The Accuracy of Scripture: Part One – The Old Testament
I) Introduction
What makes evaluating the accuracy of the Scriptures so significant is that you’re not merely gauging the accuracy of the content, you’re having to answer the question, “Did God write the Bible?” While you can certify the Word of God as being credible from the standpoint of archeology and the tests you utilize in the verification of works of antiquity, the Bible doesn’t claim to be merely “accurate.” Rather, it asserts its content as having the ability to supernaturally transform lives as a result of being “God breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17). In other words, it’s the origin of the Bible that makes it significant and not only its credibility. How can you be certain that the Bible is the inerrant, Word of God? What prevents a person from either dismissing it as a pointless work of antiquity or an infallible text, but only in the context of theological matters? How can you know that the Bible, as we have it today, is precisely what was dictated by God and its Message is totally correct, complete and without error? It boils down to two different disciplines: Academia and Faith. One is purely empirical, the other requires an acknowledgement of the fact that some things cannot be quantified due to the limitations of the human paradigm. Scientists refer to it as intellectual extrapolation, those who consider themselves religious call it faith. Either way, it is the aligning of the readily accessible facts and following their trajectory beyond that which can be known experientially. From an academic perspective, you look at Scripture from the standpoint of three dynamics:
- Content – is the content accurate? Do the prophecies recorded in Daniel actually describe what happened several hundred years later? Can the claims of Scripture be validated scientifically?
- Construction – how was the Bible compiled and preserved? What was the criteria used to define a particular writing as sacred?
- Consistency – do the copies we have today match up with the early manuscripts?
Let’s start with the Old Testament.
II) The Old Testament
Deuteronomy 18:19-22 says:
I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. (Dt 18:19-22)
Scripture cuts itself absolutely no slack. It’s almost foolhardy in the way it sets its own guidelines when it comes to foretelling the future.
Bottom line: If it doesn’t happen, that prophet is to be put to death.
The book of Daniel contains one of the most detailed prophetic messages that deal with the future of Israel in the context of world events. Specifically, it outlines how the then Persian government would be absorbed into the Grecian Empire which would then be divided into four main kingdoms. While some want to doubt the authenticity of Daniel as being legitimately prophetic, the language of Daniel argues for a date earlier than the second century. There’s no good reason to doubt that Daniel was written around 530 B.C. and the events described in Daniel 11 – specifically the Greek victory over Persia which happened in 449 B.C. and the division of Alexander the Great’s kingdom in 323 B.C.
You can read more about this in the sidebar to the right.
Daniel’s prophecy about Greece is one of many prophecies in the OT. You have prophetic messages being proclaimed pertaining to several cities, specific government officials and even specific military tactics. Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” devotes an entire section to Old Testament prophecy and it is a fascinating read. One prophecy that McDowell references is the prophecy made by Nahum pertaining to the city of Nineveh. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was an impregnable center of military might – the kind of stronghold you would expect to be the capital city of the most powerful empire in the ancient world at that time.
Nahum, in stark contrast, is a single individual belonging to a conquered people. For him to be proclaiming a message that translates to Nineveh’s ruin is ridiculous if not potentially lethal.
To give you an idea as to Nineveh’s size and overall presence, understand that the walls surrounding it were over a 100 feet high and wide enough to accommodate three chariots driving side by side. And this is just the first wall. You had two other walls reinforcing the first separated by a deep ditch. According to excavated remains, the distance from the inside of the inner wall to the inside of the outer wall was 2,007 feet or just under half a mile. Nahum declares that Nineveh would…
- Be destroyed in a state of drunkenness (1:10)
- Would be destroyed in “an overwhelming flood” (1:8; 2:6)
- Would be burned (3:13)
- Would be totally destroyed and become desolate (3:19)
Nineveh was attacked by a force consisting of Babylonians, Medes and Scythians. Here’s the account of the battle for Nineveh in the words of Lenormant and E. Chevallier in their book, “The Rise and Fall of Assyria:”
In 612 B.C. Nabopolassar united the Babylonian army with an army of Medes and Scythians and led a campaign which captured the Assyrian citadels in the North. The Babylonian army laid siege to Nineveh, but the walls of the city were too strong for battering rams, so they decided to try and starve the people out. A famous oracle had been given that “Nineveh should never be taken until the river became its enemy.” After a three month siege, “rain fell in such abundance that the waters of the Tigris inundated part of the city and overturned one of its walls for a distance of twenty stades. Then the King, convinced that the oracle was accomplished and despairing of any means of escape, to avoid falling alive into the enemy’s hands constructed in his palace an immense funeral pyre, placed on it his gold and silver and his royal robes, and then, shutting himself up with his wives and eunuchs in a chamber formed in the midst of the pile, disappeared in the flames. Nineveh opened its gates to the besiegers, but this tardy submission did not save the proud city. It was pillaged and burned, and then razed to the ground so completely as to evidence the implacable hatred enkindled in the minds of subject nations by the fierce and cruel Assyrian government.2
And in an account from “Diodorus of Sicily II,” we read of how the king of Assyria was overly confident in his city’s defenses, despite the presence of an enemy force camped just outside its walls. He began to indulge with his soldiers and in a feast that included a significant amount of food and alcohol. News of this reached the ears of Arbaces, the enemy general through deserts and a night attack was scheduled. Not long after, thanks to the walls that were now vulnerable as a result of the rain, Arbaces was able to take the city of Nineveh.3
It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that the inerrant dynamic of Scripture was questioned.4 Independent thinking evolved into a scenario where the Authority of Scripture was cast off should its content prove to be inconsistent with current scientific trends or even personal preferences. Darwinism took it a step further by providing a scientific sounding platform that gave atheists more reason to dismiss God from their thinking as well as their lives. As has been mentioned earlier, Scripture doesn’t claim to merely accurate. Even in the Psalms, you hear David referring to the “law of the Lord” as perfect (Ps 19:7 [see sidebar]). That includes theological matters as well as scientific. Consider some of what the Bible has to say about the physical world:
ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).
ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.
BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.5
In addition to the archaeological finds that have validated the prophecies made by Daniel and Nahum, you can find several other examples of the historical accuracy represented by the Old Testament.
William F. Albright, known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, states, “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”6
There have been a number of discoveries that not only validated the Old Testament, but corrected the disposition of critics who insisted that the Bible was flawed:
- Isaiah 20:1 was challenged by critics because they knew of no king named Sargon in lists of Assyrian kings. Now Sargon’s palace has been recovered at Khorsabad, including a wall inscription and a library record endorsing the battle against the Philistine city of Ashdod (mentioned in Isaiah 20:1).
- Nebuchadnezzar was a fictional character in the minds of some until his palace and library were uncovered.
- Sanballat was, as the Bible says, the Governor of Samaria (Nehemiah 4 and 6), though it was claimed by many writers that Sanballat was much later than Nehemiah. Several Sanballats are now known, and recovered letters even refer to Johanan (Nehemiah 12:13). Geshem the Arab (Nehemiah 6) is also known. Despite longstanding criticisms, Ezra and Nehemiah are accurate records of an actual historical situation.7
You can read more about the discoveries that have been unearthed that reiterate what is documented at websites like “AnswersInGenesis.com.”
The word, “Canon” literally means “reed.” In the ancient world, the reed was used as a measuring tool and it came to mean “standard.”
There were a great number of writings during Israel’s history, but not all of them were regarded as sacred. It’s interesting to note the centuries of silence that occurred between the timeframe addressed in the book of Malachi and the birth of Christ. In some ways, this highlights the credibility of Scripture in that while you still have authors publishing content, because of it being devoid of Inspiration expressed in the “voice of the prophets,” the Hebrews refused to accept it as Divine.
You see this reflected in the Babylonian Talmud which is a record of discussions between prominent Jewish religious authorities pertaining to all things spiritual (see sidebar). In the context of those conversations, they state that it was during this time that no Divinely Inspired individual had surfaced, thus rendering all documentation that was common during this time to be purely human in origin and substance.
The Babylonian Talmud – By the middle of the Fourth Century, Christian persecution in Eretz Israel caused the remainder of the sages to immigrate to Babylonia. For the first time since the Babylonian Exile nearly 800 years previously, all Torah scholarship was concentrated in one area. Led by Abaye and Rava, this august assembly debated new cases, analyzing decisions and explanations of earlier Amoraim, checking them for inconsistencies, and provided explanatory comments on the Mishnah. These discussions were fixed in a formalized lexicon, and form the bulk of the Babylonian Talmud (Chabad.org, “The Babylonian Talmud”, accessed April 8, 2017, [click here to view link])
Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachai, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel; yet they were still able to avail themselves of the Bath-kol.8
In the Apocrypha itself, written in the “Prayer of Azariah,” chapter 1, verse 15:
And at this time there is no prince, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before thee to find mercy. (Prayer of Azariah 1:15)
A reference to the fact that nothing “prophetic” was being documented, let alone spoken. You see this referenced also in the words of Josephus, a Jewish historian that lived between 37 and 100 AD:
We have not myriads of books, disagreeing and conflicting with one another, but only twenty-two, containing the record of all time, and justly accredited. Of these, five are the books of Moses, containing the laws and the history handed down from the creation of the human race right to his own death. This period falls a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have written down in thirteen books the things that were done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and principles of life for human beings. From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.9
He mentions 22 books. That’s significant. The twenty-two that he’s referring to are the books that both Jews and Christians regard as Canonical (the Jews group the books of the OT differently). The Apocrypha – that section of Scripture you find in Bibles belonging to Roman Catholics – is not considered Inspired. And it’s not just because of the historical and geographical inaccuracies that compromise its substance. Despite the fact that Jesus and the New Testament writers prolifically quote from the canonical Old Testament, never once do they quote from the Apocrypha. In the end, it is a collection of writings that come from a perspective other than the Inspired View and Mindset of a prophet – and that is what defines a particular book in Scripture as Divine. Some doubt the content of Scripture, believing it to be a patchwork of judiciously selected writings that happened to corroborate a message that could be used to manipulate the masses. But when you look at the criteria that was used to identify the books of the Bible, the end result is a very, very short list because of the required prophetic credential as well as the necessary fulfillment of any prophecy that was articulated. The Old Testament is what it is, not because of preferences or subjective rulings, but because of the substance of the content and the proven credibility of the human author.
Up to this point we’ve discussed things pertaining to the OT’s content and construction that provide a compelling collection of facts and information that reinforce the “logic” behind one’s belief that the Bible is everything it claims to be. But what about the notion that while the OId Testament was accurate when it was first documented, it has since been corrupted and edited to the point where it’s doubtful we have an accurate copy of what was originally drafted. That disposition is laid to rest conclusively once you take a look at the precision and the diligence that was used by the Talmudists and the Massoretes when it came to the copying of the Old Testament. After the Fall of Jerusalem, the Jews were especially adamant about preserving the Word of God. It was during this time that the Council of Jamnia was convened where some questions as to the Inspired dynamic of some of the books in the “Writings” category (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther and Song of Songs) were finally settled. There wasn’t that much to discuss, but what makes the Council significant is that many of the conversations were recorded and the Canon of the Old Testament is documented as final and complete at that that time. Beginning shortly thereafter, the Talmudists became responsible for the preservation of the Old Testament. They followed a number of rules in the context of discharging their duties which were nothing short of intensely detailed.
The Talmudists had seventeen precise rules which had to be followed in copying the scriptures; some of which were: A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, cut to a specific length and tied together with string taken from clean animals. The length of each column could not be over 60 lines and the breadth had to be 30 letters. There were precise rules about the ink. Not one word or even accent could be written from memory. Between every consonant there had to be a space the width of a thread. Between each parashah (paragraph?) there had to be the space of 9 consonants. The 5th book of Moses had to terminate precisely at the end of the line. The copyist had to have bathed that day and be wearing his full Jewish attire. If while writing the tetragramaton a king should speak to him, he must not take notice of him.11
From 500-900 A.D. the Massoretes (pronounced “MASS-oh-reets”) took over the copying of the text and standardizing it. It is the text used today. Their attention to detail was no less intense than their Talmudist counterparts.
Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them ; and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text ; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle — not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter — of the Law should pass away or be lost.12
While the passion of the Talmudists and the Massoretes is admirable, it’s not necessarily conclusive as far as proving that what we have today is an accurate copy of the original given the fact that up until 1947, the oldest handwritten copy of the Old Testament was 900 A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, experts and scholars were thrilled to learn that the scrolls had been dated to around 125 B.C.. When the two manuscripts were compared to one another, the consistency was nothing short of noteworthy. This is why the Dead Sea Scroll discovery is so significant – because of the way in which the Old Testament was validated by comparing two manuscripts that were written 1,000 years apart and still matched almost word or word. The discrepancies were differences in spelling and nothing more:
Gleason Archer (noted author and scholar) states that the Isaiah copies of the Qumran community “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.13
Inerrancy is not a new issue. Several of the early church fathers mention the flawlessness of Scripture:
You have searched the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. (Clement of Rome)14
The Scriptures are indeed perfect. (Iraneus)15
The Scriptures have never erred…The Scriptures cannot err. (Martin Luther)16
The statements of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (Tertullian)17
The Scriptures are holy, they are truthful, they are blameless. (Augustine)18
If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning his church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. (Augustine) 19
For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold that opinion. (Anselm of Canterbury) 20
Archeology, Science, Textual Attestation – it’s all there. There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the Old Testament. Still, to accept the Bible as Divine requires more than just what can be gauged by the senses. To embrace something as supernatural, you have to deploy the same kind of intellectual extrapolation that scientists do when confronted with things such as the boundary of the cosmos or the origin of gravity. Some things we are just not capable of quantifying simply because it lies beyond the human capacity to measure or observe. That’s not to say we can’t make intelligent assessments, but there is, in some instances, an empirical certainty that exists beyond the limitations of the human paradigm. The empirical dots that can be connected are those that exist in terms of that which happened in the past. Our perspective is that of a rear view mirror. We can’t stop the car and witness those events in the present and build our convictions on having personally witnessed the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection. It’s in those moments when we have to place our trust in something we cannot see. The Bible calls this faith. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Not because He expects you to disengage your intellect when surmising the evidence that validates His Identity and His Word, but because there are historical realities that cannot be observed today, only accepted as fact based on the evidence those events have left in their wake. In other words, we have to be willing to go forward in our convictions based on what we cannot see. To embrace the Bible as nothing more than a fascinating text is to strip it of the Role it asserts as the Word of God. And it’s not just for the sake of information as much as it’s about the supernatural transformation that occurs when you realize that His Word is His Message to you personally (1 Cor 13:12; Jas 1:23). God, through the Scriptures, requires a response beyond a positive intellectual endorsement. It asks for the kind of obedience that God Himself facilitates through you by His Spirit (Phil 2:13). You become the permanent home for His Holy Spirit by accepting the Message He proclaims in His Word (Rom 10:17) and that ultimately requires faith.
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:17)
Not a blind faith, but faith nonetheless. Faith in Him, what He can do and… …the Integrity, the Substance and the Truth of His Inerrant Word.
1. “Life, Hope and Truth”, “Daniel 11: The Most Detailed Prophecy in the Bible”, https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-11/, accessed April 8, 2017
2. “The Rise and Fall of Assyria”, Lenormant and E. Chevallier, LM Publishers
3. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p299
4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Enlightenment” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/, accessed April 8, 2017
5. AnswersInGenesis, “Scientific Accuracy”, https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/5-scientific-accuracy/, accessed April 8, 2017
6. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p65
7. AnswersInGenesis, “Does Archaeology Support the Bible”, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/, accessed April 8, 2017
8. Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_11.html, accessed April 8, 2017
9. F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Locations 218-223). Kindle Edition.
10. Ibid, Kindle Locations 212-214
11.Calvary Independent Baptist Church, “Is the Old Testament Reliable?”, http://www.idahobaptist.com/apologetics/apo-7.htm, accessed April 8, 2017 [see also “Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p53
12. “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts”, Fredrick George Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, England, 1897, p33
13. 10. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p58
14. “The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations”, Michael W. Holmes, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2007, p104
15. “Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?”, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2007, p140
16. Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p252
17. “The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”, John MacArthur Crossway,
18. Ibid
19. Ibid
20. Ibid
Either God is God or Man is God
Here’s the Problem…
Truth is offensive. It just is. No one likes to be told they’re wrong. It’s a lot easier to believe that you are your own bottom line or pretend that there is no bottom line and believe we can all be our own absolute and just live and let live. But it all comes down to this: Either God is God or man is god.
Every religion save Christianity provides a way in which you merit the favor of your preferred deity. With Islam you’ve got Jihad, as a Buddhist you’ve got Nirvana. Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to be among the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:4 , Hindus pursue Moksha in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth. Mormons believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354) . In each scenario, while you have a supernatural element, you have the ability as a human being to tip the scales in your favor through some kind of action or mindset.
Christianity, on the other hand, says that you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6). That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. You are not in a position where you can facilitate your own salvation.
You are not your own god…
Let’s Pause for a Moment
Everything that is being asserted at this point, as far as the fundamentals of the gospel, are coming from the Bible. Some will attempt to dismiss the Scriptures as being corrupted and it sounds reasonable given the capacity of man to make mistakes or intentionally edit the text in order to promote a self serving agenda.
But in order for the Scriptures to be less than the Word of God, God Himself has to be willing to allow the text to be distorted. In other words, those who would criticize the Bible as being corrupted aren’t merely accusing various individuals throughout history of being either careless or sinister as much as they’re accusing God of being inept and irresponsible.
You can validate the substance of Scripture in the context of textual criticism and archaeology. You can look at the evidence that supports the historical reality of the empty tomb. You’re not limited to that scenario where the only witness that can testify to the accuracy of the Bible is the Bible itself. You can kick the tires from both an academic and practical perspective and conclude that the text of the Bible is more than reliable.
Pause for a moment… This is important.
If you’re going to go as far as embracing the notion that there is a God and He does use the Scriptures to communicate Who He is, than you can’t pick and choose what you want to believe based solely on your philosophical preferences and justify your edits by suggesting that anything you don’t like is the result of the text being corrupted. There are those who will accept the Bible as being a sacred text, but they’ll assert the caveat that there are probably some flaws in the manuscripts so while it’s worthy of being revered, it doesn’t necessarily rate as the “Word of God” due to the mistakes that likely occurred over the centuries.
Do you understand why that’s a nonsensical approach?
You’re saying “Yes” to certain parts of the Canon, but then when you encounter a verse that that makes you feel uncomfortable, suddenly the Canon is a bogus standard and it’s nothing more than a flawed institution that can be subordinated to whatever it is you want to believe.
There’s too many examples of God identifying false prophets and condemning false doctrine for that approach to be valid let alone logical (Is 44:24-26; Ez 13:9; 1 Jn 4:1). God doesn’t allow His Word to be falsified and whatever human mechanisms He uses to document and preserve His Word, it is still a Divine enterprise. Either you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God authored and preserved by God Himself, or… …you subscribe to a religious sounding creed that can’t be embraced with any real certainty because if your text is questionable in certain aspects, there’s no reason to not doubt the text as a whole.
The Bottom Line
It’s no coincidence that a lot of the skepticism pertaining to Scripture is directed towards the miracles of Christ. Thomas Jefferson is a great example:
He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. 1
Jefferson created his own New Testament which consisted of the original text sans anything referencing the miracles of Christ:
Using his clippings, the aging third president created a New Testament of his own—one that most Christians would hardly recognize. This Bible was focused only on Jesus, but none of his mystical works. It didn’t include major scenes like the resurrection or ascension to heaven, or miracles like turning water into wine or walking on water. Instead, Jefferson’s Bible focused on Jesus as a man of morals, a teacher whose truths were expressed without the help of miracles or the supernatural powers of God.2
This is often the targeted intellectual destination of those who doubt the authenticity of Scripture. They’re looking for a way to eliminate any semblance of a deity from the human experience in order to reduce the universe down to something that can be wholly contained within the shallow and fragile box of human reason.
A moral guide? Sure. A Resurrected Savior? No.
And here’s the thing: When we’re talking about the cross and the resurrection, we’re not talking about a minor point of doctrine. We’re talking about about the one credential that Jesus identified as that which validated His Identity (Matt 12:40). Furthermore, it’s what Jesus taught as being the singular event that could serve as the mechanism by which an individual’s sin could be completely forgiven to the point where they were seen as morally perfect in the sight of God (Matt 5:20; 26:28 [see also Is 1:18; 1 Cor 15:3; Titus 3:5; 1 Jn 2:2]).
In addition, Jesus accepted the Law and the Prophets as being absolutely true (Matt 5:17). The prophet Isaiah at one point said,
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (Is 64:6).
It’s our sinful status that makes the New Covenant referenced in Jeremiah 31:31-34) as both necessary and something to celebrate and it’s the New Covenant that Jesus referenced at the Last Supper when He identified His blood as that which was being poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28). Moreover, it’s referenced in the Old Testament beginning in the book of Exodus (the Passover Lamb [Ex 12:21; 1 Cor 5:7]).
Jesus is referred to in the book of Isaiah as the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. Matthew 1:1 identifies Him as both a son of David, who is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant in 2 Sam 7:11-13 as well as a son of Abraham which means that the gospel applies to all nations and not just Israel (Gen 12:2-3). And the common thread throughout all of the Bible is the fact that sin constitutes a toxic barrier between humanity and God that constitutes a debt that has to be paid – it’s not something that can be glossed over. Hence the Old Testament system of sacrifices that was instituted to accomplish a temporary fix (Heb 9:11-14), but it’s the New Covenant that solved the problem of sin in a permanent fashion and, according to Christ, it’s the gospel that serves as the underlying theme for the whole of God’s Word (Lk 24:7).
Do you smell what we’re cooking here?
If you want to strip the Bible of any an all miracles, you inevitably deny that Jesus is the Son of God based on the virgin birth, a sinless life and His Resurrection. And when you deny the Truth of Jesus having risen from the grave, you’re not merely dismissing the corresponding passages in the gospel, you’re gutting the entire Bible of God’s Principal Message. You’re not saying, “No” to what you perceive to be a “troubling” collection of verses, you’re denying the deity of Christ (1 Jn 4:3) and you’re saying, “No” to God Himself.
Frank Peretti is a prolific author and an engaging speaker. He’s the one who I first heard coin the phrase, “Either God is God or man is god.” He makes a great case by saying how it all boils down to those two categories. You can listen to him elaborate on this by clicking here.
Either God is God or Man is God
Either you believe yourself to be loved enough by your King to justify an excruciating sacrifice that redeemed you to the point where you can now face every nuance of the human experience from a position of strength, or…
…you believe yourself to be your own deity.
Your shortcomings are incidental, you’re goodness is sufficient, Christ is a noble personality but certainly not a Redeemer because, since sin is not acknowledged in your personal sanctuary, hell is a cruel invention and the cross is a dark piece of propaganda.
If you want to believe that, don’t make the mistake of failing to appreciate exactly what it is you’re subscribing to. However you may have been wounded by a toxic individual who insisted his words and actions were validated by the Bible, denying the Resurrection of Christ and insisting that you’re good enough to the point where you have no need of a Redeemer is not a departure from “organized religion” nor is it a more enlightened perspective on the teachings of Jesus. Either God is God or man is god. Should you choose to strip Christ of His Resurrected status then you’ve made yourself into your own religion.
The Truth | Part One: Ask the Right Questions
That’s Your Opinion
You can’t expect someone to admit that they’re wrong if they’re unwilling to acknowledge a standard beyond themselves. And because they see themselves as their own absolute, they don’t hear your corrections or criticisms as anything other than a form of oppression. To their way of thinking, you’re not questioning their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong.
You’re not championing what’s true as much as you’re promoting what you prefer. Should you be a politician, you’re not a leader as much as you are a fascist and a dictator.
Regardless of how many facts you’ve compiled or however compelling the evidence may be, when there are no standards and only situations in the mind of the person you’re conversing with, your entire platform can be dismissed simply by them saying, “That’s your opinion.”
Christ Asked Them the Right Questions
When confronted with that kind of approach, you want to use the same tactic that Christ used when He was talking with the Pharisees in the way He asked them questions.
- “Whose image is this…?” (Mk 12:16)
- “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” (Mk 2:9)
- “If I’m telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?” (Jn 8:46)
When you ask a question, in that moment, you control the conversation and you compel an answer that prevents certain assumptions from going unchallenged. At the same time, you’re able to ensure certain realities are acknowledged that might otherwise be intentionally ignored. With the right question, you can reveal the Truth as well as those who are opposed to it because of how the only logical answer forces them to admit that they’re wrong.
What qualifies my belief system as both logical and accurate is the extent to which my thought process is consistent with reality. I demonstrate my perspective’s consistency with reality by producing evidence that proves what I believe is correct. That’s how you distinguish a preference from a principle and that is how you reveal someone who doesn’t want to know what’s true as much as they simply want to be told they’re right.
But you can’t always introduce evidence into a conversation because of the way some will try to categorize even the most compelling proof as subjective and therefore no more significant than an irrelevant observation.
But when you ask the right question…
You’re able to proceed directly to that place where there’s either an answer or an excuse.
Conclusion: A Reality Greater Than Themselves
When Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was inscribed on Roman currency, He was forcing the Pharisees to acknowledge how God commands obedience to the authorities that He Himself has instituted, while simultaneously articulating the greater Truth of how we are to render obedience and surrender our lives to the the One Whose Image we bear. (Jer 29:4-10; Rom 13:1-14; 1 Pet 2:13-17 [see also Acts 5:29]).
That’s the approach you want to use when it comes to defending your convictions about the Reality of the empty tomb, moral absolutes, the spiritual heritage of our country, and even your political convictions.
1 Peter 3:15 says:
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect
Your “answer” needs to include questions that you can ask should you be confronted with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to be confirmed as their own judge and jury. As long as they maintain themselves as the gauge by which the accuracy of all things are measured, the only thing that will allow for the truth to be revealed is a question that cannot be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than themselves.
I Dare You | Part III: Ambition
IV) Ambition
A) Two Words
My Dad loved to debate. Give him a topic that he could sink his teeth to and buckle up because it was like drinking from a fire hydrant – just a barrage of verbiage. That’s what made his response to a question I posed to him so significant and so memorable to me. I asked him, “How do you know Christianity is true?” His answer: “It works.” Two words! And yet, within those two words you have the bottom line that characterizes any truism. Does it work? Does it make sense and does it resonate practically?
B) Yardage Versus Touchdowns
Christianity does work and it makes a substantial difference at every level of the human experience. One area in particular is ambition – the desire to succeed and the fulfillment that comes from accomplishing something significant. Left unchecked by something profound, ambition can consume a person and reduce them to something either pathologically selfish or utterly disillusioned to the point of despair. Money and other apparent indicators of success is a lot like yardage.
On September 13,th, 2009, the Denver Broncos squared off against the Cincinnati Bengals. When it was all said and done, the Bengals had gained a total of 307 yards, the Broncos, 302. Yet, the Broncos won.17 While the Bengals had more in the way of total net yards, it was the Broncos that came out on top. It’s almost exasperating, isn’t it? Sometimes it seems that no matter how hard you work, the prize you’re pursuing seems perpetually out of reach and in those rare moments where you’re able to achieve the thing that you’ve been working towards, by the following day another goal has taken its place.
C) Solomon’s Essay – The Whole Duty of Man
King Solomon was king of the Jews and reigned for approximately 40 years.18 At one point he wrote an essay that elaborated on the plight of human beings as far as what it is that drives them and produces lasting fulfillment. What makes his writing so compelling is that he had the resources necessary to conduct the kind of experiments that he did. By virtue of his immense wealth and intelligence, he could test the empirical power of different stimuli to produce true satisfaction. He reflected on the allure of riches and accomplishment as well as the pursuit of knowledge, pleasure and power. In the end he concludes that the only thing that truly matters is your relationship with God and the sense of significance that you enjoy is directly related to the degree of obedience you render to your Heavenly Father:
To go back to our initial illustration, while yardage is an indicator of sorts, in the end the only thing that really counts is the scoreboard. And the scoreboard, in this instance, is what you’re able to do that endures beyond today and echoes through all eternity. In other words, it’s only your obedience to God that produces the lasting impact and fulfillment we desire. In some ways, this might seem overly philosophical and not especially practical. But Solomon is not alone in his recognition of the mirage that is represented by believing that the acquisition of power and success will satisfy our need for fulfillment.
In June of 2005, Tom Brady was the quarterback for the New England Patriots. He was 27 at the time and had recently won his third Superbowl. Those victories combined with his other accomplishments represented what most would define as a legitimate reason to feel like they had arrived and were now basking in the light of a fulfilling and problem-free existence.
But that wasn’t the case.
At one point, Tom said: “Why do I have three Super Bowl rings, and still think there’s something greater out there for me? I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, ‘Hey man, this is what is.’ I reached my goal, my dream, my life. Me, I think: God, it’s gotta be more than this. I mean this can’t be what it’s all cracked up to be. I mean I’ve done it. I’m 27. And what else is there for me?”19
Compare that to some of the observations Solomon made:
It’s appropriate at this point to underscore the fact that Solomon wasn’t some dark and depressed personality who was incapable of enjoying anything. At one point he says:
Solomon is maintaining a sound perspective throughout all his experiments and observations. He’s not melancholy, he’s simply observing the hollowness of the human experience regardless of how embellished it may be with those things that supposedly provide a sense of worth and satisfaction, In a similar way, Tom Brady is not clinically depressed when he takes a step back and observes the way in which material things and human accomplishments – regardless of their substance and significance – fail in providing true and enduring satisfaction. The fact of the matter is the goal posts never stop moving. There is never a place where another level of accomplishment isn’t apparent. And in the same way, there’s no earthly prize that cannot either be taken away or stripped of its luster with the passage of time. Regardless of how you attempt to evaluate it, the very nature of our world is transient and it is therefore foolish to define ourselves according to a paradigm that is neither durable nor stable. To use Solomon’s phrase, it is “meaningless.”
D) All Your Might
Still, this is not our cue to refrain from being excellent at what we do or less than aggressive in the marketplace. In the same Divinely inspired text authored by Solomon he says:
In a similar vein, Colossians 3:17 says:
Cloaking a bad work ethic or veiling laziness by holding up a Bible and insisting that your being a slacker is justified in that you’re refraining from being materialistic is a distortion of Scripture. You are commanded to work hard and strive for excellence in whatever you set your mind to do. But you don’t do so in a way where your activity defines who you are. It’s there where your identity and your overall perspective is dictated by your status in the marketplace that you consign yourself to a life of yardage rather than touchdowns.
E) The Validation of Obedience
So here is yet another reason to recognize the Bible as being the Word of God and to accept it as True from cover to cover. The life that is characterized by a relentless pursuit of that which God would do through your obedience to Him produces a sense of purpose and fulfillment that is enduring. It’s not just “noble,” it’s the most reasonable approach that one can take in light of the alternative being an existence founded on temporary plateaus and insatiable appetites.
F) Spiritual Commodities
Another way to look at it is to consider that everything we pine for is a spiritual commodity. While we desire wealth, it’s not the mere accumulation of money, it’s the sense of peace that financial security provides. We want a particular thing because of the joy it produces when we have it in our possession. We seek to be accepted and loved by those we admire. It’s not just a physical exchange, it’s an emotional craving. At every turn, the “thing” we want is something intangible and therefore a spiritual article. Now look at Galatians 5:22-23:
The “fruit” of the Spirit is the result of the Spirit’s activity within you. If you go down the list of the qualities that are produced as a result of Christ living in and through you, you recognize them as the very things that we as human beings desire to have and experience. Yet, if we attempt to realize those things through any means other than that which is founded upon one’s relationship with Christ, the end result is less than fulfilling. If you want peace and you determine that its finances that will deliver that sense of well being you’re looking for, go back to Tom Brady’s interview and revisit his sense of disillusion when contemplating his achievements and resources. If you want something more authoritative, consider Solomon’s comments in Ecclesiastes 5:10:
If its joy you want and you’re determined that what you seek is best experienced in the context of the amusements and pleasures that lie before you, you’re obligated to an existence that is forever frustrated by the fact that you continually need more in order to enjoy the same level of fulfillment. There’s always a bigger flat screen to possess, a bigger boat, a faster car – there’s no one thrill that produces an enduring sense of satisfaction. While we as human beings crave love, many will seek to satisfy that longing by defaulting to the self- absorbed facsimile of love otherwise known as lust. The difference being that love is all about giving and lust is all about getting. If your approach to romance and intimacy is based on a self serving premise, the level of fulfillment you’re destined to experience is extremely limited compared to the alternative where you’re consistently focused on the gratification of your sweetheart. And it’s not just about sex and marriage. In Acts 20:35, it says:
With that as a backdrop, look at what Mental Health America’s “Live Your Life Well” website says about people who are focused on the well being of others rather than themselves:
While there is a tendency to regulate Biblical admonishments to serve others as being noble but not always practical, the truth is it’s not only practical, it’s very healthy. So by approaching relationships using the Truth of Scripture as your guide, you’re not only experiencing the kind of enduring love you need, but you’re also healthier than what is yielded by a more secular approach.
G) Who He Is Not What He Gives
We are driven to quench our thirst for substance and significance. We long for success in our endeavors, but if we want to secure points and not just “yardage,” we need to focus on that which goes beyond the transient environment we exist in and instead concentrate on the eternal domain that we truly live in. And when we determine to qualify our ambitions according to God’s Power and Direction working through us, we don’t do so for a particular result, as much as we surrender to Christ simply to gain Him. The blessings He provides are secondary to the Lord and Savior that He is. It’s not the trappings of life that we’re going for, it’s the definition of life – the Life that is only available in and through Him.
This can be a tough pill to swallow and it’s one of the reasons that so many opt for either a diluted form of Christianity or a perspective intentionally devoid of a Christian perspective altogether. But it’s only hard if you overlook the foundational realities of the world we live in. While the Fruit of the Spirit is appealing and it makes sense to perceive it as the core of what we all as human beings desire, it is realized only through denying yourself as opposed to gratifying yourself.
This lands in a good place.
Go with me, here…
1) The Inner Man
Luke 9:23 says:
Some will interpret this passage to be a call to asceticism or an extreme form of self-denial. But here’s the thing: It’s not what you give or what you possess that defines you, your identity is defined according to what is in your heart. Look at Proverbs 4:23:
…and also Luke 6:45:
The heart, according to Scripture, is who you truly are and it’s the heart that is reviewed by God as He considers your thoughts, your words and your actions. While we as human beings might be overly impressed with what can be seen on the outside, God is able to see deeper and clearer by being able to peer into the inner man.
The heart is where we experience the tension that occurs when our desires are not being addressed the way we want them to be (see Ecc 2:20). It’s here where it’s determined how we will quench our thirst for fulfillment and significance (see Lk 12:34). And it’s here that God needs to be positioned as the Supreme Manager over the entire process because it’s when He’s in charge that you’re able to get beyond the kiddie rides and experience the big roller coasters. You’re now into what is truly substantial as opposed to what is ultimately revealed as trivial. You’re scoring points rather than accumulating yardage! You can see this Ephesians 3:16-21.
Take a look:
H) The Fullness of God
You don’t want to gloss over this verse as nothing more than a collection of “churchy” sounding clichés that don’t resonate with any meaning in the secular marketplace. Throughout the entire book of Ephesians, Paul uses a phrase: “for this reason.” It’s a continual progression of Truths that crescendo into a logical conclusion that is downright motivating. In chapter three, we’re a little more than half way through His treatise. But even within the above five verses we have a motivating picture of what can result when Christ is given control over our inner man. Picking up with verse 17, if Christ is occupying a position of Absolute Leadership in your heart as a result of your having accepted Him as your Lord and Savior, you’re now able to “get” just how freakishly amazing His Love is. And it’s a result of catching a glimpse of that Love that you’re filled with the fullness of God. It’s that “fullness” that translates into the Fruits of the Spirit.
The things that you and I want are all bound up in what we have access to when we’re overwhelmed by the fullness of God. The “fullness of God” is simply a term referring to the fact that you’re firing on all cylinders. All that God would offer, all that God would do in and through you, all that you would do, feel and experience as a result of God’s Presence dominating your existence – that is the fullness of God and friend, that’s what you and I want even when we think we want something else. Remember, the “thing” we want is ultimately a spiritual commodity. The only True Source for love, joy, peace etc. is the Author of those things. If you’ve caught a glimpse of God’s Love for you, then:
- you’re perpetually amazed at what He’s done on your behalf (1 Jn 3:1)
- your disposition tends to be continually enthusiastic because you’re aware of His Power and Purpose animating your actions and future (Psalm 139:16; Phil 3:14; Col 1:29)
- you’re able to process both the triumphs and the trials that come your way from a position of strength (Ps 18:32, 40, 43-49; Phil 4:12-13; Col 1:10-11)
In short, you know who you are because you’re convinced of Whose you are. And with that as a foundation, your sense of self is no longer inextricably linked to your accomplishments as much as it is based on the Author of those accomplishments Who’s working in and through you (see Phil 2:13). You’re no longer gauging your worth according to the substance of your resume, nor are you dependent on the transient trophies offered by the marketplace for the sense of fulfillment that we all seek. Instead you commit to the Lord whatever it is you’re working towards and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from obedience rather than clinging to the temporary validation of a successful enterprise.
Moreover, your gaze is constantly fixed on what’s next. Not because you’re dissatisfied with your current status, but because you’re constantly being beckoned forward by your Heavenly Father. Take a look at the way Paul describes it:
So here’s the bottom line: Rather than settling for a sense of ambition that produces nothing more than an insatiable desire for more, the Biblical approach is to instead recognize that what you want is ultimately a spiritual commodity that is experienced only by engaging the Author of those commodities in the context of obedience.
To remain perpetually overwhelmed by Who He is and to base your definition of success on the degree to which you do as He directs results in an energized disposition, an enthusiastic outlook and a confident regard for who you are and where you’re headed because your eyes are fixed on a prize that doesn’t deteriorate and never fails to satisfy. That’s the kind of ambition that transforms the daily grind into something inspiring, that’s a life worth living and that’s one more reason to embrace the Gospel as the Absolute Truth because “it works.”
Conclusion
It was a Sunday during the summer of 1981. I was at Parris Island benefiting from all the great training provided by the Drill Instructors. As was the case with every Sunday, you were given the opportunity to attend church but I had chosen to remain behind this time simply because there was so many things that needed to get done. No sooner had the group departed that I felt bad about not having gone and I made my regrets known by saying so out loud. A fellow recruit heard me and responded by saying that my remorse was based on having been “brainwashed” into thinking that church was important and I was clinging to a pointless tradition rather than a Truth that merited any real consideration.
I don’t recall my response being especially articulate, but I do remember reflecting on his accusation and deciding that he was as wrong as he could be because I had considered the substance of the Gospel Message and had determined that it was authentic. I was not brainwashed. I had measured the claims of Christ and found them to be credible. This was more than just a collection of colorful illustrations depicting charming little stories. God is real, His Son did live, die and come back to life and my existence is infused with a sense of purpose that goes beyond a holiday tradition or a weekend routine.
And as certain as I was back then, I’m even more convinced now. The ever increasing volume of evidence, logic and utility that validates and characterizes the Christian paradigm is as accessible as it is obvious and as my awareness of these things grows, so does my passion for alerting skeptics to things they may have overlooked as they consider Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, the King of kings and the Savior of all mankind. He is.
It works and I dare you not to believe!
1. Lee Strobel, The Case for Creation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 131.
2. “Creation came ‘from nothing,’ not God: Stephen Hawking”, USA Today, September 2, 2010, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
3. Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?” Discover November 2002. Also see Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe
4. Bill Bryson, A Short History Of Nearly Everything, 16.
5. Lee Strobel, The Case for Creation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 145
6. Ibid, p219
7. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc, 1972, 1979), 181 (H.P. Liddon was an English Theologian that lived between 1829 and 1890 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddon])
8. Ibid p185
9. Ibid, p 82
10. Ibid, p 187
11. Tertullian, The Apology, accessed February 13, 2013
12. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 185.
13. “Charles Colson”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson, accessed February 15, 2013
14. “Chuck Colson on the Resurrection”, Baylyblog, http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/04/chuck- colson-resurrection, accessed February 15, 2013 [From a speech delivered by Chuck Colson at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention 2/84 and reported in Religious Broadcasting 3/84.]
15. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 259
16. Billy Graham, Storm Warning, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2011), 253.
17. “Game Center”, http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009091303/2009/REG1/broncos@bengals/recap#tab:analyze,accessed June 4, 2010
18. “Solomon”, About.com, http://judaism.about.com/library/2_history/leaders/bldef-p_solomon.htm, accessed March 1, 2013
19. “Transcript: Tom Brady, Part 3”, 60 Minutes, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-1015331.html, accessed March 2, 2013
20. “Help Others”, Live Your Life Well from Mental Health America”,http://www.liveyourlifewell.org/go/live-your-life-well/others, accessed March 9, 2013
I Dare You | Part Two: The Resurrection
III) The Resurrection
In John 14, Jesus is briefing His disciples, preparing them for the task of taking the baton of the gospel to the masses. He’s getting ready to be crucified and after His Resurrection, He’ll be headed home and it will be up to His disciples to ensure that His Message continues to be proclaimed.
In verse 6, Jesus states that no one can come to the Father except through Him. For those who’ve been brought up in Sunday School, this is familiar territory. But for the disciples, these are still uncharted waters and you can see that in Philip’s response to Jesus when he says, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Philip articulates what we all want to see and know. While creation very eloquently proves the reality of a god, it doesn’t provide a definitive picture of the face of God. We want to know God. We want to hear His Voice, we want to experience His Company, we want to feel His Power. But in order for that to happen, we have to have an address. Jesus was an impressive figure. He didn’t teach as a mere educator. Rather, He spoke as the One Who actually wrote the textbook He taught out of (Mk 1:22 [see also 2 Tim 3:16-17]). Throughout His ministry, He was constantly underlining Himself as God Incarnate. He was here to give God a specific address in history so that people could better understand the Nature and the Message of God.
As logical as that all sounds as far as a Divine strategy is concerned, it’s still a stretch for anyone to embrace the idea that the Person you’re sitting next to is the Creator of the Universe and the Redeemer of your soul. Philip had been with Christ since the beginning of His earthly ministry. We find him first in John 1 and at the time, he’s so confident that he has found the Messiah, he says as much to Nathanael in verse 45. His confidence was probably bolstered in John 6 when Jesus asks him for his thoughts on how they should go about feeding a crowd that included 5,000 men plus whatever women and children were in the mix.
Philip had to be inspired as he watched Jesus use two fish and five barley loaves to feed a group that Philip himself had said would require eight months wages to facilitate. Philip is the one who some Greeks approached in John 12:20 with a request to interview Jesus which shows that Philip was recognized as one of Christ’s cadre even to those who are on the outside looking in. Perhaps that’s why Jesus expressed a little surprise at Philip’s request in John 14:8 when he asked Jesus to show them the Father.
No doubt, Philip was thinking of something along the lines of God’s appearance on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:16-19 [see Ex 20:18-21] or Exodus 33:22 when God manifested Himself in the context of something obvious and dramatic. By this point, Jesus had performed in a way that qualified as obvious and dramatic. Making the blind see, healing those who had been paralyzed and bringing Lazarus back to life were all significant indicators that Jesus was more than just a charismatic educator. But miracles lose their luster after a while. It didn’t take the Hebrews long for them to completely forget and / or rationalize away the obvious Reality of God even after they had been led through the Red Sea. Exodus 15 has Miriam celebrating the demise of the Egyptians. Three months later they’re at the foot of Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:1. By this time, the miracle celebrated in Miriam’s song isn’t the only extraordinary thing that has occurred. The crossing of the Red Sea (Ex 14:21-22), the destruction of the world’s most formidable military force (Ex 14:27-28), a miraculous provision of water, meat and bread (Ex 15:25; 16:13-36; 17:5-7) and a successful stand against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-13) – all of these things now are etched into the minds of the Israelites as Moses heads up to the top of the mountain and stays there for 40 days and nights. But at some point while he’s gone, the Israelites decide that the God Who has been leading them isn’t God at all. Rather, their god is this cow made out of gold they decided to whip up using the jewelry they were wearing at the time (Ex 32:1-4).
Miracles are conclusive, but only for a season. At least that’s the way human nature affects their significance over time. Still, Jesus responds to Philip’s request by reminding him of the miracles that He had performed up to that point. Not only were they obvious indicators that a supernatural Someone was present, but those same miracles were fulfillments of specific prophecies that had been articulate centuries beforehand because that was all a part of the prophecy that pertained to Christ which He had fulfilled to the letter (Is 9:6; 29:18-21; 35:5-6; 61:1).
B) One Particular Miracle
There was one miracle in particular, however, that Jesus had highlighted as being especially compelling and that was the miracle of His Resurrection which He spoke of in Matthew 12:39-40. He’ll refer to it again as He responds to Philip and the rest of the disciples now in the context of what is documented in John 14-17.
The Resurrection is huge! H.P. Liddon says: “Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.”7
The Resurrection is what Jesus would have on His business card if He carried one at all because He is the only religious figure in human history to not only claim that He was God, but proved it by voluntarily dying and coming back to life. That was the one miracle He put on the table when He was pressed for some kind of definitive sign. You see that in Matthew 12:39-40 and Paul reiterates it in Romans 1:4.
So, in a way, this all becomes very easy in that Jesus’ claims are very unique when compared to every other religious system. He does not claim to be a messenger, rather He claims to be God (John 8:58; 10:30), and then He proves it by His Resurrection. So if His Resurrection is an event that can be validated, then the platform of the cynic has just become very unstable.
C) He Really Did Die
But how do you prove it? There’s no film to refer to, all of the eyewitnesses are long gone so what’s left as far as a credible source of information? And let’s take this a step further. Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the Bible is not admissible as evidence, apart from those things that can be regarded as historical events. The approach that we take then is the same approach that is taken in academic circles when seeking to establish the historicity of a particular event or person. You assemble all those things that mention that person or event and then draw your conclusions based on the substance of their testimony.
First of all, the fact that Jesus died and that His body was never recovered is not a matter of conjecture or speculation. The resurrection of Christ is an event in history where in God acted in a definite time-space dimension. Concerning this, Wilbur Smith says, “The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence.8
Jesus did exist and He did die and His body was never definitively accounted for after He was laid to rest. That much can be determined from the wealth of literature, art and even the presence of the Christian church as an institution in that it is based on the historical as well as the theological reality of Christ. What happened to Christ’s body is the question. Critics have either been looking for a corpse or insisted that one did exist for over two thousand years. But they make that assertion in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence that cannot be overlooked without the risk of being less than objective in your analysis.
D) Josephus on the Resurrection
Josephus was a Jewish historian that lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He was employed by the Romans and he mentions this about Jesus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”:
In many ways, this one quote is a slam dunk. Here’s a man who had access to people who were contemporaries of Christ. He was born only seven year after Jesus died and the fact that he mentions Jesus’ resurrection in what would be considered a secular text is equivalent to Christ’s Resurrection being reported in the news. Some have very vehemently attempted to discount this quote as something that Josephus could not have written. However, this same passage written by Josephus was quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century and is included in the most recent Loeb edition of his works.10
It is credible.
E) Tertullian’s Apology
Another example of a secular text that references Jesus’ resurrection would be Tertullian’s Apology. Tertullian lived from 160 – 220 AD. He was born in Carthage, Africa when it was a Roman province. By this point, Rome had become violently opposed to Christianity thanks to Nero who blamed the great fire that decimated most of Rome on the Christians in 64 AD. Subsequent Caesars followed suit and while much of the more heinous persecutions had faded by the time Tertullian was championing the Christian faith, local proconsuls still made it very hazardous to claim Christ as Savior. It was in this cultural climate the Tertullian wrote his Apology. It was a letter written to the Roman government basically challenging them to consider the logic of their predisposition against Christianity. He crafts a very compelling defense and at one point when he is describing the Christian faith, he says:
But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at the time Roman governor of Syria, and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified…At his own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it was an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world- portent still in your archives. Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulcher, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dad on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulcher was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror; without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both the spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, give it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked by delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the word, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven, – a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus.11
Again, this is not “biblical.” This isn’t a Bible study. Rather, this is a concerned citizen appealing to the Roman decision makers on the basis of logic. In his explanation of the Christian faith, He refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection as things that happened as opposed to things that are merely believed to have happened. The fact that he punctuates his account of Christ by referencing the eclipse that happened when Jesus was killed highlights how some of these things can be verified by referring to their own records. He is not laboring to convince his audience based on mere conjecture. Rather, he’s providing an account of what happened and how those events provided the basis of the doctrine that Christians subscribe to.
F) Ignatius’ Last Words
Another example that demonstrates the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection that comes from a secular source would be the account of Ignatius who lived from 50-115 A.D. He was the Bishop of Antioch, a native of Syria and a pupil of the apostle John. Enroute to a martyr’s death, he wrote his “Epistles,” and this is what he said of Christ:
G) The Martyrs Speak
Martyrdom is a significant piece of evidence at this point in the discussion because there have been many people who have voluntarily died because they refused to recant their belief that Christ rose from the grave. While many religions have been harassed and persecuted, what makes the Christian dynamic so extraordinary and thus so credible is that the initial disciples were eyewitnesses to Christ having risen.
This would be the thing that would embolden them to spend the rest of their lives not only promoting and publishing the Gospel Message, but to die a martyr’s death because they refused to deny the centerpiece of their creed, that being that Jesus – God Incarnate – had arose.
Again, there have been many people throughout history who have voluntarily given their lives for something they believed to be true, but very few, if any, have forfeited their lives for something they knew to be false. Chuck Colson’s testimony and his experience during the Watergate trial demonstrates this dynamic. First of all, for those who are not familiar with Watergate, President Nixon was forced to resign his Presidency in 1974 due to what was revealed as a criminal act perpetrated by members of his team illegally breaking into the Democrat campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel. Chuck Colson was Special Counsel to the President and he was the first member of Nixon’s cabinet to serve time in prison for actions related to the Watergate scandal. He later became a Christian and went on to accomplish some extraordinary things in the context of his “Prison Fellowship” ministry.13 His steadfast confidence in the reality of Christ’s resurrection was based in part on the reaction of His disciples in the aftermath of His being arrested. In a speech delivered to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in 1984, he said:
Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell, myself and the rest believed passionately in the President. We had at our fingertips every imaginable power and privilege. I could phone an aide’s office and have a jet waiting at Andrews Air Force Base, order Cabinet members of generals around, change the budget.
Yet even at the prospect of jeopardizing the President, even in the face of all the privileges of the most powerful office in the world, the threat of embarrassment, perhaps jail, was so overpowering and the instinct for self-preservation so overwhelming, that one by one, those involved deserted their leader to save their own skin.
What has that got to do with the resurrection? Simply this: Watergate demonstrates human nature. No one can ever make me believe that 11 ordinary human beings would for 40 years endure persecution, beatings, prison, and death, without ever once renouncing that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead.
Only an encounter with the living God could have kept those men steadfast. Otherwise, the apostle Peter would have been just like John Dean, running to the prosecutors to save his own skin. He had already done it three times.
No, the evidence is overwhelming. Those men held to that testimony because they had seen Christ raised from the dead. And if indeed He was resurrected, that affirms His deity. As God, He cannot be mistaken in what He teaches and cannot lie. An infallible God cannot err. A holy God cannot deceive.14
Human nature prohibits men from willingly sacrificing their lives for something they know not to be true. And yet, history is full of men and women who have sacrificed their well being and even their lives for the cause of Christ. Why? Because they knew Jesus rose from the grave. Beginning with the disciples who were eyewitnesses and continuing with the martyrs who based their certainty on the evidence that history and nature provides, believers have stood by their convictions even to the point of death. And it’s because of that certainty that the church has endured and it’s the fact that it has endured – despite the death sentence that has so often been associated with being a believer – that provides significant substance to the claim that “He has risen, He has risen indeed!”
H) Nothing Else Matters
Simon Greenleaf, famous Harvard professor of law, says:
All that Christianity ask of men…is, that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were being given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to rigorous cross- examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth.15
Jesus really did live, He really did die and He really did come back to life. By doing so He proved His claim to Divinity and the moment that a person recognizes this fact as a historical truism, it changes everything.
The great Methodist preacher, author and missionary of the past generation, Dr. E. Stanley Jones, described how he was once addressing an Indian University on the verities of eternity. When he sat down the thoughtful Hindu president stood up and sonorously solemnized, “If what this man says is not true, then it doesn’t matter. But if what he says is true, than nothing else matters.”16
Jesus really did live and He really did die and He really did come back to life. Compared to Christ’s Resurrection and the claims to Deity that were validated as a result, nothing else matters.
I Dare You | Part One: Creation
I) Intro
As a Youth Pastor, I was always challenging my students to be able to articulate what they believe and why. It’s important to be able to clearly state what it is that shapes your perspective and determines your values, especially for a Christian. Otherwise, much of what a relationship with Christ brings to the table is never accessed due to an overly casual approach characterized by Biblical illiteracy and a secular mindset.
For me, I’ve got a collection of facts and truths that, taken together, form the basis of what compels me to embrace the cross and the efficacy of Scripture. And the more I study and the more I learn, the more compelling the substance of those Truths become. Recently, it’s gotten to the point where some things that I’ve learned about creation inspired me to put some additional thoughts down on paper. The result was a “dare,” more or less, extended to those who either discount Christianity as an ornamental inconvenience or a system of myths that have somehow endured over the last 2,000 years.
It’s broken down into three sections: Creation, the Resurrection and Ambition. Each segment brings to the surface a body of empirical evidence that makes it very hard to maintain the posture of a cynic. In short, I dare you to not believe…
II) Creation
Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” While some want to view creation as a cosmic accident that just happened to land in a good place, science and mathematics testify to something very intentional. In his book, “The Case For Creation,” Lee Strobel interviews Dr. Robin Collins, who has degrees in both mathematics and physics from Washington State University as well as a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas in Austin. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University, he has spent the last decade doing research, writing, and teaching at Messiah College where he is currently serving as an associate professor of philosophy. At one point in the interview, he says:
Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.1
An aggressive invitation to consider the practical Truth of Scripture The bottom line is that while some will theorize how life was initiated apart from an Intelligent Designer, they do so in a way that requires a certain precision to be in place that cannot be explained. While there are several examples of the “precision” that needs to be in place in order for life to exist, the cosmological constant is especially compelling.
A) Cosmological Constant
The cosmological constant is a mathematical value assigned to what astronomers call “dark energy.” When you look at the universe, you see things moving in a way that doesn’t make sense in that they’re things are being pushed and pulled around despite the fact that there is nothing around them. In other words, when you see a moon orbiting a planet, that makes sense because the planet has a gravitational pull that maintains that moon’s trajectory. But there are objects in space that are moving as though they’re being influenced by a gravitational force, yet there’s nothing visible to provide that force. Hence the term “dark energy” was coined to describe the obvious force being exerted upon these objects by seemingly invisible entities.
Fact is, this dark energy accounts for over 70% of our universe. And what makes that significant is that if this dark energy was characterized by a gravitational dynamic that was pulling everything in, then the universe would ultimately collapse on itself and life in general would cease to exist. If, on the other hand, this dark energy wielded a gravitational force that was too weak to temper the way in which our universe is expanding, then our solar system would unravel as would the entire cosmos.
This, then, is the cosmological constant: The value assigned to this force that continues to allow the universe to expand and therefore not collapse on itself, yet not spin out of control. Initially, astronomers believed that the cosmological constant was very large. After all, you’re going to need a big broom to move planets around.
But that is not the case.
The cosmological constant is actually very small.
How small?
One part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten followed by fifty three zeroes. Contemplate the precision of that number. And if you move the dial or change the settings in even the most incremental way, the end result is something that no longer sustains life because of the way the universe would either collapse or unravel.
B) These Are Not Random Processes
I’ve read several arguments proposed by people who want to eliminate the need for a Designer. They’ll argue that there are natural processes in place that allow for evolution. The problem with their argument is that they don’t attempt to explain the origin of those processes. They simply point to the way in which things could conceivably flow, without explaining how that flow was initiated.
Dr. Ian Musgrave is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He has a website called talkorigins.org and his arguments are obviously very well thought out and substantially reinforced with his academic credentials. In his article “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations” he offers a very credible sounding rebuttal to the often quoted impossibility of an enzyme forming by chance. He proposes that the theory of life being able to start by itself should not be based on the formation of enzymes; rather it should be analyzed according to the construction of much simpler life forms. He suggests that the attention should be focused on the manufacturing of monomers or polymers – something that can be arrived at in a way that doesn’t involve the sort of mind numbing probability values associated with the fortuitous appearance of an enzyme.
At the beginning of his argument, he says, “Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.”
I would agree. These are not random processes. But the fact that it’s not random necessitates structure and order – dynamics that do not and cannot appear apart from being intentionally established by a Designer. It’s almost comical that he’s so dogmatic about how a simple life form can develop as a result of the chemical and biochemical laws that naturally exist, yet he doesn’t attempt to account for how those laws came about to begin with.
Stephen Hawking is a very well known physicist and mathematician who retired in 2009 from his position as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University after 30 years. The position was once held by Sir Isaac Newton. In his most recent book, “The Grand Design” he challenges Newton’s belief that creation necessitates the work of God by saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”2
While you can’t help but be impressed with Hawking’s credentials and accomplishment, his theory seems fundamentally flawed right from the beginning in that he’s presuming the existence of gravity and from there builds his platform. But if there is no gravity, than he has no platform.
It seems to me that there are a great number of lettered individuals on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to explaining the origin of life. But the thing that tips the scales in favor of those who champion the idea of a Creator is that the individuals who passionately search for a plausible sounding explanation apart from God inevitably base their assumptions on complex processes that need to be present in order for their theories to work. It would be like me standing in front of an ATM with a random debit card attempting to determine the correct PIN in order to access the accounts associated with that card. You could only speculate how long it would take me to figure out the correct sequence of digits, but let’s suppose I did. Could I walk away with whatever cash I was able to withdrawal and say that all that was required were the four numbers I happened upon?
No.
The numbers are secondary to the technology necessary to process those numbers. Yet, in many instances, this is what some of these brilliant individuals will do when it comes to postulating their theories pertaining to the origin of life. They’ll focus on the PIN and ignore the ATM. In other words, they’ll speculate as to how certain elements came into being, but will base their models on things that, while they are foundational to their theories, are either assumed without explanation or accounted for using a level of speculation that borders on something ridiculous.
My point is that if you start with nothing, you have no gravity, you have no chemical law, you have no physical property. Your starting point consists of absolutely nothing. Scientists who assert the possibility of any kind of life form appearing as a result of random processes require the presence of these processes which, according to Dr. Musgrave, are not random in and of themselves. Hence the need for an ordered structure even in the context of the mechanisms that produce theses lucky accidents of creation.
C) Another Set of Rules
Another example of this would be Dr. Martin Rees who is an amazingly accredited astronomer that became professor of astronomy at Cambridge when he was in his thirties and has since accumulated several prestigious honors in the fields of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics. He wrote a book entitled “Just Six Numbers” that identify six mathematical values that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe. He describes these numbers as being intricately choreographed, to the point where if they were altered “even to the tiniest degree,” he said, “there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”3 One writer summarized what Rees was saying by explaining it this way:
Dr. Rees is a spiritual skeptic, so rather than allow the facts to point to the most obvious conclusion as far as they’re having been put in place by a Designer, instead he asserts that our universe is but one of many universes that have been generated through the ages, ours just happens to be the one where the settings are calibrated correctly. But even if what Dr. Rees is suggesting is true, you still have to have a process that’s producing these universes. You cannot effectively refute the need for an Intelligent Designer to explain any aspect of creation by proposing theories that necessitate an impetus that is ordered in any way, shape or form. Dr. Robin Collins elaborated on that kind of practice in Strobel’s book when he said, “…the skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physical laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or have experienced.”5
D) Mathematical Elegance
At the end of the day, when you make these kind of assertions that are inevitably contrary to everything we can observe in the physical universe, you no longer have science as much as you have metaphysics posing as a very weak brand of science. Yet it is not uncommon among those who would diminish those physical realities that showcase God’s handiwork. Consider the words of George Sim Johnson:
The bottom line is that the universe is exquisitely and intricately engineered to the point where the mere notion of it all coming together by chance is utterly ridiculous. The beauty and mathematical elegance of creation is so compelling in terms of the way it points to God, that to dismiss Him with theories that require massive probability values in order for them to be plausible is simply not reasonable.
