The Resurrection - History Not Hype

I am dedicating this post to Kerry McRoberts, my apologetics instructor at Trinity Bible College back in the day, because it was he that passed on the importance of this to me and I in turn have passed it on to others and continue to do so.

In a very real sense I am not saying anything new here, but every year there is some atheist or agnostic out there who challenges Christians about the historical reality of the resurrection and they do it for good reason; on it EVERYTHING hinges.

First off, the Biblical writers, particularly Paul were very aware that on this issue everything hinged. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 Paul writes: "...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is vain." In short, if Jesus did not physically come out of the tomb as an historical event, everything we believe and trust in is a complete waste of time. On this issue, all faith hinges. If Christ is not raised: His blood has no power to atone for sins, his sacrifice has no meaning, His broken body cannot reconcile us back to friendship with God, all of His teaching and promises are lies because it all would hinge on the promise of him rising form the dead after three days and nights in the ground. It that promise is a lie then everything else is a lie. Also, it means all of ministry - our evangelism, worship and discipleship -- ALL of it is a complete waste of time if Jesus is not raised from death.

I want to point out, there are good reasons for believing the resurrection is a historical event:

1. It was witnessed by many that Jesus was alive after the dead. Paul lays this out in 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 and cites all the witnesses as well as pointing out that many were still alive if people wanted to ask them what they saw. People challenge the gospels but they really have no reason to do so other than their own prejudice that somehow if something is religious it somehow could not be historical. Each of them, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, testify to one fact that they all agree -- Jesus came out of the tomb and was seen alive after he was crucified. If they all agreed perfectly on the details, the critics would say they copied each other if they differed greatly they would say the facts are in dispute. As it is, there is common agreement with each witness but enough variance to say they are telling things from their own point of view. The fact that they make religious statements should not invalidate the witnesses as many ancient writer make reference of gods and goddesses (Julius Caesar talks about Fortune's actions in his life for instance - Fortune being a goddess) but that invokes no questions when they make historical statements at times. So why then are the gospels treated any differently? Because the critics make up special rules for them because of their prejudice against the idea that someone can be raised from the dead.

2. The Jews maintained for years that Jesus had been stolen by the disciples, but that story is more unbelievable than he came back to life. You want to tell me four Roman soldiers all fell asleep at the same time when they are trained from day one that if any one of them falls asleep they are to be put to death by the others? These legionaries were not rookies. You did not send new legions to Palestine; you sent grizzled veterans. To have four trained and veteran legionaries all fall asleep at the exact same time when they knew the penalty, is far more improbable than the idea that the soldiers were instructed to lie about Jesus coming out of the tomb. I believe it would further fall apart if those same soldiers became Christians themselves and after what they saw do we doubt that some of them; if not all, would have. It must have been one of them that relayed the story to Matthew because Matthew was not actually there yet his account in Matthew chapter 28 is very detailed. Only the soldiers guarding Jesus would have had those details.

3. The one thing people always say is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There is some truth to this but are we going to say that eyewitness testimony is COMPLETELY unreliable? Let's take an accident report at fourth and main at noon. There are four witnesses to the accident between two cars. When the police reports are compared there is disagreement about the exact color of the two cars, maybe who was driving, but they all agree about the fact that a) the accident took place, b) that it was at the corner of fourth and main street and c) it happened around noon. The question then becomes: what type of thing is the resurrection: a detail or the main focus? The four witnesses have different accounts to some degree (which I believe can be reconciled in the details), but they all agree on a) the Resurrection took place, b) it took place in the garden around the tomb and C) it was early Sunday morning. The main thing is all the same and verified.

4. How reliable are ancient documents? How reliable has the transcription process been? All I have to say is 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and it testifies that scribal copying processes are not only detailed but exacting, especially when something is considered holy or important or both. Secondly, there are more manuscripts of ancient origin for the New Testament than any other document of the same time period. If you are going to question the textual history of the New Testament, then even more questionable would be Julius Caesar's works on Gaul, Plato's work on Socrates, etc. etc. because they have even less texts of age backing them than the gospels of the New Testament. Ultimately a lot of things we believe in history are based on witnesses who wrote something down and those documents were copied and passed down. If we cannot believe the New Testament, then there are a lot of other things we should doubt as well.

