did at the market to buy back his boat.

It is very interesting to note some of ways of redemption that people are advocating. These are some examples:

· “With the ‘Fall’ [into sin in Gen. 3], Adam & Eve caused Death & Suffering to enter into our world. With the Redemption, Jesus through the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Mediatrix of all Graces; caused Grace to enter the World.”[26]

· Witness Lee of China: “Christ in His redemption has healed us of all sicknesses that we might be brought back to Him and to His headship.”[27]

· “One of the popular word faith teachings is that Jesus took on the nature of Satan and had to be born again. This doctrine is intrinsically linked to the ‘Jesus died spiritually’ heresy which postulates that Jesus’ shed blood was insufficient for the redemption of man; He had to suffer at Satan’s hands in Hell and be born again as the first man to conquer death. [Benny] Hinn also teaches this heresy, [saying]:

“He [Jesus] who is righteous by choice said, ‘The only way I can stop sin is by Me becoming it. I can’t just stop it by letting it touch Me; I and it must become one.’ Hear this! He who is the nature of God became the nature of Satan where He became sin!” (TBN, 1 Dec. 1990).[28] [Please note: Jesus was not righteous by choice. He was completely righteous, sinless by his very nature, he is God.]

· Popular TV preacher, Joyce Meyer, in her book. The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make[29], wrote:

Believe that Jesus did what the Bible says. Believe He is indeed the Son of God, born of a virgin. He took man’s sin Himself. He became our sacrifice and died on the cross. He did not stay dead. During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin. He paid the price there.[30]

The apostle Peter, writing in I Peter, rejects such heresies. He is very clear about what he means. Note v. 18:

D. Salvation through Christ means you cannot be ransomed or redeemed using “perishable things.”

Peter is very specific. In the NT world and even today, silver and

gold were very valuable.

Comparatively speaking [they] are least perishable. First he specifies silver. But silver, when exposed to any sulphur compounds in the air, tarnishes, corrodes, and loses its value. Next Peter cites gold, which is more durable than silver. Even this precious metal is subject to decay. In brief, earthly possessions do not qualify as payment to redeem [people from their slavery to sin].[31]

We must understand that NOTHING that we can do by way of good deeds can ever be good enough before God to redeem us from slavery to sin. NOTHING we do will ever meet God’s standard.

Redemption is entirely the work of God’s grace. How can it happen? Any person dead in sin, in slavery to sin, according to v. 19, can be bought back – redeemed – “with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”

E. Salvation through Christ means you can be ransomed or redeemed “through the precious blood of Christ” (v. 19).

How can this be? To understand why the spilling of blood is necessary for your redemption from slavery to sin, we need to understand the OT context from the Passover history and ceremony. Remember the situation told in Exodus 12:1-11:

The Jewish people were set free from slavery when each family took a lamb without defect, slaughtered it at twilight on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, put the blood on the sides and tops of the doorframes of their homes . . . and ate the Passover.[32]

· “The writers of the New Testament teach that Christ is that Passover lamb. John the Baptist points to Jesus and says, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).”[33]

· Paul stated that our redemption is accomplished because we “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:24-25).

· In the Book of Hebrews, it declares that Christ “did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (NIV).

· In the Book of Revelation, it is recorded that that saints in heaven will sing a new song to Christ, “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9).

This is a wonderful teaching that Christ is our redeemer. We don’t use this language very often. We prefer: He is our Saviour. It is true that Christ has saved us from “power and destruction of sin. Of even greater significance, however, is the truth that [Christ] has purchased us by shedding his precious blood on Calvary’s cross.”[34]

I’m convinced that we need to give far greater emphasis to Christ, Our Redeemer.

I am thinking of Philip Bliss’s wonderful hymn that we should sing with triumph and delight:

I will sing of my Redeemer;

And His wondrous love to me;

On the cruel cross He suffered,

From the curse to set me free.[35]

He’s the one who has:

· Set us free. Paradoxically, “to be purchased by Jesus is to be set free—free from the guilt and tyranny of the law and from sin’s power.”[36]

· It’s “a special kind of freedom.” You are not free to do what you like and sin as much as you like because your salvation is guaranteed, but you are set free to serve.

More of that next time, when we continue this exposition: Salvation means you are free but you must live a Christ-centred life.

III. Conclusion

When Dr. Howard Kelley of Johns Hopkins University [USA] was going on a walk, he got rather thirsty. Seeing an old farmhouse, he went to the door and asked the girl who answered if her parents were home. She said no. He asked if he could have a drink of water. She said she would have to [pump][37] it uphill. She offered to let him come in and have some milk though. He did, and then went on his way. Weeks later he operated on a girl on the operating table and she was this same little girl.

The hospital and doctor’s bills soon came to the family and they had no idea how they could pay them. However, they looked down at the bottom of the bill and read these words: “Paid in full by two glasses of milk.” [38]

Jesus paid the price in full through his own blood, God’s price, to set us free from the power of sin and to live a life wholly committed to Him.

What have you done with Christ’s sacrifice for you?
Have you accepted Christ’s diagnosis of how bad your situation is – you are slaves to sin and dead in sin. You are in a hopeless and helpless situation.
But Christ has paid the price in his death for you to be redeemed from sin.
How will you respond to Christ’s offer to repent of your sin and trust Christ and Christ alone for your redemption? Will you do that today if you don’t know Christ as your Redeemer?

Notes

[2] The original said “19 million” but the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that on 8 July 2007, the resident population of Australia had passed the 21 million mark, available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument [8 July 2007]. According to the Australian census 2001, the population was 18,769249, available from: http://www.crc.nsw.gov.au/statistics/Sect1/Table1p03Aust.pdf [31 May 2005].

[3] ‘ADHD Statistics: ADHD Report.com’, available from: http://www.adhd-report.com/adhd/1_adhd_statistics.html [31 May 2005].

[4] Yearbook Australia, Population 2005: Marriages, divorces and de facto relationships, Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Between 1996 and 2001 the census count of people aged 15 years and over in de facto marriages rose by 28% from 744,100 to 951,500”, available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/992C91E65FB38B66CA256F7200832F7E?Open [31 May 2005].

[5] “In 1976 marriage rates for the unmarried population were 63 per 1,000 unmarried men and 61 per 1,000 unmarried women. In 2001 these rates fell to 31 and 28 respectively ” ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] “Panic/Anxiety Disorders” January 12, 2005, available from: http://panicdisorder.about.com/b/a/138992.htm [31 May 2005].

[8] The Salvation Army 2005, “Suicide Fact Chart,” available from: http://www.salvos.org.au/SALVOS/NEW/me.get?SITE.sectionshow&FFFF358#australia [31 May 2005].

[9] These points are based on Wayne Grudem 1994, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 580.

[10] Simon J. Kistemaker 1987, New Testament Commentary: Peter and Jude, Evangelical Press, Welwyn, Hertfordshire, p. 65.

[11] Derek Williams (ed.) 1989, New Concise Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, pp. 468-469.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., p. 469.

[14] This is summarised content from James Montgomery Boice 1986, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, p. 328 ff.

[15] Ibid., p. 328.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., p. 329.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid., pp. 329-330.

[20] Ibid., p. 330.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Michael P. Green (ed.) 1982, Illustrations for Biblical Preaching, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, No. 1118, pp. 298-299.

[23] Kistemaker, p. 67.

[24] Suggested by ibid., p. 66.

[25] A. T. Robertson 1933, Word Pictures in the New Testament: The General Epistles and The Revelation of John (vol. 6), Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, p. 90.

[26] Catholic Church Apologetics ‘Suffering’, available from: http://www.iamonetruth.com/suffering.htm [4 June 2005].

[27] Witness Lee 1997-2005, The Body of Christ, ch. 1, ‘The issue of dispensing the divine Trinity’, available from: http://www.livingstream.com/witness-lee/0870833952_Cexcerpt.html [4 June 2005]

[28] ‘Benny Hinn Insights’, Apologetics Coordination Team: Deception in the Church’, available from: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/benny.htm [4 June 2005].