5. This one is a question to ponder: How many people are willing to die for what they know to be a lie? If we are to believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead, the we must believe that nearly all of the ones who saw him after he was crucified walking around died for a lie. It seems to be that even a lie propagated for a purpose begins to unravel under pressure. We have all known powerful men who; under investigation, will give up their lie to save their skin. Yet, here are a bunch of common men who maintain to their deaths that Jesus rose from the dead. It seem that if this was lie the story would have unravelled very early on and Christianity would have been a mere footnote in history books not the history changing movement it was through the centuries. There is something of real power and reality backing it, or it would have come to nothing.

I actually have a lot more of this, but the above are the high marks. I could tell of Josephus and Philo, of first century satirists who made fun if Christians but never challenged the existence of Jesus or his resurrection, but I would be here a long time to chronicle these, so I leave you to search them out.

He is Risen!!! That is History and not Hype.

The Book of Revelation - Part 23 - The Seven Bowls of God's Wrath

Chapter 16 of Revelation is so cataclysmic that you actually start to feel very sorry for the bad guys. The seven angels who received the bowls of God's wrath are now ordered to pour them on the earth.

Bowl #1 - This puts a sore on every person that worshiped the beast. The sores are described as 'loathsome' and 'malignant'. Which means the sores are disgusting and they hurt people badly.

Bowl #2 - This turns the sea waters into blood and everything in them dies. Yipe.

Bowl #3 - This one turns the rivers and springs into blood. This bowl has some commentary because an angel affirms the righteousness of God in this one saying God is right to do so because the people this hurts spilled the blood of saints. For the seven churches this would have shown them that God will bring vengeance to those who harm His own.

Bowl #4 - Fierce Heat. It scorches those who blasphemed God.

Bowl #5 - Darkness specifically on the kingdom of the beast. It causes pain and they gnaw their tongues. Still no repentance.

Bowl #6 - The Euphrates River is dried up to prepare the way for the King of the East. This is interesting because as a bowl of God's wrath it means that the king of the east will be an instrument of that wrath and God is just removing all the obstacles.

At this point the bowls are interrupted in the text to describe and comment on some things (verses 13-16):

1. The unholy trinity send forth three frog spirits to perform signs in order to prepare the nations for the last battle.

2. Verse 15 is a parenthetical note about God coming as a thief and that people should be prepared by having their cloths so people will not see their shame. This is probably directly addressing the seven churches so they will be watchful and ready.

3. Goes back to verse 13 and 14 and makes not of where the unholy trinity was going to gather its army - Har-Magedon in Hebrew. Armageddon in Greek.

Bowl #7 - This bowl marks the end and it does a whole bunch of stuff: 1) It causes massive thunder and lightning 2) It causes a great earthquake such as no man has ever seen which destroys mountains and islands. 3) The earthquake splits the Great City in three parts. 4) Hail comes that is so severe that causes men to blaspheme God. This also is a place where Babylon the Great is mentioned and called 'her' and it is 'her' that is the focus of God's wrath in His remembrance. The details of who she is will be given in the next chapter.

Next: The Whore

Marriage and the Bible - Part 32 - Jesus on Divorce

As we enter the New Testament, the issues change slightly because of history. The Jews do not practice widespread polygamy and there is a hardcore line on marrying outside the faith although it still does happen from time to time. Many years have passed and the resulting half Jew-half Gentile unions have resulted in a group of people known as the Samaritans.

One major 'problem' was the fact that Jewish men were very fond of using Moses law of giving a certificate of divorce and would do so for many reasons. When Jesus begins his public ministry one of his classic teachings covers this issue and will become a major point of contention on this issue.

In Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 all have the repetition of several ideas:

1. That marriage is about the joining of male and female into something that is one flesh that no man should separate.

2. That if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery and if the former wife remarries she also is committing adultery

3. The sole exception to this is if sexual sin is involved.

In the follow up question by the Pharisees is about why the Moses law of divorce was given. Jesus replies that it was because of the hardness of heart of the Jews not because it was God's highest desire.

That leads to a few observations:

1. Jesus is directly confronting the contract marriage mentality and supporting the notion that there should be something more to marriage than just obligations. Instead he points back to the beginning and the 'one flesh' relationship between Adam and Eve.

2. Jesus seems to be indicating that the only real reason for divorce that is allowed by God is infidelity, but He also said that he was not teaching in such a way as to destroy the law and prophets so there must be some aspect of Moses' law of divorce that still holds true. If so, what is it? There does not seem to be any good explanation other than 'hardness' may still occur.

3. To not desire one flesh, may be the source of this hardness. If you are only after a contract, your not viewing the other person as a person, just an obligation and that can lead to hardness.

Ultimately, Jesus makes a very strong stand for marriage over divorce and one of the motivating forces behind this may very likely be to protect women.

A good example of this is the woman at the well in John 4. Five husbands means either five divorces or some combination of divorce and death of spouse. In any case, this woman is at the mercy of any kindness any man will show her, but it puts her in an awkward position. She either must get remarried, beg or become a prostitute. In this case, she has chosen to be a live in mistress. I feel that she simply had known the sting of being a cast off woman, probably because she was not fertile, as there is no mention of any children in her life only former husbands. It was such women that Jesus may have been thinking off when he chastises the men of his day for being hard toward their wives and that is why they liked divorce so much.

Of all the marriage issues, Jesus talks about this one the most and it is clear that is because the men of his day were abusing the divorce rule. It is however not the only marriage issue He addresses.

Next: Jesus and Other Marriage Issues

Theology for Dummies - Soteriology

From the Greek - meaning "Study of Salvation". The real problem with this theological term is that it is not exclusive to Christianity. Other religions will talk about soteriology as well because the basic idea is "What is salvation and how is one saved?" Now this question has been around for along time and the answers are so numerous that it takes large theological books to keep track of them all.

The basic issues in Christian Soteriology however are: 'How does God save us?', "How are sins forgiven?"; "How does one obtain eternal life?" along with many more like these. If you break it down into Christian camps of thought there are basically five with various offshoots: Orthodox, Catholic, Arminianism, Calvinism and Lutheran. It get real tricky though when putting some in a camp as elements tend to bleed over into another. Some schools have disputes over the particulars of each question within themselves as well.

The main issue though is to remember that when anyone use the term 'soteriology' they are talking about salvation.

Next: Ecclesiology

Re-Thinking God: Does God Always Get What He Wants?

If the Bible is taken at face value, the answer is "NO", God doesn't always get what He wants.

I suppose some of you want proof of that and I will give it, but the real question is actually about what has God created when he created this world and the humans that populate it. I mean what kind of world you believe God has created makes a big difference in how you look at this question.

First off, the moment you talk about having a relationship with God and that you believe that relationship with God has common elements with all relationships. Mutual love and trust for example, that means there must be some sort of choice that both sides must make for the relationship to both exist and grow. That means from God's end, he must allow choice in other beings if his aim is to have relationship with his creation and is not focused on using his power to control.

Philosophy aside, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that supports the idea that God does not always get what he wants.

1. The grief of God in Genesis six. Why would God grieve over something He caused? God does not cause the sinfulness an wickedness of the world, but He does grieve over it and makes plans to end it by destroying humanity. God's grief makes no sense if He is the one that caused sin and the fall of mankind. God's grief indicates there was a higher desire He had for humanity that is not working out.

2. The story of Moses illustrates some many things but the main thing I point to is the conversation at the burning bush. Notice that God chooses the path of persuasion of Moses, He even gets mad at one point because of Moses' lack of trust. Even God's language indicates the even He is hedging His bets by giving Moses all kinds of signs and using words like 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. Coming from God's lips, this conditionality is telling.

3. It was not God's desire for Israel to have a king, see the conversation between Him and Samuel in chapter eight of 1st Samuel, yet they got one anyway. Seems if God was playing puppeteer all he wold have to do is make sure no one makes this decision.

4. Pick a Prophet -- every one of them deals with God is some way expressing his displeasure at someone for their choices and how God did not want them to make those choices. Those choices indicate that God had a different desire but the people involved went against those desires.

5. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem crying: "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks, BUT YOU WERE UNWILLING." If there is any passage that shows in greater manner the necessity of double cooperation for God's desires to take place, I don't know where it is.

6. First Timothy 2:4 says God desires all men to come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. Does this happen? I don't think so.

I could go on and on, but these are the highlights.

The most common objection is if this is so God is not in control, but I have already addressed this by saying that is a very human assumption that the purpose of power is control. Power ultimately is supposed to be about stewardship and development of what you have authority over and God gives us the greatest example of how to do this by doing it HIMSELF.

I do not believe the Bible is using figures of speech in any of these or any other kind of language where God does not really mean it. Such ideas ultimately undercut faith in the Scriptures. God is the ultimate in saying what he says and meaning it.

For whatever reason that only He knows, God has chosen to create a world in which he relates to the beings He has created known as humans, not as their controller, but their guide and steward. He has given them His image and that include the ability of choice. This choice is limited in comparison to God's because of power and knowledge, but the choice is necessary for relationship and that means that sometimes what God wants and desires as an outcome in an event is subordinated to his ultimate desire to have these free relationships. Our liberty is as important if not more so to God as it is to us..

Ultimately this is what saved my faith in God. Without coming to this realization, the problems following Him had caused me would have collapsed my faith. It was not God's desire that I suffer in His service, but He sometimes must let it go to insure genuine relationship. He loves the people I was dealing with as much as me and respected all of us in our free choices. In such cases, not everything is going to go well all the time for the believer but our liberty is kept intact.

Finis - unless I think of something else that goes here. Hope everyone enjoyed this series.

The Book of Revelation - Part 22 - Back to the Throne

Revelation 15 is preparation for what is to follow. God's throne room is returned to and seven angels are given bowls containing the wrath of God. What John describes is preparation of these angels by God for the outpouring of his final wrath

If there is one feeling here, it is of anger. God is ticked and this is the final preparation for the Last Battle with Satan by pouring out His wrath on Satan's followers on earth.

It is an awesome scene that would given anyone who takes it seriously some real fear of the wrath of God.

Next: The Seven Bowls of God's Wrath

Marriage and the Bible - Part 31 - The Old Testament Marriage Issues

OK. Let's look at all the issues that the Old Testament presents and see what if anything is resolved before we hit Jesus.

Covenant verses Contract:

The real difficulty comes when defining what marriage is. Adam and Eve were one flesh and were husband/wife but did they have a marriage contract? I don't think so. What does seem to happen is there needs to be some way of recognizing who is with who and marriage as contract results in the culture of mankind. The purpose of a marriage also plays into this as some marriages are not about love. Contracts become inevitable as rights, responsibilities and duties need to be defined because of sin both in men and women. The practical issues in a fallen world become the rational for marriage contracts.

This also brings into things the concept of a contract wife or concubine. The purposes of which are either to produce children or sexual pleasure. In either case, this is not about love but practicality. The patriarchs used this extensively with handmaidens to their wives and later concubinage becomes very popular with kings. The concubine is for all practical purposes a second class wife. She receives what she receives while her husband is alive. After his death the family has no obligations toward her.

In some cases such concubinage was the result of death of older brothers and thus required younger brothers to raise up children for their family.

Most marriages are arranged and that means contract for the most part. Some rise above this but contract seems to be the norm in the Old Testament.

The main identification I want to make here is that there is a difference between a close one flesh relationship between a man and woman that I will call 'covenant marriage' and the kind of contract arrangement marriages (contract marriage) that involved practicality or pleasure for the man. This becomes the two ways you can look at marriage and even in the Old Testament it is pretty clear that the covenant is the aim; not contract, but contract marriages are not only allowed, they are not condemned.

Polygamy:

Early on in the Old Testament, polygamy is present. In all cases, the polygamy is one man with multiple women. The purpose is multi-fold: pleasure, procreation, status, etc. People ask why it was always one direction and the answer is simple. When a child is born everybody can see who the mother is. The only way to assure who the dad is, is to be the only guy who was having sex with the woman. Multiple men means question of who the father is so that form of polygamy is ruled out in this culture.

The bigger issue is when looking at the Bible on polygamy is that it makes no statement against it. In regulates it and protects the women involved in the law of Moses. Not all of the polygamist relationships in the Bible are seen as bad or having problems although a lot of them do. What you never see is the Old Testament is a condemnation of the practice.

Finally in regards to polygamy, one observation that could be made is that the more wives a man has the more difficult it becomes for him to develop a covenant marriage with any of them. His heart becomes to divided. You see maybe one wife rising to the top of the man's affection but the rest are just bed partners. Also, the more attention one gives to multiple wives there seems to be less time for God. Polygamy is not forbidden by the Bible, but it also could be said that once a man takes more than one wife, he has made a decision to have a bunch of contract marriages with less chance of finding one true covenant partner for life.

Divorce:

Divorce becomes and issue and putting away wives becomes a big issue. Divorce in the Old testament is strictly a man's preview and it seems open ended. That is, it could be allowed for any reason. What divorce recognizes in the end is that some marriages are nothing more than contracts and sometimes those contracts need to be dissolved.

The other thing though that can be said about divorce is that God hates it. He bluntly says so in Malachi. What we then have is one the one hand an allowance for divorce but also a statement from God himself that it is not a good thing and He hates it. The issue is not completely resolved.

Mixed Marriage:
The idea of mixing believe with unbeliever or in the case of Israel, Gentile with Jew, is bad from the word go. Not only does does the Old testament make strong statements against it; it also shows how perilous it can be. In particular how such mixed marriages can lead the people of God into idolatry. In some cases divorce was called for but it is not clear if this was just seen as a good idea or commanded by God. One thing is for sure, the idea of marrying outside the faith is condemned.

Women as second class citizens:
This is more of a feeling one gets from the Old Testament culture than anything else. Because of the prevalence of contract marriages and giving away of daughters to men for favors, heroic acts, etc.; you really get the feeling that women are held in regard for only three things: how they look, how many kids they can produce and who they are married to. This culture will be much the same when Jesus steps on the scene.

Malachi's statement along with others about wives not being divorced for any reason seems to cut against this, but for the most part women are completely subservient to men in the issue of marriage. Men control it and women are along for the ride.

Next: Jesus on divorce

Theology for Dummies - Christology

Christology is in its simplest form the study of Christ in both his nature and person. "Who was Jesus and what did he do?"

The issues involved in who Christ was and is are extensive. The include his humanity, divinity, relationship to the Father and Holy Spirit, incarnation (God in flesh), etc.

The issues in what he did and its significance are also large: virgin birth, miracles, teachings, his death, burial and resurrection are there and what significance they have. That covers a lot of ground.

The source documents for all this study are the New Testament with reference to the Old Testament. Historical studies come into play as well like "When the Jews heard the tern 'Christ' what did they think?" is a valid question. Needless to say it is very difficult to become and expert in christology.

Of course, throughout history there has been a lot of debate on all these issues over 2000 years and the views on all the above have major variance in opinion. The point is when you hear the term 'christology' you know someone is talking about Jesus, what he did and who he was.

Next: Soteriology