[29] Joyce Meyer 1996, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make : A Complete and Thorough Understanding of What it Means to be Born Again, Warner Books Edition, New York, p. 35.

[30] Bob Waldrep 2003, ‘What Joyce Wants, Joyce Gets’, Watchman Fellowship of Alabama, available from: http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artWordFaith.article_2#14 [4 June 2005], emphasis added.

[31] Kistemaker, p. 65.

[32] Kistemaker, p. 66.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] In Kistemaker, p. 66.

[36] Boice, p. 330.

[37] The original read, “Pipe.”

[38] Roy B. Zuck 1997, ‘Redemption’, in The Speaker’s Quote Book, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI., pp. 324-325.

Jesus being God

Jesus as the Messiah & the Second Coming

Jesus’ Death

The New Testament

Atonement from God

What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?

Problems with the Trinity

Why the Need for Apologetics?

Notes:

References:

1. Introduction

2. My presuppositions

3. The Publicity Machine

4. The Jesus Seminar Approach

5. Presuppositions of the Jesus Seminar:[54]

6. Questioning their Assumptions?[72]

7. Who Are the Scholars?

8. What Does the Jesus Seminar Believe?

9. Does Their Bias Make Them Open-minded or Closed-minded?

10. Are the Gospels reliable history or are they mythic?

11. Would you follow a mythical Jesus who engaged in symbolic ways of how God and people should relate? Would you follow a Jesus who said he would rise again in three days, did just that, but then you discovered it was only a mythical way of showing darkness vs. light?

12. What about the resurrection factor? Does it matter?

13. An Approach to Refuting the Jesus Seminar

A. You must become a reader

B. Response to: “You Can’t Trust the Gospels. They’re Unreliable” [87]

Suggested Reading

A. Refuting the Jesus Seminar:

B. Promoting the Jesus Seminar’s Agenda:

Appendix A

Appendix B

Endnotes:

1. Children at risk at nudist beaches

2. Negative effects on local residents

3. Clothing optional beaches are not family-friendly

4. Nude beaches are not good for a tourist reputation

5. Nudists promote breaking the law

6. Nude beaches create problems we do not need

7. Police don’t need the extra work

8. Nudity is for private, not public, expression

9. The Qld. Premier says that nude beaches are not wanted by the public

10. Governments are trying to reduce health hazards, not sponsor them

11. Nudist beaches are world-wide, but that doesn’t make them right or good

12. Discrimination redefined

13. Conclusion

Notes

Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Philippians 4:8).

A. To die once: fact or fiction?

1. Are resurrections from the dead legitimate?

2. What about . . .?

B. Questions about Pastor Eku’s resurrection

C. How do we deal with resurrections/no resurrections in the New Testament & contemporary experience? [8]

1. Beware of making absolutes out of language that has no such intention

2. Diverse circumstances

3. How God’s sovereignty functions

4. How truths and arguments function in Scripture

D. Conclusion

Endnotes:

God writes the final chapter of ALL people’s lives! Where ill you be one minute after your last breath?

A. Introduction

B. This salvation brings a new way of life: purity, truth and love (v. 22)

1. First, this is the “state” of Christians: “You have purified yourselves” (v. 22)

2. By obeying the truth

3. Third, you will “have sincere love for your brothers” (v. 22)

C. Why should we have purity, truth and love in our new way of life?

D. This salvation majors on the PERMANENT and not on the TEMPORAL [v. 24]

1. This is a shocker for us human beings to acknowledge.

E. Conclusion

Notes:

A. Introduction

B. In any time, especially in times of terrorism, your faith and hope must be in God alone

1. The unique Christ was foreknown (ESV)

2. Was revealed (NIV)

3. “For your sake”

C. This unique person, Jesus Christ, is the one to whom you should turn (v. 21)

1.”Through him you believe in God”

2. God raised Christ from the dead

3. God “glorified” this Christ

C. Through this unique person, Jesus Christ, you believe in God and it is essential that you place your faith and hope in this God Him alone (v. 21)

D. Conclusion

Notes: