MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Where Was Jesus' Spirit When His Body Was in the Tomb?

Related Media

Introductory Thoughts

We who are evangelical Protestants take some pride that our doctrine is completely Bible-based. In our minds, we are the children of the Reformation, and Sola Scriptura is both our heritage and one of the basic doctrines of our Faith. We like to think that we do not have extra-Biblical traditions, in distinction from the liturgical, traditional churches such as the Roman Catholic Church. To a great degree, all of these things are true. However, though it may be uncomfortable for us to admit, traditions do exist within our communions, some extra-Biblical, and some with a dubious Biblical basis. Sometimes these traditions hold as much or more authority than doctrines which are central to the Faith. In this writer’s own experience, pulpit committees in some circles are often more highly concerned with a pastoral candidate’s position on traditional denominational shibboleths than on the vital issues of the Faith, and more churches split over traditions than over “real” doctrine.

In examining the historical background for some denominational traditions with little or no basis in scripture, this writer has come to the conclusion that these extra-Biblical teachings usually achieve initial popularity, and then the status of accepted tradition, for several reasons, but one reason stands out. Perhaps the primary appeal of extra-Biblical traditions is that these traditions are usually emotionally satisfying--they have a particularly dramatic appeal; in the pastoral slang of my denomination, they “preach well.” Traditions with this emotional appeal become memorialized in songs and hymns, they become the regular fare of revivalist preachers, they become part of dramatic productions and devotional books, and so forth. While evangelical teachers and preachers decry extra-Biblical religious traditions (especially those of “the other guy”), we often acquiesce to and quietly ignore our “harmless” traditions to keep congregational peace so we can concentrate on central issues of the faith. As a pastoral practice, this idea is not necessarily a bad one. However, these traditions can get out of hand, and when traditional beliefs develop and grow to the point where they negatively impact vital Christian doctrine, they are no longer harmless, and must be dealt with. Currently, in some evangelical circles, there are two traditional doctrines which have thus mutated into a dangerous form: the “slain in the Spirit” doctrine, and the doctrine which we will call “the Weekend in Hell,” (the teaching that Jesus, during the three days that His body was in the tomb, made a trip to Hell, or, in the modern version, spent the whole weekend in Hell). This paper will deal with The Weekend in Hell.

What Is
“The Weekend In Hell” Doctrine?

The “Weekend in Hell” is a tradition of long standing in Christendom, and though eminent commentators have long denied its Biblical basis, “weekend in Hell” has survived as a popular belief. This is probably because in its older form, “weekend in Hell” was not considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant much effort to contradict it. Additionally, there are scriptures which can be read in such a way as to lend Biblical credence to “weekend in Hell”, so it was perhaps not considered a totally extra-Biblical teaching, just a mistaken interpretation and application of difficult passages.

It is not certain when or where the “weekend in Hell” teaching first originated, but it crept into the Apostle’s Creed around the year 750 A.D., after first appearing in an Arian creed in 360, and in some other creeds and doctrinal statements.1 The older version of “weekend in Hell” held that Jesus visited the abode of the dead to preach to the “spirits in prison.” There were variations of this; some held that He visited the abode of the righteous dead only, to announce their liberation. Others believed Christ visited the abode of the wicked dead, and preached, as Peter said, to the spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah. In the older version, the “weekend in Hell” teaching had an air of triumph, as Christ visited the nether regions to announce His victory, and there were no elements in the old version of “weekend in Hell” which undermined vital doctrine.

However, in the twentieth century, the “weekend in Hell” doctrine has mutated into a form which is of concern because it has serious implications for the most vital doctrine of the Christian faith, the Person and Work of Christ (Christology). This mutated form of “weekend in Hell” originated with the real father of the “Faith Movement,” the faith healer E. W. Kenyon, and has been continued and embellished by the modern leaders of the Faith Movement, especially Kenneth Copeland.2 Through the Faith Movement’s influence in charismatic circles, the “weekend in Hell” doctrine has begun to slip into popular Christian songs, and has become a featured part of some Christian dramatic productions. In the modern version of the “weekend in Hell”, the problematic but triumphal doctrine of the visit of Christ to the abode of the dead is turned into a full-scale attack on the efficacy of the Cross. In the Faith Movement version, Christ dies spiritually on the Cross as well as physically, and is transported to the abode of the wicked dead to be tormented by demonic forces for three days as a final payment on the atonement.3 In the Faith Message version of the “weekend in Hell”, Jesus is abused by demons for three days, and wanders around hell in disgrace as a kind of “wormy, washed-up shell of a spirit,” until God allows Him to speak the “faith word” and overcome His enemies.4 This is not only preached over the airwaves and published in tracts and books, there are several popular Easter plays which have been produced showing this theme. In one I saw on Christian TV, black-clad demons torment a weak pitiful Jesus in Hell, then, with loud crashing music, Jesus is “born again” in Hell, and dispatches the demons with a flashing sword. This is great Hollywood--but it is also quite incorrect; in fact, one might call it blasphemous.

In order to understand the doctrine of the “weekend in Hell,” and to demonstrate that it is a dangerous doctrine that both grows from and leads to heresy, we need to examine the elements of the myth, and then see what the scriptures really say about where the Spirit of Jesus was while His body was in the tomb.

Elements of the Weekend In Hell Doctrine

There are several component parts to this doctrine, and in order to understand it, we need to look at each part.

(1) Preliminary to the entire idea of the “weekend in Hell” is the idea that Old Testament believers were held captive in Hell, and could not be let loose until Jesus came and got them. Consider this:

a. The first thing we have to imagine is that the abode of the dead Old Testament saints is somewhere other than heaven, or the very presence of God. I am aware that this is commonly taught, but there is simply no scripture at all which even remotely informs us that there is such a place. The spirits of the Old Testament saints went to be with God when they departed this earth.

Eccl 12:6-7 6 Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. 7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. [emphasis mine]

b. Enoch and Elijah were bodily assumed up to heaven, and from his appearance with Elijah on the mount, Moses’ spirit was also in heaven.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

2 Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Luke 9:29-32 29 As He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening. 30 And behold, two men talked with Him, who were Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 But Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep; and when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men who stood with Him.

c. Not only that, but consider the following passage:

Mat 27:50-53 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

If Jesus was to suffer in Hell for three days to finish the atonement, what is happening here? Why are these saints rising? They are rising as a witness of the completeness of the Cross; these saints are foreshadowing what Christ Himself will do in three days. Just as we will experience in the translation of believers and resurrection of those who sleep, the spirits of these Old Testament saints came from the presence of God to collect their bodies.

(2) The second part of the “weekend in Hell” doctrine is that Satan owned "the keys" to death, hell, and the grave, and that Jesus had to go win them from him.

a. There are ABSOLUTELY NO scriptures which even remotely suggest that Satan ever had any keys to anything.

b. Furthermore, God opens and shuts, and no one stops Him in going either direction.

Isa 22:22 The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.

Isa 45:1 "Thus says the LORD to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held; To subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut:

Rev 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":

c. There are only two verses in the Bible where these keys are mentioned. The devil is never seen with them.

Mat 16:19 "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Rev 1:18 "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Now think, did the Devil EVER have the power of life and death? Did Satan EVER have authority to sentence anyone to Hell? The answer is “no!” God alone has, and has always had, that power and authority.

The Misunderstood Passages

There are only two passages which can be construed to teach the “weekend in Hell” theory: 1 Pet 3:18-20 and Eph 4:8-10. Let’s look at them one at a time.

    1 Peter 3:18-20

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long-suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. [emphasis mine]

Let’s answer some questions about this passage which will help us understand it.

(1) Who are the “spirits in prison?” The answer is obvious from the context--those who were disobedient in the time of Noah. Are any others included in this verse? No. Are any righteous dead included in this passage? No. The only people mentioned are those who were disobedient in Noah’s time. If Christ did make a “trip to Hell,” the only people He spoke with were these.

(2) How did Christ preach to these “spirits in prison?” Does it tell us that He personally traveled to talk to them? Again, the answer is obvious from the context: it was “through the Spirit,” i.e., through the Holy Spirit, (1 Pet 3:18).

(3) If we buy the “trip to Hell” theory, what is Christ supposed to have said to these people? Did He offer them a second chance at salvation? Did He just go to gloat? No.

(4) How, when, and in what form was the message delivered to the “spirits in prison?” “Who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long-suffering waited in the days of Noah.” To What were they disobedient? Well, study this verse:

2 Pet 2:5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; [emphasis mine]

I submit to you that the antediluvian “spirits in prison” were disobedient to the message sent to them through the preaching of Noah, and that Christ had, in the time of Noah, preached to them through the ministry of the Spirit (2 Pet 1:19-21). Christ had spoken to these people through the preaching of Noah, which the antediluvian world ignored. This passage is not talking about some “weekend in Hell,” but is comparing the time of Noah with Peter’s time, as the following verses illustrate:

1 Pet 3:20-21 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

As to the old world, Christ sent his Spirit; gave warning by Noah. But though the patience of God waits long, it will cease at last. And the spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies, are committed to the prison of hell, where those that despised Noah’s warning now are, and from whence there is no redemption. Noah’s salvation in the ark upon the water, which carried him above the floods, set forth the salvation of all true believers. That temporal salvation by the ark was a type of the eternal salvation of believers by baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew Henry).

    Ephesians 4:8-10

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. 8 Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men." 9 (Now this, "He ascended"; what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

The common interpretation of this verse by those who support the “weekend in Hell” theory is this:

(1) “He led captivity captive”--that is, He loosed all of those poor Old Testament believers from Hell. Of course, this requires the development of an entire false cosmology about eternity.

(2) “Now this, ‘He ascended’; what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?” The common interpretation by the purveyors of this doctrine is that this means Christ went to Hell (the lower parts of the earth).

Dealing with the second part first, when Christ ascended, from where did He ascend? Did Christ ascend from Hell? No, from outside Jerusalem (Acts 1:9-11). What happened when He ascended? “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.” Ten days after His ascension from outside Jerusalem, He gave the church the gift of the Spirit, and through that the gifts of the Spirit. This is talking about the only ascension of Christ mentioned in the Bible, that which is recorded in Acts 1:9-11. Now some may say, “But, to what does this “lower parts of the earth” refer? Some automatically assume that “lower parts” refers to Hell. But the use of the phrase in the Bible does not bear this out. There are only four other instances of this type of terminology which I could discover in the scriptures:

Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Psa 63:9 But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth.

Is 44:23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.

Ezek 32:24 "There is Elam and all her multitude, All around her grave, All of them slain, fallen by the sword, Who have gone down uncircumcised to the lower parts of the earth, Who caused their terror in the land of the living; Now they bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit.

The Hebrew phrase tahton ’erets to which the apostle’s… (the lower parts of the earth), answers, is used for the earth in opposition to heaven, Isaiah 44:23; probably for the grave in Psalms 63:10; as a poetical designation for the womb in Psalms 139:15; and for Hades or the invisible world, Ezekiel 32:24. Perhaps the majority of commentators take this last to be the meaning of the passage before us. They suppose the reference is to the descensus ad inferos, or to Christ’s “descending into hell.” But in the first place this idea is entirely foreign to the meaning of the passage in the Psalm on which the apostle is commenting. In the second place, there as here, the only descent of which the context speaks is opposed to the ascending to heaven. ‘He that ascended to heaven is he who first descended to earth.’ In the third place, this is the opposition so often expressed in other places and in other forms of expression, as in John 3:13, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven.” John 6:38, “I came down from heaven.” John 8:14, “I know whence I came and whither I go.” John 16:28, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” The expression of the apostle therefore means, “the lower parts, viz. the earth.” The genitive is the common genitive of apposition. Compare Acts 2:19, where the heaven above is opposed to the earth beneath; and John 8:23. (Charles Hodge. Commentary on Ephesians).

While Ps 63:9 may be inferred to mean Hell, it is by no means certain. The other two references refer (a) to the womb as a metaphor, and (b) to lower elevations as opposed to mountains. There is little to go on, therefore, but certainly nothing to suggest that we may interpret “lower parts” to mean Christ went to Hell. I believe that the descent into the “lower parts of the earth” refers to the entire Humiliation of Christ, followed by His triumph. Indeed, if one compares Eph 4:8-10 with Phil 2:5-11, the relationship between the two passages becomes obvious. Christ descended to earth in humility, but He ascended to heaven in victory. For a masterful exegesis of this passage, I refer the reader to Christian Unity: an Exposition of Ephesians 4:1-16, by Dr. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, pages 156-161. Dr. Lloyd-Jones concludes his explanation of this passage by saying:

“This exposition and explanation avoids all confusion and unnecessary speculation about what our Lord may of may not have done after His death and before His resurrection. These speculations have crept into our creeds, but they have no real scriptural warrant.”

(3) “He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.” So, what does it mean that He "descended?" He “came down” when He came to Earth, to be born in the womb of the Virgin Mary--See also John 17:5.

Could the Ephesians 4 passage mean that Jesus took a weekend excursion to Hell? Only if you bring that meaning with you, it is not found in the exposition of the passage.

The Heart of the “weekend in Hell” doctrinal error--Who is Jesus?

The heart of this entire myth, of the “weekend in Hell” is a misunderstanding of Who Jesus Is. The central answer to the whole set of heretical teachings which surround this popular myth about Christ is to return to the Central Doctrine of Christianity--the Person of Christ.

(1) First, what was the nature of Jesus without the veil of His flesh? What did the disciples see on the mount?

Mat 17:1-9 1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. 7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. 8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. 9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Without the veil of His flesh, Christ’s essence as God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, shone forth. Who is Jesus? Jesus is God. He is the God-Man. While His body lay in the tomb, wherever the rest of Him was, you can be sure of one thing--His Deity was not veiled in flesh for those three days. If Jesus had gone to Hell and walked around, the demons would have been hiding from Him the whole time, and Satan would have been thinking about adding a basement--so he could hide!

(2) Second, Jesus demonstrated His DIVINE power during His life on Earth--he demonstrated His authority over every realm while in the flesh, and it was not through “WORD FAITH,” it was through His divine power and Godhood. (See my article on Kenosis).

Christ Possessed the Power and Attributes of God while in His earthly ministry. The Son of God, during His earthly ministry, had power over:

  • Nature -- Matthew 8:27
  • Disease -- Matthew 8:16-17
  • Demonic forces-- Matthew 8:28-34
  • Death-- Jairus' Daughter (Mat 9:25); The son of the Widow of Nain (Luk 7:14-15); Lazarus (Jn 11:43-44); His own resurrection (Jn 10:17-18).

On earth, His humanity did not displace His deity, but instead, His Godhood was veiled by His humanity.

Heb 10:19-20 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,

When His flesh was torn, the veil of the temple was torn.

Mat 27:51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,

Mark 15:38 Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

On two occasions, he raised the veil of His humanity --

(1) On the Mount of Transfiguration, He allowed the disciples with Him to see His Glorious being as it really was (Mark 9:1-9)

(2) When the soldiers came to get Him in the Garden, He knocked them to the ground by saying ..."I AM." (the word he, which follows "I AM" in most translations is not in the original) (Jn 18:4-6). As an old puritan might have said: “He lift up the hem of His veil but a bit, and knocked them all down.”

So where was His Spirit While His Body was in the Tomb?

Well, let's let Jesus Himself tell us . . .

    He was in Paradise

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Now there are some people who will try to say that "paradise" is something other than the Heaven where God is. However, only other two instances of "paradise" are in the Bible, and they obviously apply to Heaven:

2 Cor 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

    Jesus' Spirit was with the Father

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' "Having said this, He breathed His last.

Was the Father in hell? I don't think so!

Furthermore, when the Cross was finished, the sacrifice was finished, and there was no more suffering to be done

Jn 19:30..It is finished!"

Bottom Line -- Believe the Bible, not myths (Isa. 8:19-20)

1 Tim 1:4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.

1 Tim 4:7 But reject profane and old wives' fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.

2 Tim 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Titus 1:14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

2 Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

The only thing the Devil had in the three days the Body of Christ was in the tomb was a headache--because he knew Christ’s Soul and Spirit were in the presence of the Father, and they were not in HELL!

And the Devil, unlike the TV preachers, had heard Jesus say, "It is finished!"


1 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Wm. B. Eerdman’s reprint, 1976, p. 532, note 3.

2 D. R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1988, p. 116-133.

3 Ibid., p. 120.

4 Hank Hannegraaff, Christianity in Crisis, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1993, p.163-174.

Related Topics: Christology

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ

Related Media

Introduction

Each year as we approach the Christmas season and the threshold of a new year, I have found it rewarding to reflect on the uniqueness of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. As one who believes in the authority and inspiration of the Scripture there is the hope and conviction that the return of Christ is not only imminent, but that even those momentous events described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-18 cannot be far away. The world, for the most part, however, does not hold to such a belief. The world celebrates Christmas without Christ and this grows more blatant as the years go by. And not only that, but many today resent the singing of carols or any sort of religious emphasis during the season of the year. Some have even suggested changing the name of the season to some secular, nondescript name. In fact, do we not now live in a age in which only one prejudice is tolerated—anti-Christian bigotry?

Michael Novak, the eminent columnist, once said that today you can no longer hold up to public pillorying and ridicule groups such as African-Americans or native Americans or women or homosexuals or Poles, and so on. Today, the only group you can hold up to public mockery is Christians. Attacks on the Church and Christianity are common. As Pat Buchanan once put it, “Christian-bashing is a popular indoor sport.”1

But this should not surprise us. The world view, which more and more Americans have opted for, even if by default, is that of secular humanism with its hope in mankind, not the God-man, Christ Jesus. Ironically, coupled with this world view is a certain despondency, disappointment, and discontentment with the job mankind is doing. This has opened the door for the New Age movement and its confidence in mankind, but also its belief in what amounts to demonic powers, the powers that are behind all the religions of the world, the cults, and occult. The world has always had its religious leaders and false messiahs. Christ warned that in the last days many false messiahs would arise, which, as John tells us will culminate in the Antichrist (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3).

Of the religions of the world, Christianity is unique because it stems from the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the greatest man who ever lived. In Jesus, we have One who has virtually changed every aspect of human life, but sadly, most people are completely oblivious to the reality of how He has so completely impacted the world. Certainly one of the great tragedies of the Christmas holidays each year is not just the commercialization of His birth, but the way it is trivialized even when people do speak of His birth and Christmas as an expression of the “spirit of giving.” As Kennedy points out,

. . . How tragic it is that people have forgotten Him to whom they owe so very much.

Jesus says in Revelation 21:5, “Behold, I make all things new.” (Behold! [idou in Greek]: “Note well,” “look closely,” “examine carefully.”) Everything that Jesus Christ touched, he utterly transformed. He touched time when he was born into this world’ He had a birthday and that birthday utterly altered the way we measure time.2

The person, work, and life of Jesus Christ stands as irrefutable evidence against the secular world view and all the religions of the world regardless of their makeup. No one else is qualified or capable to meet the needs of fallen humanity or restore that which was lost by Adam in the fall of man. A striking illustration of this is seen in Revelation 5:1-11. A careful study of the context and content of Revelation 6-19 suggests that the seven-sealed book, which only Christ can open, contains the story of mankind losing his lordship over the earth to Satan, the usurper, and its recovery through the God-man Savior, the Lion who is also the Lamb. He alone is able to accomplish what no one else in the universe can, and, based on His death as the Lamb and His resurrection as the Redeemer/Savior, He recovers what was lost through the judgments of the sealed book.

Thus, as we consider the uniqueness of Christ, we also need to recognize this uniqueness demands our allegiance and commitment as believers. It demands that we rearrange our priorities and stand as luminaries in a dark and dismal world holding forth the message of the unique Christ, the God-man Savior of the World. Jesus Himself sought to impress this mindset on His disciples when He stated, “You are the salt of the earth, … You are the light of the world …” (Matt. 5:13-16).

In the person of Jesus Christ, we have one so unique that His life cannot be explained by natural processes. His person and life defy the natural. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ presents evidence, as Josh McDowell has so well written “demands a verdict,” that this Man is not only unique, but the Savior of the world.

To properly consider the uniqueness of Christ, let’s first consider the uniqueness of Christianity.

The Uniqueness of Christianity

Alone of all the beliefs of mankind, be they religious or political or philosophical, “Christianity (including its Old Testament foundation) is based upon historical acts and facts. Other religions are centered in the ethical and religious teachings of their founders, but Christianity is built on the great events of creation and redemption.3

The Moslem faith is based on the teachings of Mohammed, Buddhism is based on the teachings Buddha, Confucianism on the teachings of Confucius, Marxism on the teachings of Marx, and evolution on the teachings of Darwin. Not one of these is based on the observation of historical data or facts, but on the teachings and theories of men. Remember, evolution is based on theory—not on observable data.

Christianity, however, is founded, not on what Jesus taught (and this distinction is vital to grasp) but on who Jesus is and on what Jesus accomplished. Of course, as Christians, we stand firmly on His teachings. No one ever spoke and taught like Jesus, but ultimately, the value of what He said was dependent upon who He was and what He did and the abundant historical evidence that authenticated His life and words. This gave the teachings of Christ authority and placed them alone in the category of absolute truth. The truthfulness of Jesus and His teachings stand on the validity of historical records which are subject to investigation and examination.

All other beliefs are based on the teachings and ideas of those who were nothing more than mere men. No matter how brilliant, charismatic, or powerful they may be, there is no guarantee of their objectivity, accuracy or ultimate ability to deliver what they have promised.

The uniqueness of Christianity, however, ultimately depends on the uniqueness of its central figure—the Lord Jesus Christ. Some try to place Christ among the great religious leaders of history, as one among many, but this is grotesque and absurd. Either He was who He said He was and who history demonstrates Him to be, or, as someone has put it, He was on par with ‘a man who thinks he is a poached egg.’ Christ’s uniqueness is so great that no one, absolutely no one, can compare with Him.

But there is another evidence of the uniqueness of Christianity as an outgrowth of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is the awesome impact of Christ through the church on mankind and history. In his excellent book, What If Jesus had Never Been Born?, Kennedy give an overview of some of the positive contributions Christianity has made throughout the centuries. Following this overview, he develops this in great detail. Here are a few highlights:

  • Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
  • Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes.
  • Literacy and education for the masses.
  • Capitalism and free enterprise.
  • Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
  • The separation of political powers.
  • Civil liberties.
  • The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times.
  • Modern science.
  • The discovery of the New World by Columbus.
  • The elevation of women.
  • Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.
  • Higher standards of justice.
  • The elevation of the common man.
  • The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache.
  • High regard for human life.
  • The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.
  • The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.
  • Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
  • The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel.
  • The eternal salvation of countless souls!4

These are some of the many contributions brought about by the preaching of the message of the gospel of salvation in Christ. Such happened because of the spiritual change that Christ brings into the hearts of men. After summarizing these contributions, Kennedy concluded:

When Jesus Christ took upon Himself the form of man, He imbued mankind with a dignity and inherent value that had never been dreamed of before. Whatever Jesus touched or whatever he did transformed that aspect of human life. Many people will read about the innumerable small incidents in the life of Christ while never dreaming that those casually mentioned “little” things were to transform the history of humankind.5

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ

The Anticipation of His Coming

The fact of fulfilled prophecy is a unique feature of Christianity. The coming of Jesus Christ was prophesied in minute detail regarding His lineage, nature, place of birth, where He would be raised, His career, purpose, the specific manor and nature of His death, His resurrection, and many other fulfilled prophecies. And all of these prophecies were made hundreds of years before His birth or first advent.

The Nature of His Birth

His birth was, of course, the most unique birth in all of human history. Though ancient mythology was filled with tales of demi-gods who were supposed to be the progeny of lustful unions between women and gods (demons), there was nothing even close to the narrative of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Christ’s birth stands alone in history. By the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, God Himself took up residency in a virgin’s womb in embryonic form so that after a natural nine-month pregnancy, she gave birth to a son who was also God’s Son. He was the God-man Savior—not a God-indwelt man. He was both true and genuine humanity and undiminished deity united in one Person forever. No other birth was like this in fact or fiction.

As a result of this unique birth, Christ was able to bypass the curse of sin and the curse of Jeconiah so that He was uniquely qualified as the sinless One to both go to the cross to die as the Lamb of God and to reign on the throne of His father David as the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5).

The Uniqueness of His Person

This is found, as mentioned above in the divine/human natures of Christ—two natures united in one person. The Bible makes the claim that Jesus Christ is both God and Man. As God He created all things (Jn. 1:1; Col. 1:16). As man He was sinless and came as the sinless substitute to die for mankind’s sin. But the declaration of Scripture and the evidence of His life affirm that He was not half man and half God, but totally man and totally God united in one Person.

He is God’s indescribable and unfathomable gift to the world. He is the most unique Person of the universe. No other religious leader has ever seriously made such a claim for no other could support it by their life.

The Uniqueness of His Life

His life is unparalleled in beauty, scope, character, and effect. No one ever spoke like Jesus Christ, did the things He did, or made the claims He made.

In view of Christ’s mighty words and works, and the perfect and sinless person men found Him to be, the claims He made cannot be dismissed. People cannot, in all honesty to the historical evidence, dismiss Christ’s claims as those of a mad man or reject Him as a fraud. Modern skeptics try to attribute his miracles and claims to simply the character of his life. But they do this simply because of their prejudice against the light (truth) and against the miraculous, not because there is a lack of bona fide historical evidence.6

The Uniqueness of His Death

His death is also unique, not because He was crucified, but because it was prophesied in Psalm 22 long before death by crucifixion was known in Palestine. Second, it is unique because of the manner in which he died, displaying his sinless and holy character. And third, because of the miracles surrounding his death—the darkness, the earthquake, and the opening of the graves. After seeing Christ on the cross and the events of that day, the Roman centurion who had seen hundreds die on a cross said, “truly this was the Son of God.”

The Uniqueness of His Resurrection

Other religious and philosophical leaders have come and gone, risen and fallen, but none have come back from the dead to carry on their work as did Jesus Christ. This too is unique, not only because Jesus Christ stands alone in this respect, but because of the Old Testament predictions and the incontrovertible evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection—the empty tomb, His post-resurrection appearances, and the transformed lives of his disciples, not to mention the continuation of Christianity in the face of the greatest adversity.7

The fact is, men reject Jesus Christ, His birth, miracles, and resurrection not because of a lack of evidence, but (1) because they have never really researched the evidence with an open mind, or (2) do not want to submit to his authority and claims, or (3) because they have a basic anti-supernatural philosophy, a prejudice against the miraculous, or both.

They approach history with a preconceived notion and then adjust the evidence accordingly. In other words, before they even begin their historical examination they have determined the content of their results.

Many historians approach history with certain presuppositions and these presuppositions are not historical biases but rather philosophical prejudices. Their historical perspective is rooted within a philosophical framework, and the metaphysical conviction usually determines the “historical” content and results. The “modern” researcher, when presented with the historical evidence for the resurrection, will usually reject it, but not because of historical examination.

The response will often be: “Because we know there is no God”; or “The supernatural is not possible”; or, “We live in a closed system”; or “Miracles are not possible”; etc.… All too often it is the offshoot of philosophical speculation and not historical homework.8

An illustration of what McDowell is talking about is the Jesus Seminar which recently claimed to search for the ‘Jesus of history’ who they claim is different from the ‘Jesus of faith.’ It is the view of those involved in the Jesus Seminar that the historical Jesus was a bright, witty, countercultural man who never claimed to be the Son of God, while the Jesus of faith is a cluster of ‘feel-good’ ideas that help people live right but are ultimately based on wishful thinking. In discussing the Jesus Seminar, Strobel quotes Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson and writes:

Johnson systematically skewers the Jesus Seminar, saying it “by no means represents the cream of New Testament scholarship,” it follows a process that is “biased against the authenticity of the gospel traditions,” and its results were “already determined ahead of time.” He concludes, “This is not responsible, or even critical, scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade.”

He goes on to quote other distinguished scholars with similar opinions, including Dr. Howard Clark Kee, who called the Seminar “an academic disgrace,” and Richard Hayes of Duke University, whose review of The five Gospels asserted that “the case argued by this book would not stand up in any court.9

What makes Christ’s person unique? The virgin birth of the Son of God, the incarnation, the birth of the God-man. Only the virgin birth can give an adequate answer to the phenomena of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

(1) In Christ’s life and ministry, he demonstrated who He was--the God-man, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. He also declared His purpose—to die for our sin.

(2) In His death on the cross, Christ accomplished that purpose. He bore our sin in His sinless body on the tree. He died as our substitute, and took our judgment.

(3) By His resurrection, God proved the value of His Son’s death and the sinlessness of His Person. It proved Him to be the unique God-man.

As ordained in the eternal counsels of God, historically for man, it all began in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) when Mary gave birth to her firstborn son, Jesus. But this was no ordinary birth. Rather, it was the result of the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). Though anticipated in the prophets for hundreds of years, it all began with that first Christmas when the Son of God became flesh and began to dwell among men.

Luke 2:1-14. Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes. 2:2 This was the first registration, taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.2:3 Everyone went to his own town to be registered.2:4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David. 2:5 He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child. 2:6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child.2:7 And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

2:8 Now in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping guard over their flock by night. 2:9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were absolutely terrified.2:10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for take note, I proclaim to you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people: 2:11 to you is born today in the town of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 2:12 This will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.” 2:13 Suddenly a multitude of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased!”

The following well known anonymous composition of the nineteenth century beautifully demonstrates the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.

One Solitary Life10

He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a home. He didn’t go to college. He never visited a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself.

He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves.

While He was dying, His executioners gambled for His garments, the only property he had on earth. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure of the human race.

All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that one solitary life.


1 D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1994, Introduction.

2 Kennedy, p. 1.

3 Henry Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, Creation Life Publishers, 1974, p. 10

4 Kennedy, pp. 3-4.

5 Kennedy, p. 4.

6 The following are a list of books that clearly set forth some of the awesome evidence for Christ: The Case For Christ, Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishing House, 1998; The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig Blomberg, InterVarsity Press, 1987; The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans, 1960; The Evidence for Jesus, R. T. france, InterVarsity Press, 1986; Jesus Under Fire, Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Zondervan, 1995; The Resurrection Factor, Josh McDowell, Here's Life, 1981; Evidence Demands a Verdict, A Campus Crusade for Christ Book, 1972. Many more could be cited.

7 Two more outstanding books on the evidence for the resurrection are Knowing the Truth About The Resurrection, Our Response to the Empty Tomb, William L. Craig, Servants Books, 1988, and Did Jesus Rise From the Dead, The Resurrection Debate, Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Terry L. Miethe, Editor, Harper & Row, 1987.

8 Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Campus Crusade For Christ, 1975, p. 6.

9 Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, p. 127.

10 Some have attributed this to Philips Brooks, the author of "O Little Town of Bethlehem."

Related Topics: Christology, Christmas, Apologetics

A Survey of Historical Jesus Studies: From Reimarus to Wright

Related Media

Introduction

The study of the life, ministry, and person of Jesus Christ has been at the center of the Church’s thinking since its inception, but the last two hundred years have seen a marked change in how those within the Church and those without have examined Jesus and the Church’s conceptions about him. The Enlightenment brought sweeping change to the world, and religious studies were no exception. Everything, even Jesus himself, fell prey to critical method and examination, and the current state of Jesus studies and Christology can be traced back to this fundamental change in the world’s way of thinking. The period of time covered in this study dates from the Enlightenment to the present day, with two respective scholars being used as bookends.1 Of course nothing is as simple as it seems. Hermann Samuel Reimarus did not think in a vacuum; recent study has pointed to trends and periods earlier than the Enlightenment which influenced his thinking.2 He was the first to give voice, however, to anything substantially different from the tradition and teaching received in the church throughout the seventeen and a half centuries before his writings were published, so he is seen as the starting point for modern critical study of Jesus. Using Reimarus as a starting point is now generally accepted as heuristically viable and useful. N. T. Wright is the ending point because he more than many other scholars is doing things in a positive way. He has a respect for history, a thirst for theology, and a sound method. So between these two men comes a period which is important to understand for those who wish to study Jesus and proclaim him in the next century.

Two caveats are in order before beginning. First, this study seeks to give an overview, not detailed analysis. I will show major trends evident in this period, I will identify major players, and I will offer tentative evaluations for the future direction of Jesus studies. It is a definitely a bird’s eye view. Second, terms must be defined. Technically “Historical Jesus studies” and “Christology” are not identical areas of study even though they focus upon the same person. Studies of the historical Jesus seek to explain and disseminate a reconstruction of his human life and work which is critically accurate and defensible; it is the practice of history. Christology, on the other hand, generally studies the meaning and significance of his death and divine life, both pre-existence and resurrection life, as they are expounded by the Church beyond Historical categories to spiritual and religious meaning and truth; it is the practice of theology. The quandary which this period leaves us and which anyone who serious delves into this area must address is the current divorce in religious studies between the historical Jesus and the Christological Jesus, between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Historical Jesus studies and Christology should go hand in hand; it is only in an attempt to be focused and concise that I have only looked at one side of the equation.

Overview of Historical Jesus Studies: Reimarus to Wright

The history of Historical Jesus studies during this period has generally been divided into recognizable periods. Although there is danger in defining anything into rigid periods of time, these classifications have proven themselves useful in tracking the major trends of study and patterns of thought in Jesus studies in the last two hundred years. Despite slight differences in naming, these distinct periods are generally recognized and used in almost every work concerning this time. My method will be to explain general trends and direction for each period of time as well as major players who helped to define that period. The major periods are the Old Quest, from 1778 to 1906; an interim period or “No Quest,”3 from 1906 to 1953; the New Quest, from 1953 to the present day; and the Third Quest, from the early 1980’s until the present day.

The Old Quest (1778-1906)

The first Quest for the historical Jesus, now defined generally as the Old Quest, received its name from the title given to the English translation of Albert Schweitzer’s book, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, published in 1906.4 The English translation was given the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus which came to be used for the pattern of study as a whole.5 There perhaps is one basic, broad attitude which operated during this period: a true, critical understanding of the history of Jesus’ life leads one away from the faith that had been received by the contemporary church.6 This time was the time of the Enlightenment. Dogma and revelation no longer were accepted as accurate sources of information. Critical history, devoted to sources and “objectivity,” held primacy of place in the determination of truth. Scholars working during this time felt that only critical historical work could truly discover who Jesus was. They believed it could strip away inaccurate layers of interpretation placed upon him by later followers which were not historical in any sense. This method of investigation had been used in other fields, and it was now time to apply it to the Bible. The application of this method of history upon the Gospel materials and their central character yielded something far different than what was normally understood to be true. The essential conclusion was that the Jesus of history was in no way equal to or coextensive with the Christ of faith. In fact, the Jesus of history had been transformed into the Christ of faith by nave people at best, deceivers at worst. Along with this recovery of the true Jesus of history, the Old Quest carried with it the implicit assumption that the theology of the church should change to correct itself in light of this new historical revelation.7 The belief in Christ passed down throughout the ages in the church had been built on an improper historical understanding. In light of that, the belief should now change.

The starting point for this historical quest was Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Born in 1694, he was a professor of Oriental languages in Hamburg until his death in 1768. Interestingly enough, he never made his views about Christianity publicly known during his lifetime. It was not until Reimarus’ works were published posthumously by Gotthold Ephram Lessing in fragments from 1774 to 1778 that his private views were made public. The most important fragment was the seventh one, published in 1778, entitled “Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger,” variously translated as “On the Intention of Jesus and His Disciples”8 or “The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples.”9 This truly was the fragment which started the quest for the historical Jesus.10

In “Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger” Reimarus postulated an intense difference between who Jesus actually was and what his disciples proclaimed him to be. Wright’s assessment of Reimarus is useful as a summary:

Jesus was a Jewish reformer who became increasingly fanatical and politicized; and he failed. His cry of dereliction on the cross signalled the end of his expectation that his god would act to support him. The disciples fell back on a different model of Messiahship, announced that he had been ‘raised’, and waited for their god to bring the end of the world. They too were disappointed, but instead of crying out in despair they founded the early Catholic church, which to Reimarus may have looked like much the same thing.11

Jesus was a revolutionary who tried and failed; the disciples were deceivers who propagated a view of Jesus they knew to be false. Reimarus in his mind had unearthed a historical Jesus antithetical to the Christ of faith, and he hoped it would be the demise of Christianity as he knew it.12

Once begun, the quest of the historical Jesus continued in earnest. David Friedrich Strauss is perhaps the best known scholar from this period. Born in 1808, he held various teaching posts in his early life. He was called to Zürich as a Professor of Theology in 1839, but because of opposition to him by conservative Christians he was never allowed to take up his post. He lived as a freelance writer after that until his death in 1874.13 Strauss wrote his monumental work Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet14 when he was 28 years old. In this work he patently rejected supernaturalism and rationalism and described the church’s handling of the historical information about Christ as myth. Strauss accepted a bare historical framework of Jesus’ life—including events such as his baptism by John the Baptist, his teaching and making of disciples, as well as his death due to the hostility of the Pharisees—but the early church elaborated upon this and turned the historical Jesus into something he was not by a twofold process. First, the church interpreted the events of Jesus’ life as fulfillment of prophecy and Old Testament belief and expectation, thus establishing him as Messiah. Second, in accordance with his reputation as Messiah, the church created myths and legends about him through the vehicle of community belief. “The historical Jesus was thus turned into the divine Messiah by the pious, but erroneous devotion of the church.”15 Thus according to Strauss the historical Jesus was buried underneath deep layers of myth, so much so that a biography of his life was nearly impossible to write.

Following Strauss was a true giant of the Christian faith and scholarly insight who marks both the end of the Old Quest and a new direction for Historical Jesus studies. Albert Schweitzer was truly a genius in his own right. He published his magnum opus, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, in 1906 at the age of 31. Not only did he prove himself to be an influential biblical scholar, he also distinguished himself in the field of music and medicine. It is well known that the last fifty years of his life were spent as a missionary doctor in Africa.16 His work contributed to the study of the historical Jesus in two ways. First, he declared the original quest to be void of results. In his estimation, the liberal lives of the nineteenth century were simply reflections of those who sought the historical Jesus. Second, he took issue with them for minimizing or neglecting the eschatological dimension of Jesus’ words and actions in an attempt to make him more universal. Schweitzer felt that the key to understanding Jesus was his eschatology. Jesus could not be divorced from the eschatological context which he shared with the Judaism of his day and be understood in any reasonable fashion. The problem with Schweitzer’s view is the extreme form of apocalypticism which he believed Jesus held. Wright’s assessment is useful at this point:

He [i.e., Jesus] believed himself to be the Messiah while the onlookers thought he might be Elijah; he confidently expected that his god would step in and bring the world to an end during the course of his ministry. He dreamed the impossible dream of the kingdom, bringing about the end of world history. When this did not happen, and the great wheel of history refused to turn, he threw himself upon it, was crushed in the process, but succeeded in turning it none the less. He thus took upon himself the Great Affliction which was to break upon Israel and the world. The bridge between his historical life and Christianity is formed by his personality: he towers over history, and calls people to follow him in changing the world. The very failure of his hopes set them free from Jewish shackles, to become, in their new guise, the hope of the world.17

Schweitzer thus halted the Old Quest so severely that it would not continue for another 50 years, yet he also set the stage for the Third Quest which would not start until 75 years after his writing and fifteen years after his death in 1965.

An Interim Period (1906-1953)

The period immediately following the publication of Schweitzer’s decisive work was a hiatus from the study of the historical Jesus. It has even been called the period of “No Quest.”18 Schweitzer had so effectively critiqued the Old Quest concerning its universalizing tendencies and lack of apocalyptic vision that scholarly pursuit into the historical Jesus was halted. Historical skepticism was the major feature of this period and its epitome is found in Rudolf Bultmann. A description of him and his views is sufficient for understanding this period.

Bultmann lived from 1884 until 1976. Throughout his life he held various teaching positions at different schools in Germany. He is most famous for his contributions to form criticism detailed in his work Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition.19 Bultmann contributed to this interim period between the quests by focusing the attention of history upon the early church, not the life of Jesus. The material in the Gospels does not illuminate the life of Jesus but the Sitz im Leben of the church. Jesus’ words were in fact those of Christian preachers speaking in his name, and the Christ which was preached was the Christ of faith, not the Jesus of history. Because of these characteristics of the New Testament documents, little could be said about the life of Jesus; material to gather that information simply did not exist in the New Testament. Despite this historical problem, Bultmann saw no need for the theology of the church to change in the slightest due to any historical study or knowledge. The theology of the church was in place because of a response to Jesus, not because of historical verity, and could stand as it was with no challenge to change from historical judgments. Jesus places an existential call to decision upon the lives of all whom he touches, and indeed the historical disjunction between his life and faith makes this existentialism all the stronger in Bultmann’s thought. 20

The New Quest (1953 to the present)

The force of Bultmann’s thinking and theology was difficult to overcome, but not impossible. The next stage of serious investigation of the historical Jesus softened the skepticism of Bultmann somewhat, but it did not alter at any fundamental level the wide reaching disdain for the historical record contained in the New Testament materials. This renewal of the Old Quest shares many characteristics of its predecessor and carries many of its assertions much further.

The New Quest began on October 23, 1953 when Ernst Ksemann presented his lecture on “The Problem of the Historical Jesus” to a reunion of Bultmann’s students. The ideals and methods adopted by the New Quest did differ somewhat from Bultmann’s thought. Ksemann criticized Bultmann’s total disconnection of history and faith, emphasizing that Jesus must be rooted in history to some degree to avoid docetism which would allow Christ to be formed however the scholar wills.21 This was a valid criticism which the New Quest was right to take up. However, the New Quest remained in the same vein as its predecessors in many ways. As Bultmann did, those within the New Quest relied heavily upon the sayings of Jesus as primary material, generally ignoring the events surrounding his life as worthy material for discerning the historical Jesus.22 The New Quest makes full use of critical tools such as source and form criticism which Wright asserts “have caused considerable difficulty when it comes to serious historical reconstruction.”23 The New Quest generally holds to an extreme view of apocalyptic and rejects it in contrast to Schweitzer who accepted it. The New Quest generally views scripture in a manner similar to Wilhelm Wrede’s in that the majority of the framework and content can be traced to the early church and is useless in establishing any type of historical truth.24

The best known permutation of the New Quest is the Jesus Seminar. Headed by Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar purports to undertake a serious, scholarly analysis of the material in the New Testament with the goal of determining who Jesus really was and freeing the Church from the improper interpretation handed down through the centuries.25 Serious analysis of the Jesus Seminar has been undertaken by many scholars,26 so only two major points need to be stated here. One, the Jesus Seminar falls right in line behind both Bultmann’s and Wrede’s skepticism. One need not read very far into the writings of the Seminar to find statements arguing against the historicity of the New Testament documents. This general attitude has shifted the burden of proof to those who claim historicity. This skepticism is obvious in their results: the Seminar does not rate many sayings or deeds at all as being exactly what Jesus said or did, so they are left with very little information upon which to base their historical reconstruction. Second, it can be charged that the Seminar is simply working to prove forgone conclusions about who Jesus really was. In the Introduction to The Five Gospels, the authors present many “Rules” which on the surface are intended to be understood as objective facts which guide their investigation.27 Many of these “Rules,” however, are far from settled in modern scholarship and simply represent the bias of the Seminar. As a matter of comparison, one such rule concerns Jesus’ teaching: “Jesus’ images are concrete and vivid, his sayings and parables customarily metaphorical and without explicit application.”28 Few would argue the accuracy of this statement. However, on the very same page is another statement of very doubtful worth: “Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.”29 To make this claim as a “Rule” intended to guide the investigation is an a priori assumption which can only be seen as a conclusion reached before the investigation even starts. A cursory investigation of recent scholarship on Jesus’ statements and view of himself will show that this question is in no way settled, and there is no scholarly consensus. Assuming their conclusions is a serious flaw in the Seminar’s investigation, and it casts doubt upon the value of their work. Given these brief assessments, it is not difficult to see how the Seminar arrived at their conclusions: Jesus was a wise man, a sage who was distinct but not in any miraculous, apocalyptic, Christological way.

The Third Quest (Early 1980’s to the Present Day)

The Third Quest is distinguished from the other quests not so much in time as in thought and method. This stage is not as easily defined because it does not have a definite starting point, and scholars which fall under this rubric often diverge widely on other matters. Despite this diversity there are certain trends which can be identified. In one vein, the scholars within the Third Quest attempt to do history seriously by placing Jesus squarely and credibly within his Jewish eschatological context. This quest rejects the historical skepticism of the New Quest and embraces Schweitzer’s central theme to Jesus’ life while at the same time refining it and making it more accurate and representative of the Judaism of Jesus’ day.30 In another vein, parallel to historical work centering upon eschatology is a new field of study usually called early Christology. Early Christology casts its net wider than Historical Jesus studies because it also looks at the theological development which takes place within the New Testament writings as well. It is similar, though, in that it seeks to trace the roots of Christian conception about the Christ of faith through the New Testament writings as far back as historically possible, even into the life and understanding of Jesus himself.31 It is perhaps simplistic to state it this way, but the Third Quest contains two broad trends, one which does history which is theologically accurate, and another which does theology which is historically accurate. There is much overlap, but there is much complementary work as well.

N. T. Wright is a major player within the Third Quest worthy of note. He is currently Dean of Lichfield Cathedral in Staffordshire, England and has plans to return to academic life soon.32 He has written many popular works, and his major contribution to scholarly writing is a multi-volumed work currently in progress entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. Two volumes have already been published, The New Testament and the People of God33 and Jesus and the Victory of God. Wright is making a positive contribution in Jesus studies because he has clearly thought through the historical questions which must be answered in order to get an accurate picture of who Jesus was and what he did. In his view, the scholar’s main goal should be to determine how history progressed “from the pluriform Judaism that existed within the Greco-Roman world of 10 BC to the pluriform Judaism and Christianity of AD 110.”34 To do so, Wright proposes five questions which must be answered: One, how does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day? Two, what were his aims? Three, why did he die? Four, how did the early church come into being, and why did it take the shape it did? Five, why are the gospels what they are? Wright should be allowed to speak for himself in summarizing his views. The context of this excerpt is the validity of Jesus’ resurrection:

The relevance of Jesus, then, becomes radically different depending on whether one accepts or rejects the witness of the early church to his resurrection. Furthermore, even if one does accept that witness, it means radically different things depending on one’s view of Jesus prior to the resurrection. If he was a docetic figure, the divine being of so much would-be orthodox theology, his resurrection would simply validate the salvation he had revealed and offered. It would prove that he was, after all, ‘god’ . . . . If he was a teacher of timeless truths, the announcer of the timeless call to decision, or the pioneer of a new way of being-in-the-world, his resurrection would presumably endorse the programme he had articulated; though, interestingly, those who have constructed Jesus-figures like that tend not to include the resurrection in their schemes, except as a metaphor for the rise of Christian faith. But if he was an eschatological prophet/Messiah, announcing the kingdom and dying in order to bring it about, the resurrection would declare that he had in principle succeeded in his task, and that his earlier redefinitions of the coming kingdom had pointed to a further task awaiting his followers, that of implementing what he had achieved. Jesus, after all, as a good first-century Jew, believed that Israel functioned to the rest of the world as a hinge to the door; what he had done for Israel, he had done in principle for the whole world. It makes sense, within his aims as we have studied them, to suppose that he envisaged his followers becoming in their turn Isaianic heralds, lights to the world.35

Major Areas of Need at this Juncture

After surveying the landscape, it is perfectly reasonable to chart our direction. Where are Jesus studies to go? What are the key ideas and thoughts to refute, ponder, or accept? Here I offer three areas of need and two cautions.

Needs

Much modern critical study of the historical Jesus uses extra-canonical works for historical information. For example, the Jesus Seminar believes the Gospel of Thomas to be an independent source for information about Jesus,36 and they date it older even than Mark.37 It becomes a crucial linchpin in their historical reconstruction and perhaps sets the standard by which other works, even the canonical ones, are judged. But is their assessment correct? Evangelical scholarship must seriously address the dating of extra-canonical books like the Gospel of Thomas and their relationship to the canonical materials. Just as J. B. Lightfoot accurately dated the seven Ignatian letters as within the early period of Christianity and Constantin von Tischendorf found early textual evidence for the text of the New Testament and thus F. C. Baur’s Hegelian reconstruction of the formation of Christianity fell, perhaps scholars need to take time to work on these materials to date them in relationship to the canonical materials and assess their textual origins; the results might prove to be just as dramatic.

The primary historical method in use since the 1950’s has utilized the criteria of authenticity. These are various rules used to determine whether or not something is more or less likely to be historical. They include the criterion of dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation, and embarrassment. The issue concerns the use of these criteria in light of the historical work proposed by the Third Quest. For example, the criterion of dissimilarity states that traditions different from the Judaism of Jesus’ day and the Christian church he founded are more likely to be original. This is in direct conflict with the trend to see Jesus as firmly within the Judaism of his day and directly connected to the church he founded. Criteria of authenticity must be constantly evaluated and reevaluated, refined and revised. We must learn how these criteria are affected by true historical work. This does not mean that we should reject them out of hand. Instead scholars should make them more useful as a better historical method is developed.

The alarming trend in a survey of historical Jesus studies in this period is the demands placed upon the church to change in light of the historical reconstructions advanced. This was a definite agenda of the Old Quest and still is of the New. But these demands assume that the historical Jesus found is the definitive portrait of Jesus above all others. But is the historical Jesus equivalent to Jesus in his fullness? We must carefully answer no. This gap between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus38 requires that we do two things. First, as scholars who are using history as our primary tool we must understand history’s limitations and restrictions. Christianity is based upon history but understanding it never has been and never will be solely a historical endeavor. We need to properly assess and if need be reassess history’s place in the study of Jesus. Second, we must learn how to properly place the historical Jesus within Christian life, thought, and theology as a whole. The historical Jesus as a modern reconstruction should not displace centuries of Christian thought and practice. Is it a useful endeavor? Yes, by all means; anything which delves into the person and work of Christ is worth pursuing, but it should be pursued with the proper method and perspective.

Cautions

The cautions I would offer are interrelated. The study of Jesus in any form or fashion demands humility. We are finite creatures, separated from his life on earth by great geographical, chronological, and cultural distance. We do not have exhaustive knowledge about Jesus. We also come upon the scene at the tail end of two thousand years of study, reflection, and investigation into Jesus. The greatest minds in the history of the world have sought him, and we follow in their path. As scholars who usually strive for honesty and integrity in our work, we should also strive for humility. Unfortunately this is sorely lacking in many scholars who study Historical Jesus and Christology. They presume to wipe away the Christ of faith with modern critical methods, a few articles, and some well-placed press conferences. The hubris of such scholarship is staggering. Let us not duplicate the errors of those currently in the fray. We should not be afraid to ask the hard questions and challenge currently held assumptions, but we must always be humble in our investigations and assertions and never assume that we have painted the definitive portrait of Jesus.

Not only must we embody humility, we must also embody the proper kind of skepticism. The trend in Jesus studies has been skepticism about the historical integrity of the text which we have. We must instead be skeptical about our own objectivity. Two hundred years of investigation into the historical Jesus have produced a bewildering array of differing pictures. Many were made in the image of the investigator, and many responded to the cultural questions of the time. The passage of time has shown us that those who investigate the historical Jesus have not been objective but have responded to and answered many of their own questions. We are not free from this trap either. We should carefully investigate our own biases and examine our results to weed out improper conclusions.

Conclusion

The tendency in evangelical scholarship has been to limit or even eliminate the pursuit of the historical Jesus from our scholarly work. I grew up hearing many sermons against “liberal theologians” who were attacking Christ, and that attitude is pervasive. Unfortunately, we have not balanced that with positive contributions in these areas; instead we have abandoned the playing field. As evangelicals who love the Lord we should strive to work positively in this area. Of course we will not accept every method or assumption, but we can make a positive contribution and change the tide. In a recent article in Christianity Today, Wright relates an incident which changed his attitude towards scholarly study and impacted the direction his life was to take. John Wenham was addressing the Christian Union at Oxford, and Wright says:

In one of those seminars, he said of course you realize what we desperately need are people who love the Lord and love scripture, and have got the academic background to do the biblical research. He said it’s no good waiting for people who don’t have that love in their hearts to write silly things about the Bible, and then put Christian scholars to work refuting them. What we need are people out there making contributions and feeding the stuff into the stream higher up.39

In closing, as Wenham suggested to Wright, let us commit to being proactive in our study of Jesus. Let us not be afraid to blaze new trails and know Jesus in new and different ways. Our pursuits are not our own; let us do them for him and God’s greater glory.


1 The time which this paper covers was suggested to me by Dr. Daniel Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also to be credited with using Reimarus and Wright as beginning and ending points for the paper in imitation of Schweitzer’s magnum opus.

2 N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 13-6, points out the inability of Reformation theology to adequately deal with the life of Jesus as a primary factor for setting the stage for Reimarus. Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 104, points to the influence of English Deists upon Reimarus with whom he had had contact during a visit to England.

3 W. Barnes Tatum, In Quest of Jesus: A Guidebook (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 71.

4 Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1906).

5 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede (trans. W. Montgomery; London: A. and C. Black, 1910).

6 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 17. Wright attributes this tendency to Reimarus specifically, but I see it as representative of the period as a whole.

7 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 819.

8 Charles H. Talbert, ed., Fragments (trans. Ralph S. Fraser; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970).

9 Hermann Samuel Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples (trans. George Wesley Buchanan; Leiden: Brill, 1970).

10 Tatum, 68. Colin Brown, “Quest of Historical Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 326

11 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 16-7.

12 Ibid., 16.

13 Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), 492.

14 David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (Tübingen: C. F. Osiander, 1835-1836).

15 Brown, “Quest,” 328.

16 Kümmel, 490.

17 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 19.

18 Tatum, 71.

19 Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2d ed. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 29; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931). Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; New York: Harper, 1963).

20 Brown, “Quest,” 334.

21 Ibid., 336.

22 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 24.

23 Ibid.

24 Cf. William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelium: zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstndnis des Markusevangeliums (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (Library of Theological Translations, trans. J. C. G. Greig; Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1971). During the time before Wrede wrote, the majority of scholars held that Mark was the first gospel to be written and that the author did preserve historical information. Wrede attacked this by asserting that all of Mark was written within the theological framework of the Messianic Secret; the author concocted the Messianic secret to explain how Jesus was recognized as the Messiah only after his death, not during his life. Thus Wrede removed the last support modern scholarship had for asserting that the New Testament contained any historically accurate writings.

25 The best know writings of the seminar are Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), and Robert W. Funk and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).

26 E.g., Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), and Richard B. Hays, “The Corrected Jesus,” First Things 43 (May 1994), 43-48.

27 “The Jesus Seminar formulated and adopted ‘rules of evidence’ to guide its assessment of gospel traditions” (emphasis added). Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 16.

28 Ibid., 32.

29 Ibid.

30 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 83-9.

31 Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), ix.

32 Tim Stafford, “N. T. Wright: Making Scholarship a Tool for the Church,” Christianity Today 43, no. 2 (8 February 1999), 42.

33 N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992).

34 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 90.

35 Ibid., 659-60.

36 Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 16.

37 Ibid., 18. Although the text does not date these works specifically, the chart on p. 18 shows general relationships. The Gospel of Thomas is shown to be totally independent from the canonical Gospels, and it is placed on or around 50 C.E. The Gospel of Mark is also shown to be an independent source, but it is placed on or around 70 C.E. This chart reiterates the important place the Jesus Seminar grants to the Gospel of Thomas.

38 By this I do not mean to imply that a portrait of the historical Jesus is inaccurate. I believe that Historical Jesus studies can be very fruitful in describing who Jesus was in his context and what were his ministry and mission. It is perhaps better to say that the historical Jesus is a “subset” of the real Jesus in his fullness, although even this metaphor does not adequately describe the relationship between the two concepts.

39 Stafford, “Wright,” 43.

Related Topics: Christology, History, Apologetics

The Passion of Jesus Christ

pas?sion pa-sh?n - noun

    [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin passion-, passio suffering, being acted upon, from Latin pati to suffer — more at patient]
    (13th century)

    1 often capitalized

    a : the sufferings of Christ between the night of the Last Supper and his death

    b : an oratorio based on a gospel narrative of the Passion



    At bible.org we are excited about the upcoming Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ. The passion of Jesus Christ is the climax of each of the four New Testament Gospels, and is the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming Jewish Messiah. Although this movie is a masterpiece, watching The Passion of the Christ is like starting near the end of a novel – one cannot understand the story adequately without starting at the beginning and reading it through to the last page of the final chapter. It is important to understand that the passion of our Lord was a necessity because it was promised from the earliest pages of the Old Testament. Our Lord’s death did not come upon an unsuspecting victim. He died exactly when and how He intended. After His resurrection Jesus commissioned His disciples to explain the significance of His passion to their generation and (by means of the New Testament Scriptures they penned) to ours as well. It is our desire to assist you to understand the passion of our Lord in the light of the entire Bible. We have selected some of the materials on bible.org which explain from the Bible how the passion of Jesus relates to you personally. The passion of Jesus Christ is the most marvelous story ever told. Over the centuries it has transformed countless lives. Listed below are several reviews of the movie itself, followed by a listing of some of the articles from bible.org that relate to the passion of Christ as depicted and explained in the New Testament.

    The Event in Audio

    Right Click, then "Save As" to download

  • Part 1
  • Part 2
  • Part 3

    Reviews and Reflections on the movie

  • Notes on the Passion
  • Passionate Review
  • Point of the Passion
  • Review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
  • Sacred Imagination and the Gospel: A Review of "The Passion of the Christ"
  • The Passion of the Christ - What will my Muslim Friends think of it?

    The Passion Event in the Gospels

    The Passion Event Preached (by the Apostles)

    Other Articles on the Passon Event

    Christology (The Living Word, Christ Jesus the Lord)

     

  • Related Topics: Christology

    A few notes on The Passion of the Christ

    I compiled these notes right after I saw a rough cut of the film in Dallas.

    Anti-semitism.

    My opinion is that it's not at all anti-semitic, but Gibson definitely portrays the Sanhedrin and other religious leaders as culpable (to say the least) and wicked men. He is no less sparing of the Romans, who are equally culpable, if not more so. That said, one leaves the film convinced that nobody TOOK the life of our Savior, but He offered it willingly.

    Violence

    This is not a film for the squeamish. It will receive an "R" rating, and deservedly so, for the extreme (think "Gladiator"/"Braveheart") violence. But then, the crucifixion of Christ was pretty gruesome. Some of the torture scenes, I believe could have been cut for length a bit, and probably will be in the final version.

    Accuracy

    There are momemts that are where artistic license imposes itself a bit (the evil crow scene at the cross; Jesus carrying the entire cross, while the thieves only carried the upper portion; and a few others), but these are hardly worthy of note in light of the magnificent portrayals and the mostly accurate rendering. Gibson takes one gospel's account of the passion rather than relating it as a compilation, i.e., the "event" so to speak. The result is that some material gets left out (e.g., the Roman cohort falling back when Jesus tells them "I am" the One you seek). They also include a late Isaiah date (5th century as I recall) on a quote that opens the film. We addressed that issue in the screening I attended.

    Caricature

    The Roman henchmen, Barrabas, and a few of the Jewish leaders are a little over the top in my opinion, but they certainly capture the brutality/barbarity of the culture.

    Resurrection

    The resurrection scene is brief (less than a minute in the version I saw) and understated. It does, however, exude a dignity and a sense of triumph that a lot of other flashier dramatized resurrections miss.

    Mariolatry.

    There are some portions where you get a whiff of worshipful portraiture and a bit of "posing", but on the whole, Gibson was quite restrained in his depiction of the mother of the Lord. The woman playing Mary is also, in my opinion, the best actor in the film. The camera loves this woman.

    Concluding notes: I recommend The Passion of the Christ as a film that, for the most part, accurately represents the horror of our Lord's suffering, and that will inspire a response of reverence and appreciation for the voluntary sacrifice of Christ for us. One might argue that His spiritual anguish over becoming sin for us and being separated from the Father was even greater than his physical suffering. I agree, but how might Gibson have expressed that spiritual dimension on film any more effectively than through His physical suffering? The physical aspect of his passion serves, therefore, as a metonymy for the whole of his distress, which would have comprised spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical anguish. This is a film worthy of our support, and one that will prompt dialogue with those He died to save.

    Related Topics: Christology, Cultural Issues

    Passionate Review

    Related Media

    The Passion of the Christ

    The movie titled The Passion of the Christ is a depiction of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ. It includes scenes of his arrest, trial, torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection. The movie itself is a beautiful movie. The cinematography is excellent and the point of view frequently shifts from Jesus to Mary to the disciples and a third person objective point of view. These shifts allow us to see the perspective of each on the last hours of Jesus' life.

    I expected to see a factual portrayal of the events, but got even more. The movie doesn't leave out the emotional and spiritual impact that the person, presence and words of Jesus had upon those around him. Using the point-of-view shifts as opportunities to this end, several characters (including Jesus) have flashbacks to images of him as a teacher (Sermon on the Mount), protector (of Mary Magdalene from stoning), child, and carpenter.

    The Controversy

    Although there has been much controversy surrounding the movie, and the critics' claims that it reflects anti-Semitic Christian prejudices, I believe those claims are mostly false. The anti-Christian sentiment in this country is strong and I believe reflects Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

    The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Simply put, the Passion of Jesus Christ is foolishness to those who do not have the Spirit of God to explain the full meaning. The full meaning of the Passion of the Christ-why Christ had to die for the sins of man, why no one else would do as a sacrifice, why the suffering needed to be so intense-all of this is foolishness to those who do not have "the mind of Christ" (v.16).

    That being said, there are certain elements inserted into the film that seem not to be generated by Scripture, but by the director and screenwriters. Satan makes an appearance several times during the movie in at least four key elements. Obviously the gospels do not account for his presence, and so the screenwriters felt the need to.

    In the Garden of Gethsemane, Satan is seen tempting Jesus that his suffering is useless and ineffective. During the torture by the Romans, Satan is seen standing with the crowd and looking on approvingly. On the road to Golgotha, while carrying the cross through the streets, Satan is seen following along with the crowd. And finally, Satan is seen on Golgotha, with the crowd, and again when Jesus dies, shouting, perhaps in exultation. All four of these events are not described in Scripture. It is the last three, however that seem to generate the most controversy. Because in each of them Satan appears behind Chiapas, the Jewish high priest. Never once does Satan appear near a Roman official, and regardless of what the screenwriters intended to portray by this insertion, it is clear that misunderstandings could result.

    Historical Accuracy

    The rest of the movie (spiritual forces aside) mostly portrays the scenery, people and events that are recorded in scripture in an accurate manner. The first glaring exception, that Jesus carried his full cross (not just a cross-beam), might be left to historical interpretation. However it seems a symbolic interpretation, since the other two thieves dying on the mount with him carry only their cross-beams, and have the "t-crosses". The exaggerated upper part of Jesus' cross might be historically defended on the grounds that there needed to be room for the placard that called him the King of the Jews.

    The other glaring discrepancy with history is the nails in the hands of Jesus. The Romans would hardly have taken the time for each prisoner to tie his wrist to the beam and then nail his palm. The historically accurate portrayal is that his wrists were pierced, because they could support the weight of the crucified's body.

    Quote of the Movie

    My favorite quote of the movie is from Simon of Cyrene, who is forced to carry Jesus' cross when he can no longer do it himself (Mark 15:21, Matt. 27:32). He at first refuses, and then when he is forced and has no other option, he says,

    "Remember that I am an innocent man forced to carry the cross of a condemned man."

    Conclusion

    Because the most important part of what it means to be a Christian is what Christ did on the cross, why he suffered and died, this movie is a edifying reflection of Scripture. First of all, it should not replace scripture like many movies-made-from-books tend to do. We need to remember that it is Scripture that is inspired and presents the passion in the way that God would have us view it. Secondly, the violence present in this movie, especially the second half, which include the beatings, torture and crucifixion death, will convince some to keep younger children from this movie. It is a criticism that the "real time" beatings of Jesus portrayed in the movie represent an exaggerated presentation that is "over the top".

    However I think that these portrayals serve a purpose. As sensitive human creatures, we have the propensity to turn away from extreme punishment or violence. Perhaps its because, as believers, we believe that we shouldn't relish or enjoy it. Even the Jewish leaders turn away at one point due to the extreme graphic nature of the beatings and floggings. But I think that the director and screenwriters wrote the script in this way in order to force the viewer to truly think about what Jesus went through as a human being. It is essential to remember the sacrifice, not just the time spent on the cross, but the entire life of Jesus as a sacrifice. In light of that conclusion, I think that as a depiction of 12 hours in his life, The Passion of the Christ does a good job.

    Related Topics: Christology, Cultural Issues

    The Passion the Point of the Film is the Fact of the Act

    Related Media

    OK, I went to see THE movie. Having heard, like everyone else, the hype, the protests, the reviews given by people who had thoroughly researched a film they had never seen, and the objections raised by those who hate everything Christian, I thought I was ready for whatever came on the screen; I was wrong. The Passion of the Christ is a masterful film, and it is a deeply affecting event. No movie has ever had the effect on me that this one had, and is still having. Since I saw the movie this afternoon, I’ve had trouble thinking about anything else. I plan on seeing it several times, and will be in line to buy the DVD when it comes out.

    First, let’s deal with some controversial issues. The film is not anti-semitic, period. Some of the Jewish leaders and some of the rabble they rouse are shown to be what they were historically; hard-hearted haters of Jesus, and scheming fanatics. However, other members of the Council attempted to object to the proceedings, and many of the common people obviously sympathized with Jesus. If anything, the movie is anti-Italian; the Roman soldiers who beat and torture Jesus come off as vicious and sadistic proto-mafiosi thugs—which, historically, they probably were. Other Roman soldiers seem troubled by the whole mess, and toward the end, one or two appear to be genuinely sympathetic to the Lord. Some reviewers find the depiction of Pilate as sympathetic, making him appear “almost saintly.” I did not see that at all. To me, he comes off as the “Uber-wimp” politician, an existentialist who has no moral strength, and who is afraid to take a stand, letting events take their course. His one goal is to keep himself out of harm’s way. When his scheming doesn’t work, he tries to pass the buck. That is a biblically-accurate depiction, and it is certainly not sympathetic. Some reviewers thought that the movie did not spend enough time dealing with the teachings of Jesus; this is a specious charge. First of all, the flashback sequences do deal with many of the essential teachings of the Lord, but that is not really the point anyway. For “true believers,” whether they be evangelical or non-evangelical, the whole point of His life was his sacrificial substitutionary atonement and subsequent resurrection. He saw that as His mission, and this film centers on that historical set of events. That is another bone of contention for some reviewers—Gibson treats the events of the passion of Christ as historical. Well, they are historical; get over it. I mean, how dare we treat history as historical—who ever heard of such a thing?

    Now, the film. The movie starts with a quote from Isaiah 53:5 “...He was wounded for our transgressions...”, and that sets the tone—this is a film about the sacrifice of Christ. For reviewers who are not people of faith and who are not well read in the faith, this is a key point which can’t be missed if they are to understand the film. Of course this is a two-hour slugfest: it’s about the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Messiah! Previous “Jesus” movies which depict the Lord as some kind of waif-like creature or plastic saint, and who short-change the violence of His last 12 hours miss the whole point of His life—He came to earth to die for our sins. Every Old Testament sacrifice prefigured His sacrifice, and his sacrifice was prophesied in some detail over 1,000 years before it happened. Being then a movie about a sacrifice, the violence is overwhelmingly graphic, and it is convincing. From Jesus sweating blood and agonizing in prayer until they take Him down from the Cross, the violence is unremitting, except for the flashbacks to His earlier years. Jim Caviezel, the actor who portrays Christ, does a strikingly effective job, expressing a full range of emotions through an increasingly unrecognizable face. The cinematography is stunning, the pulsating score is perfectly tuned without overwhelming the film, and the costumes and location have the ring of authenticity. The story closely follows the biblical accounts, with some details coming from tradition and legend; I found some of the legendary elements to be intriguing. The female actresses who depict Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Claudia, the wife of Pilate all turn in Oscar-quality work. There are simply too many stellar performances to mention them all. The detail work is so fine, that one could see it several times and notice something new each time.

    My final evaluation is this: it is a genuine work of art as a film, and a riveting experience for the viewer. However, the overall effect of the movie will also depend on the faith of the viewer. Because the pace of the story and the detail of the movie is so overwhelming for a Biblically-illiterate person, the film will probably not be an effective evangelistic tool, and the legendary elements make it problematic as a teaching tool. However, as an experience to help believers understand what the Lord endured for our salvation, and to help unbelievers understand why we are the way we are, it is unsurpassed. As an event which obviously desires to revive the conversation about the birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, it is certainly accomplishing that mission. See it.

    Related Topics: Christology, Cultural Issues

    Hints, Allegories, and Mysteries: The New Testament Quotes the Old

    Related Media

    The Ideal

    Although its detractors use terms like “hyper-literalism,” the grammatical-historical method of Bible study has much to commend it. Who can fault a system that strives for objectivity in its pursuit of the knowledge of God? The grammatical-historical method encourages us to read and study without predefined doctrinal lenses. It encourages us to seek out, recognize and put aside long held presuppositions about Christianity and the Bible. Consequently, with the Holy Spirit, an open mind, and hard study anyone can discover important truths and discern the amazing internal consistency of the scriptures.

    The grammatical-historical method reads poetry as poetry, history as history, and prophecy as prophecy. At every juncture, the common idiomatic sense of language is what rules. In other words, the primary meaning of a passage of scripture is never an allegory, unless it is so declared by the author.

    The Dilemma

    Although one might be an ardent practitioner and defender of the grammatical-historical method, it must be recognized that it has a fundamental problem. That problem, simply stated, is this, “If grammar and historical context are so vital to correctly dividing the word of truth, why did the New Testament authors sometimes violate it? Should they not have been the very models of scriptural correctness?”

    Apparently not: for the very first Old Testament reference in the New Testament has no sound connection to its original Old Testament context. And the third and fourth quotes are no better! As we read and compare the New with the Old, we uncover usages that sometimes strike us as odd. To see this, take a look at some New Testament quotes of the Old Testament.

    The Example of Matthew 1:22,23

    Compare Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 and the extended quote from Isaiah which follows:

    Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:22,23)

    Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria. In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:14-18)

    Isaiah’s prophecy really outlines a timetable for the destruction of two troublesome foreign kings named Rezin and Pekah. Isaiah says to Judah’s king Ahaz, in effect, that by the time a particular maiden1 marries, has a son, and sees him through his “Bar Mitzvah”, these two kings will be gone. Some commentators try to say that Isaiah is not speaking to Ahaz, but to the whole “House of David.” They take this mental handle and try to stretch the meaning to make it fit the true virgin birth to come. But verse 16 ties the prophecy to the two kings and verse 18 calls upon Egypt and Assyria to be the instruments of their destruction. What have Egypt and Assyria to do with the conception and birth of Jesus?2

    Note how the New English Translation phrases Isaiah 7:14:

    For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, the young lady over there is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young lady, will name him Immanuel3. (Isaiah 7:14)

    The NET Bible completely captures Isaiah’s original sense. So what was Matthew thinking when he so boldly proclaimed the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14?

    The Example of Matthew 2:15

    Now compare Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1

    He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)

    When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1)

    Hosea’s prophecy specifically refers to the nation of Israel and the Exodus from Egypt. Whereas, Isaiah 7:14 has some interesting handles to grab and stretch, Hosea 11:1 just doesn’t! His words are what they are and cannot possibly be said to predict that a future Messiah would spend any time in Egypt. Why would Matthew say that Hosea’s words were fulfilled?

    The Example of Matthew 2:17,18

    Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.” (Matthew 2:17,18)

    Thus says the Lord, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.” Thus says the Lord, “Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,” declares the Lord, “And they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,” declares the Lord, “And your children will return to their own territory.” (Jeremiah 31:15-17)

    Jeremiah refers to the land weeping for the Israelites who have been dispersed to foreign lands. Following the verse about weeping, Jeremiah says, “‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘And they will return from the land of the enemy.’” There is nothing about a king slaughtering children, because of the birth of Messiah. Rather the tears are a precursor to joy; not the hopeless despair of the young mothers whose children Herod destroyed.

    The Example of John 13:18

    Even Jesus abandoned strict grammatical-historical usage when He quoted Psalm 41.

    “I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’” (John 13:18)

    Note the broader context of Psalm 41:

    As for me, I said, “O Lord, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.” My enemies speak evil against me, “When will he die, and his name perish?” And when he comes to see me, he speaks falsehood; His heart gathers wickedness to itself; when he goes outside, he tells it. All who hate me whisper together against me; against me they devise my hurt, saying, “A wicked thing is poured out upon him, That when he lies down, he will not rise up again.” Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:4-9)

    It is difficult to conclude that this Psalm’s author intended it to refer to Jesus the Messiah, because verse 4 reads, “As for me, I said, ‘O Lord, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.’” Did Jesus have some secret sin in His life? To ask the question is to answer it. Of course, He didn’t.

    What is going on?

    Matthew, Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, Jesus and the other New Testament authors often quote scriptures out of grammatical and historical context. Note the troubling word “fulfilled” in the four verses above. In what way can anyone say that a verse quoted out of context is “fulfilled?”

    The issue, of course, is that we cannot actually complain. We are not reading the papers of young biblical scholars. We are reading inspired Scriptures. It is not up for correction. We cannot give it a bad grade. One can find and read case-by-case attempts to say that the problem text, if read just so, is not a problem4. In truth, though, the more firmly one holds to the grammatical-historical method, the larger the problem looms! Either you accept the violation or bend the method to remove the violation. Either way the strict application of the grammatical-historical method falters. It seems better to discover a paradigm for understanding the scriptural anomalies. But how might one go about it?

    Coming to Grips

    There are, of course, scholars for whom this is not an issue. For them, the grammatical-historical methodology is good for everything except prophecy. They understand prophecy to have a large symbolic element, and thus, for example, see the Church as the fulfillment of the Messianic Kingdom. As Robert P. Lightner wrote in his The Last Days Handbook:

    All evangelicals do use the literal method for their understanding of most of the Bible, but some, namely those of amillenial and postmillenial persuasion, think it best to use a less than literal hermeneutic with much unfulfilled prophecy. It is at this point that the evangelical world is divided over things to come and this is what puts prophecy in the middle of the debate. Premillenialists cannot understand why their brothers and sisters insist on using a different method in interpretation with some unfulfilled prophecy but not with all of it. They wonder on what grounds is the less-than-literal approach to be restricted to only some themes of unfulfilled prophecy?5

    Based on how Matthew, Paul, Jesus, and others sometimes quoted the Old Testament do the amillenial and postmillenial scholars have a better grasp of prophetic meaning? Should we abandon the grammatical-historical hermeneutic for interpreting unfulfilled prophecy? It is my thesis that this is not the case, but a satisfactory resolution only comes from coming to grips the hermeneutic used by the New Testament authors.

    The Jewish Connection

    One promising avenue of research toward resolving this issue emerges when we realize that the authors of these mysterious quotations were Jews writing and living in a Jewish context. This becomes especially apparent when we observe that the preponderance of the problem quotations exist in those books that have a distinctly Jewish focus. It is generally acknowledged that Matthew’s highlights Jesus as the King of the Jews. The gospel of John is increasingly regarded as a Jewish book. The writer to the Hebrews clearly wrote to the first century Jewish believers. These are the books that contain the most problematic of the New Testament quotes of the Old.

    If one examines the Jewish roots of Christianity, one discovers that there is a long standing “rabbinical” hermeneutic that can explain the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Dr. David H. Stern, a Messianic Jew and translator of the Jewish New Testament, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, describes four rabbinical modes of scriptural interpretation. According to Dr. Stern, the Jewish authors of the New Testament both understood and used these four modes. In his words:

    We must understand the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are:

    (1) p’shat (“simple”)—the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions.

    (2) Remez (“hint”)—wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.

    (3) Drash or Midrash (“search”)—an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis—reading one’s own thoughts into the text—as opposed to exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says. The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all.

    (4) Sod (“secret”)—a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at by operating on the numerical values of the Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters, and the like. For example, two words, the numerical equivalents of whose letters add up to the same amount, are good candidates for revealing a secret through what Arthur Koestler in his book on the inventive mind called “bisociation of ideas.” The implied presupposition is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even the individual letters.

    The presuppositions underlying remez, drash and sod obviously express God’s omnipotence, but they also express his love for humanity, in the sense that he chooses out of love to use extraordinary means for reaching people’s hearts and minds. At the same time, it is easy to see how remez, drash and sod can be abused, since they all allow, indeed require, subjective interpretation; and this explains why scholars, who deal with the objective world, hesitate to use them. These four methods of working a text are remembered by the Hebrew word “PaRDeS,” an acronym formed from the initials; it means “orchard” or “garden.”6

    Here, then, are the tools to understand the New Testament’s uses of the Old Testament and to derive their intended meanings. There is even an English word, like the Hebrew “pardes”, that can help remember these strange terms: p’shat, remez, drash, and sod. That word is “paradise,” in which the consonants provide a mnemonic for the four terms. Interestingly, both words can mean “garden.”

    The New Testament quotes the Old Testament using all four rabbinical modes. The p’shat, of course, is easy to discern. So, the remainder of this paper will bring to light some examples of hints, allegories, and mysteries. It will then discuss whether it is appropriate for us to incorporate these modes in our teaching and what the ground rules might be. Lastly, It will discuss how these four interpretive modes can bring together the covenant and dispensational theologians.

    Remezim (Hints)

    Let me start with the three passages from Matthew. Somewhat arbitrarily, one might categorize them as remezim or “hints.” The principle reason for this choice comes from Matthew’s use of the word “plhrow,” translated “fulfill.” Although our tendency is to think of prophetic fulfillment in a predictive sense with “fulfill” meaning, “coming to pass,” plhrow can also mean “complete,” “fill full,” or “fill to the brim.” This, then, is the sense that Matthew had in mind for these quotations.7

    From this viewpoint, when Mary, while yet a virgin, conceived and gave birth to Jesus, it filled up or gave enhanced meaning to Isaiah 7:14. In other words, the significance of the historical event forever adds a shade of meaning to the prophetical event. A remez recognizes that God wired us with associative memories. Who can read “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” and not think of Jesus, His virgin birth, and the fact that He was God among us? Regardless of the p’shat meaning of Isaiah’s words to Ahaz, they will forever afterwards also speak by association of the virgin birth of our Lord. The verse has a fuller meaning that it had before8.

    Similarly, when Jesus’ parents took Him to Egypt and later returned, it “filled full” the meaning of Hosea 11:1. Israel is called “God’s son,” but how much greater is the One who is more truly God’s Son? That He would also dwell, for a time, in Egypt communicates God’s desire that the Messiah would completely identify with His people. One can imagine that Matthew, who composed his gospel to reveal Messiah as Israel’s King, decided to bring the subtle hint, contained in Hosea 11:1, into sharp focus.

    Likewise, the words of Jeremiah are a perfect description for the grief of the mothers whose children Herod killed. And so the scripture, after the historical event, hints at and speaks to the horrible grief experienced by Bethlehem’s mothers.

    Here is an interesting example of the remez principle at work! You will not find it in the New Testament, but it illustrates the rabbinical concept of “hint” in a very fresh and enlightening way.

    And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. (Genesis 14: 18)

    Have you ever thought of the Sacrament of Communion when you read this passage? Have you ever looked more closely at the event to see if there was a prophecy of communion? Although there is no prophecy of the Last Supper here, the central importance of Communion in the Church provides an associative link between this verse and church practice. Genesis 14:18 is a remez of Holy Communion. Matthew recognized the same principle when he quoted Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, and other passages.

    The point is this. A scriptural text may carry semantic associations that go beyond the simple meaning of its words and context. It is a right-brained connection and, therefore, violates the western-enlightenment-left-brained preference for propositional logic. The importance of this has been stated well Dr. Daniel Wallace:

    The Holy Spirit does not work just on the left brain. He also works on the right brain: he sparks our imagination, causes us to rejoice, laugh, sing, and create. Few Christians are engaged and fully committed to the arts today. Where are the hymn writers? Where are the novelists? Painters? Playwrights? A very high-powered editor of a Christian magazine told me two weeks ago that he knows of only one exceptional Christian fiction writer. What are our seminaries doing to encourage these right-brainers? What is the Church doing to encourage them?9

    The interpretive modes of remez, drash, and sod are right brained, non-linear, associations of meaning that we can imagine that God intended from the beginning. Furthermore, their proper use may help encourage right brain activity in the church. Of course, there must be guidelines. We do not want them to become a source of strange doctrines and confusions.

    Here is a remez from the Apostle Paul.

    For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? (1 Corinthians 9:9-11)

    The strict exegete must chuckle uncomfortably whenever he reads “God is not concerned about oxen, is He?” From a strict grammatical-historical exegesis, God cares about them very much! The tension only increases with the words, “Or is He speaking altogether for our sake?” This seems to say that oxen are of no account whatsoever. Paul, it would seem, totally discounts the p’shat of the text.

    But Paul discerns that the commandment hints at a higher principle. That principle has no better translation than these words of Abraham Lincoln,

    “It is the eternal struggle between two principles---right and wrong---throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says: ‘You toil and work and earn bread---and I’ll eat it...’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”

    But note how terse and handy the scripture reference is. It is easy to memorize and communicates to young and old.

    But how does Paul get away with minimizing the importance of the ox? It is the rule of proportionality. If the commandment is good for oxen, how much more is it for mankind. If it is good for mankind, how much more is it for preachers of the gospel. For Paul, this commandment, by protecting the bottom of the agricultural food chain, protects those whom God most cares about.

    Remez vs. Sensus Plenior

    The Roman Catholic Church has long promoted a view called sensus plenior, or fuller meaning. By this they mean that God crafted different levels of meaning into verses like Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1. The idea has some merit, but has the weakness of being “after the fact.” Sensus plenior describes, but does not explain why Matthew and others would use the Old Testament the way they did. It does not link the concept to a tradition of interpretation in the same way that remez does. Except for that weakness, sensus plenior is a close synonym for remez.

    Along lines similar to sensus plenior, Tracy L. Howard coined the term analogical correspondence. He writes:

    Having evaluated the different options, the most satisfactory answer to the problem of Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 is “analogical correspondence,” in which Matthew saw an analogy between the events of the nation described in Hosea 11:1–2 and the events of Messiah’s life in Matthew 2:13–15. As Matthew drew these correspondences he saw Jesus as the One who actualizes and completes all that God intended for the nation.10

    Tracy L. Howard’s paper provides a good description of the mental processes behind remezim. Compare his phrase “actualizes and completes” with the Greek plhrow. Unknowingly, it seems, he has captured Matthew’s intention for using this word in the first place.

    It is interesting to compare Matthew’s use of the Greek plhrow with the Latin sensus plenior; i.e. the old text is endowed with a fuller meaning. The main value, once again, of the term remez over sensus plenior is that the Jewish connection helps us discern why Matthew could and would employ the device in his gospel. It does not appear as much of a scholarly trick to get out of a difficult situation11. It also helps resolve an issue debated among scholars as to whether the original author in some way had to “know” or “intend” the full scope of the revelation his words could carry12. The Jewish thought, of which Matthew and others were partakers, is that God could intend additional meanings to surface later. As David Stern wrote, “The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.”

    Drashim (Allegories or Types)

    The rabbinical concept of drashim has a parallel with the Christian concept of “types.” For example, there was a time during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites when poisonous snakes came into the camp. People, when bitten by the snakes, died. So, the Lord directed Moses to craft a serpent out of bronze and lift it up in the camp. After that, if a snake bit someone, he could look at the snake and be cured. Christian theologians say that the “serpent in the wilderness” is a “type” of Christ. Both were lifted up for the sake of dying men. In fact, Jesus gave us the allusion of the bronze snake (John 3:14). He also gave us the connections between His burial and Jonah’s great fish (Matthew 12:39-41). These are examples of drashim.

    There is a classic allegory that Paul penned to the Christians in Galatia.

    Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.” And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman. (Galatians 4:21-31)

    Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, defined, with God’s direction, a doctrine of Gentile faith that was independent of the Laws and traditions of Judaism. In making his case, he quoted frequently from the Old Testament. Most of the time, he used the p’shat or simple sense so that:

    • To declare the pre-eminence of Faith he quoted Genesis 15:6, “And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
    • To declare the hopelessness of justification by Law, he quoted Deuteronomy 27:26, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

    But in this section, Paul switched from p’shat to a drash drawn from Abraham’s life. Although Abram believed that God would fulfill the covenant, he decided that God needed help. So Abram went into Hagar, who conceived and gave birth to Ishmael. Much later, Sarah miraculously conceived and gave birth to Isaac. Paul saw a parallel, in these events, between those who seek justification by human effort and those who trust God alone for their salvation. On the one hand, he showed the allegorical correspondence of Flesh-Hagar-Slave. On the other hand, he showed the correspondence of Promise-Sarah-Freedom. By way of the allegory, Paul asked the Galatians, “Whose son are you? Whose son do you want to be?”

    But Paul also used the allegory to exhort the Galatians to action when he writes, “Cast out the bondwoman.” If they were children of the free-woman, then allegorically speaking they needed to cast out the son of the slave woman, i.e. those who were pressuring them to find justification through obedience to the Law and the traditions of men. Yes, Paul spoke allegorically, but the allegory was strong and full of meaning. It became the vehicle to communicate strong action.

    However, Paul also believed the allegory to be, in some sense, inspired. That is, Paul believed that God intended for Sarah and Hagar to represent two covenants. What else could he mean by beginning this section with the words, “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written…?” Real history becomes a parable for the ages by the inspired hand of the Holy Spirit.

    Sodim (Mysteries)

    There are also places where the New Testament either quotes or alludes to an Old Testament passage in a way that reveals a hidden meaning. One is in John’s Gospel. Several are in the Book of Hebrews.

    The Sod in John 1:1-5

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)

    Both John’s Gospel and the Book of Genesis begin with the phrase, “In the beginning.” The first subject, in both, is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and both separate light from darkness. But John calls Jesus “the Word.” Why? As you ponder both passages side by side, you might begin to see a connection between Genesis’ “God said” and John’s “the Word.” It is as if John looked at the phrase “God said” and saw Jesus hidden in the verb. As the Father speaks, the “spoken” Word executes.

    Many have seen the parallel between the opening of Genesis and the opening of John. However, there is reason to think that it goes still deeper. This derives from a somewhat mystical understanding of Genesis 1:1. In Hebrew it reads, “.Jra*h* ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ <yh@l)a$ ar`B* tyv!ar}B=” Some rabbis have noted that the first Hebrew word after “In the beginning God created…” is ta. This word is rarely translated into English, because it is redundant with the h^ prefix of the next word. But this word, ta, is made up of the Hebrew letters aleph and tov, which are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alefbet. By extension the first and the last include all the ones in between. So one might mystically read, “In the beginning God created ta.” That is He created the capacity for language in the Universe by which it could respond to “God said.” What is behind the capacity for language? For John, it is, perhaps, the eternal Word.

    What makes this idea not quite so far fetched are the words of Jesus, also recorded by John in Revelation 1:8, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” In Hebrew, He would have said, “I am the Aleph and the Tov.” Therefore, it is possible that both John 1:1 and Revelation 1:8 have roots in the hidden revelation in Genesis 1:1. Also, the Old Testament authors frequently employed the letters of the Hebrew alefbet in special ways. Psalm 119 has 22 sections of 7 verses each. The 7 verses in the first section all begin with the letter Aleph; the 7 verses in the second section all begin with the letter Bet; and so forth through all the Hebrew letters in order. Psalm 119 is, therefore, a 22 by 7 acrostic poem that uses the device to emphasize how the Word of God can make a man complete (all 22 letters) and perfect (7 verses per section). The virtuous woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is portrayed by a 22-verse acrostic. And perhaps the most amazing use of the alefbet occurs in Zephaniah 3:8 in which all 22 of the Hebrew letters plus the 5 special final forms occur in a single verse. Such constructions require author intent and show the literary importance of the Hebrew letters in Hebrew literature.

    It is not, therefore, impossible that as Moses penned Genesis 1:1 that he chose to use ta to mean more than just emphasis. John, then, seems to pick up on this hidden usage in uses it in John 1:1 and Revelation 1:8.

    The Sod in Hebrews 7:1

    Then there is the great connection, brought to light by the writer to the Hebrews, between Jesus and Melchizedek.

    For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. (Hebrews 7:1)

    Look at the hidden details the writer to the first century Jewish believers extracts from the text of Genesis 14:18. “Melchizedek”, in Hebrew, means “King of Righteousness”. “King of Salem” means “King of Peace.” Scripture records no genealogy, no parents, no birth and no death for Melchizedek. Scholars with a strict grammatical and historical perspective would still assume that Melchizedek had parents, was born, and died. And, of course, they would be correct. But the writer to the Hebrews, taking a hint from Psalm 110:4, sees in their absence a hidden connection with Jesus, who is our eternal High Priest. Jesus, as the Son of God, had no parents and no genealogy. Jesus has always been and always will be.

    It makes little difference that the writer to the Hebrews is also expounding on Psalm 110:4. Where did the psalmist get the idea? If the answer is, “From the Lord,” that is fine. It only affirms that there can be hidden meanings below the surface of the p’shat or simple meaning of the text. Furthermore, the author alludes to there being more to know about the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus (Hebrews 5:11)13.

    Perhaps we could conclude that Hebrews 7:1 is a remez or a drash. That is certainly possible. What decides the issue for me is the effort the writer of Hebrews must take to bring the connection to light. It does not have the immediate and easy semantic association of Isaiah 7:14, nor does it have the human connection of Paul’s allegory. Instead, it is more abstract and requires real decoding.

    Is it for Today?

    Must one be an inspired writer of sacred scripture to employ hints, allegories, and hidden meanings from the scriptures? There is no suggestion in the scriptures that this is so, and many who employ a grammatical-historical hermeneutic also acknowledge the existence of types (drashim). All that’s left is to add the use of hints (remezim) and possible discovery of hidden meanings (sodim) to our interpretive toolkit. The scriptures model all four and, therefore, they seem to be legitimate.

    The fundamental issue with this notion is quality control and purity of doctrine. One can dialog over the simple meaning of the text and arise at consensus meaning (most of the time). How might one dialog over subjective interpretations? How do we avoid the pitfalls of error and protect people from falling prey to cults? Look at the following membership class notes that illustrate the core problem:

    The Kingdom of God, like any other kingdom has a culture and a language all of its own. Its language is of divine origin. It is the way in which deity has chosen to communicate with humanity. If we are going to dialogue with God in his word or in prayer we best learn the Language of his Kingdom. One cannot understand much of the Bible, without understanding the language of symbols, types, and shadows. Until we see the divine intent in the OLD TESTAMENT we will never fully comprehend the contents of the NEW TESTAMENT.14 (Emphasis is in the original.)

    The pastor’s sermons, at this church, are filled with symbols, types, and shadows. Consequently, he can say anything that he wants. There are no controls. His approach removes understanding of the scriptures from the common person and places it in the domain of the enlightened, i.e. those who “understand the language.” If this leader develops cultic tendencies, his congregation will be ill equipped to challenge him. The situation could become bad indeed.

    Paul also warns us to be careful.

    As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:3, 4)

    In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. (1 Timothy 4:6,7a)

    Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, (2 Timothy 2:14-16)

    If it were not for the contraindications of the New Testament authors’ use of the Old Testament (i.e. (remezim, drashim, and sodim), there would be no clearer proof texts for a strict grammatical-historical interpretation. Instead, we must take them as severe warnings about their misuse. We must work hard to discern when, why, and how to use them. The answer, it seems, is to use the scriptures as a model. That model contains these principles:

    1. New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are largely in the p’shat sense. Christianity represented a dramatic change for the Jews and the Gentiles. It had to swim against the current of centuries of entrenched doctrine. Its champions had to show from the scriptures that the “new order” was not entirely new or unexpected. Nothing but a consistent presentation of plain simple passages from the Old Testament could win the day. They were the proof texts for New Testament doctrine and were quoted to convince the Jews and the Gentiles of the truth about Jesus the Messiah.

    Our first rule must be to use the simple p’shat sense predominantly. People must first of all know what the Book says in order to benefit from its message.

    2. New Testament quotes of the Old Testament never introduce or establish doctrine with anything other than the simple p’shat sense. Instead, the use of remez, drash, and sod serve to amplify and illustrate themes established by the sounder method. To put this another way, remez, drash, and sod are not a bridge to esoteric knowledge. They are servants of the p’shat. Paul, in Galatians, firmly laid a plain text foundation for justification by faith, before using an allegory to provide a human dimension. In the allegory, Paul was not trying to be deep, he was trying to be clear. The story of Hagar and Sarah would stick much better and longer than his propositional logic. On the other hand, without the logic the allegory has no power.

    3. The more error prone is an interpretive model, the less frequently the New Testament uses it. Thus the New Testament employs p’shat, remez, drash, and sod in decreasing frequency.

    Mysticism attracts people with a promise of a deeper experience with God that transcends the need for righteousness. Because of this, there is a persistent temptation to create a biblical mystique by emphasizing hints, allegories, and hidden themes above simple understanding. This is the area that Paul was warning Timothy about.

    4. The New Testament books that favor a Jewish audience have the highest frequency of remez, drash, and sod. Matthew, Hebrews, and the writings of John contain the highest concentrations of this material, whereas Paul’s letters use it very sparingly. This suggests that their use today has favorable implications for Jewish evangelism. Also by communicating outright that these are Jewish authors using Jewish principles of interpretation, we disarm the efforts of the anti-missionaries, who stridently use the quotes in Matthew to turn the ears of seeking Jews from the claims of Messianic Judaism.

    5. Remezim derive their meaning by semantic association with New Testament events or by communicating universal principles in pictorial form.

    6. Drashim make room for expanded meditation on major p’shat themes. One can even see where the force of the allegory stems from the maxim, “History repeats itself.” Thus the choice of Abram to father a child by Hagar stems from the same misunderstanding driving the Galatian churches to choose justification by self-effort. The meaning of an allegory does not derive from a symbolic language of the scriptures, but on the common behaviors in the human heart that link past events to a current situation.

    7. There is some room for seeking hidden messages in the scriptures, subject to the restrictions noted above. An important criterion before teaching from such a text, though, is for us to discern author intent. One could imagine the human author intentionally hiding a message in his text and that he gives clues to its presence. Such a criterion protects us from efforts like the equi-distant letter sequences concept discussed by Michael Drosnin in his book The Bible Code15.

    This is certainly true of Genesis 1:1, where one can connect aleph and tov (the basics of language) with the phrase “And God said.”

    The abrupt appearance and disappearance of Melchizedek, who was obviously of great significance to Abram, leaves us wondering who he was and why more is not said about him.

    Practical Points

    This is not a call for a radical change in scholarly hermeneutics. The grammatical and historical approach to the scriptures is the foundation of understanding Biblical truth. It remains the only basis by which we can objectively discuss the doctrines of our belief.

    When it comes to communicating doctrine, we should allow ourselves greater latitude. This, of course, also means that we must communicate to our hearers the 4 interpretive modes, their principles and their boundaries. As in all that we do: “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5). It is not to sound mystical. It is not to sound enlightened. It is not to seek our own glory. Instead, like the writers of the New Testament, we have a gospel of regeneration to communicate to a lost and dying world. That world consists of right and left brained people, who have different learning modes. The use of p’shat, remez, drash, and sod can broaden our audience and enhance the effectiveness of our teaching.

    Here are some examples this point:

    Moses, Joshua, and Caleb: A Drash and Remez

    Moses the lawgiver could not lead the Israelites into Canaan, because he violated the command of God to speak to the rock. He struck the rock instead (Numbers 20:3-11). Instead, it was Joshua who led the Israelites into Canaan. Of all the first generation that left Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb entered the land.

    Moses typifies the failure and sternness of the Law. Unless obedience is perfect, we are doomed to judgement and kept out of the Promised Land.

    Joshua typifies salvation. Not only did Joshua and Caleb enter the land because of their faith, but Joshua’s name means “The Lord’s Salvation.” It was the “Lord’s Salvation” that led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

    Caleb hints at the salvation of the Gentiles. Caleb means “Dog,” a euphemism for Gentiles, a remez of the coming salvation of the Gentiles by faith.

    The Missing Name of God in Esther: A Sod

    In his book, Explore the Book, J. Sidlow Baxter has this observation about the missing name of God in the Book of Esther.

    As a matter of fact the name of God does occur in this Book of Esther, in a most remarkable way. The name “Jehovah” is secretly hidden four times in an acrostic form, and the name Eyeh (“I am that I am”) once. In several ancient manuscripts the acrostic consonants which represent the name are written larger, to make them stand out, as though we might write it in English thus – JeHoVaH. There are no other acrostics in the book, so that the intentionalness of these five is clear. The five places where the acrostics occur are i. 20; v. 4; v. 13; vii. 7; vii. 5.

    In the four acrostics which form the name Jehovah, the four words forming the J H V H are in each case consecutive. Each of the four is spoken by a different person. In the first two cases, the acrostic is formed by the initial letters of the words. In the other two it is formed by the final letters of the words. In the first and third acrostics, the letters spell the name backwards and the speakers are Gentiles. In the second and fourth, the letters spell the name forwards and the speakers are Hebrews16.

    Kingdom (p’shat) and Kingdom (remez)

    Robert P. Lightner, in his The Last Days Handbook, wrote:

    Those classified as evangelical (conservative, orthodox, or fundamental) have a great deal in common as they embrace the historic Christian faith. Yet they battle fiercely with each other over things to come. While they stand united when it comes to the great truths of the historic Christian faith, they are sorely divided in their understanding of God’s plan for the future. Why?17

    He then goes on in his book to lay out the different viewpoints side by side, with a good effort towards impartiality. One of his chapters, Interpreting Scriptures, is as good a discussion of the differences between covenant and dispensational approaches to the scriptures as one might read. His concludes:

    All evangelicals do use the literal method for their understanding of most of the Bible, but some, namely those of amillenial and postmillenial persuasion, think it best to use a less than literal hermeneutic with much unfulfilled prophecy. It is at this point that the evangelical world is divided over things to come and this is what puts prophecy in the middle of the debate. Premillenialists cannot understand why their brothers and sisters insist on using a different method in interpretation with some unfulfilled prophecy but not with all of it. They wonder on what grounds is the less-than-literal approach to be restricted to only some themes of unfulfilled prophecy?18

    Do the rabbinical modes of scriptural interpretation provide firm footing for the interpretive work of the covenant theologians? Are they right in saying that there is no literal Messianic Kingdom on the earth? No, but it is time to understand that a merger is possible.

    This paper has argued for the recognition of four rabbinical modes of scriptural interpretation; p’shat, remez, drash, and sod. It has shown that Old Testament verses clearly have both a grammatical-historical meaning and an extended meaning that comes from semantic associations arising from future revelation. Reflect again on what Isaiah 7:14 meant to King Ahaz. At that time and in that place, it was not about the virgin birth of the Messiah. It was about the timetable of the removal of two troublesome kings. That is the p’shat. With the virgin birth of Jesus, who is God in the flesh, Isaiah 7:14 becomes a remez (hint) of the virgin birth. It is worthy to note that the remez today has more relevance than the p’shat of yesterday, but the p’shat stands firm in its truth nonetheless.

    There is Old Testament prophecy concerning a Kingdom in Israel that will be ruled by the Messiah on David’s throne. The p’shat of the Hebrew text reveals this. It is how the author of the book would have understood his own writing and it is what a Jew today would understand. It is also what a rabbi with his four rabbinical modes of interpretation would understand as well. So, a bible scholar should be free to hold such a position without being labeled a “hyper-literalist.”

    But can the dispensational theologian really say, “That’s all there is?” Did not Jesus say, as record in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm?” Is there not a real sense that the spread of the gospel is the spread of the “Kingdom of God?” In Matthew 24:14 Jesus says, “this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” How excited can a gentile nation really get over a future and far off kingdom in Israel? How is that kingdom good news to an outback aborigine?

    So the covenant theologians are on to something. The “Kingdom of God” is about the rule of God’s Law in the hearts of men. It is about the power and authority of God over Sin, Satan, and Sickness. The words of Jesus lend support to their viewpoint. A bible scholar should be free to hold such a position without being accused of “spiritualizing” the text.

    We can use the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament as a model and embrace both viewpoints.

    There is a p’shat interpretation of Kingdom prophecies that speak of the return of Jesus in battle array to defeat the armies that have surround Jerusalem. It will be the day that all Israel will be saved and the day that Jesus assumes the throne of David. It is the time when Ezekiel’s temple will be built. It is the age when the gentile nations will come to Jerusalem once a year to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.

    There is a remez interpretation of Kingdom prophecies that speak of the spread of the gospel through the earth. Its force in the world is through the Church with Jesus Christ as its head. The Law of God is written on the hearts of men. Its citizens are the true children of Abraham by reason of faith. It is no longer possible to read about the coming Messianic Kingdom without thinking of the Church. The semantic associations are there and we should recognize them.

    Both streams are true. Both streams have support from the New Testament. Why do we persist that we must accept the one and reject the other? At the return of Jesus the Messiah, both will be brought into unity. There will be a King in Jerusalem, but all other nations in the world will call him King and bring Him tribute. As in the days of the British Empire when colonial peoples would acknowledge the English crown, so will there be a commonwealth that is centered in Jerusalem.

    Conclusion

    Many have grappled with how the New Testament authors quoted the Old Testament. It is an important subject. There is legitimate hope to be found in recognizing and adopting a Jewish approach to the problem. There is a logical basis for doing so, because the authors, themselves, were Jews. Furthermore, the approach holds forth the promise of reconciling covenant and dispensational theologies. This small effort only scratches the surface of possibilities.


    1 The word translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 is “almah” rather than the stronger and clearer “betulah.”

    2 One possible reconciliation between Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew1:22, 23 lies in a remark that Isaiah makes in the section that extends from Isaiah 7:1 through 9:7. Briefly, in 8:18, Isaiah says, “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” Assuming that Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the son promised by Isaiah 7:14 for the short term prophectic fulfillment, Isaiah 8:18 leaves room for a second and more substantive fulfillment by a true virgin bearing the true Immanuel.

    3 The New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, 1996) [On-line]. Available: /netbible

    4 It is amazing to me how often I read that Isaiah 7:14 is literally fulfilled with no indication that there is a contextual problem.

    5 Lightner, Daniel P. The Last Days Handbook (Thomas Nelson Publishers 1990, pp. 130, 131)

    6 Stern, David H., Jewish New Testament Commentary (Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992) 11, 12

    7 This raises an interesting question about the use of plhrow in Matthew 5:17. Did Jesus “fulfill” the Law and the Prophets in the sense of walking perfectly in them? Or did Jesus “fill them to the brim” or “complete” them? If it is the latter, then the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount may be understood in the light of completing the Law. It is the backdrop for Jesus’ formula during the sermon, “You have heard that it was said <quote from the Law>, but I say <violation in the heart invisible to the eyes of men>” The Law is made complete by bringing the heart into the equation. In so doing, Jesus lays the groundwork and establishes the necessity of the new covenant that Jeremiah prophesied (Jeremiah 31:31-34). That is, the Lord will write His Law on our hearts (heart righteousness) and our sin He will remember no more (a permanent solution). By making obedience a heart issue and by sending the Holy Spirit for our sanctification, the Lord writes the “filled full” law on our hearts and we find the “obedience of faith.” [Romans 5:1] By His death and ressurection, He completely cleanses us from our sin.

    8 It can be noted that the NET Bible translation of Isaiah 7:14, although accurate, no longer communicates the remez of the text. In my opinion, this is an unfortunate loss.

    9 Wallace, Daniel B., The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical (Biblical Studies Press, 1994) [On-line]. Available: /docs/soapbox/estsw.htm

    10 Howard, Tracy L., The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution (Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1985)

    11 See Howard, Tracy L., The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution (Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1985) – Tracy Howard’s notion of Analogical Correspondence is an excellent parallel to my understanding of remez. Howard does a credible job of describing Matthew’s thought process and the term analogical correspondence is a good label for it. However, coining a new term to fix the hermeneutical problem does not fix the problem. It may define, but it does not explain. At best it only hides the problem. The concept of remez, however, has a plausible connection to the New Testament authors. Therefore, it is able to explain.

    12 See Glenny, W. Edward, The Divine Meaning of Scriptures: Explanation and Limitations (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, December 1995)

    13 Certainly the reference to “bread and wine” would be part of this. Note also the relationship, brought out in Hebrews 5:11-14, between maturity and our ability to really understand the scriptures.

    14 Scalf, Gary New Testament Biblical View of the Old Testament (Ecclesia Kingdom Seekers)

    15 For an interesting debunking of Michael Drosnin’s book, see: McKay, Brendan Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick (1997) [On-line]. Available: http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/bdm/dilugim/moby.html

    16 Baxter, J. Sidlow Explore the Book (Zondervan, 1978), 261.

    17 Lightner, Robert P. The Last Days Handbook (Thomas Nelson Publishers 1990, pp. xi, xii)

    18 ibid. pp. 130, 131

    Related Topics: Bible Study Methods

    The Story of the "Seed" - The Coming of the Promised Messiah

    Related Media

    Prophecies of the Coming Christ

    The following Old Testament texts either directly or indirectly point ahead in time to the coming of the promised Savior, the Messiah. These prophecies may refer to either His first coming or His second coming, or both. Reading and reflecting on these passages can greatly enrich your worship of the Savior at this Christmas season.

    Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3; 22:1-18 (see Galatians 3:8); 49:10
    Exodus 12
    Leviticus 16
    Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (see Exodus 33:17-33)
    2 Samuel 7:12-17
    Psalm 2:1-12; 16:7-11; 22, 23; 110:1 (see Matthew 22:41-45); 118:22
    Isaiah 7:14; 9:1-7; 52:13--53:12
    Jeremiah 23:1-6; 32:37-40; 33:6-9, 14-18
    Daniel 2:31-45; 7:13-14; 9:24-27
    Micah 5:2-5
    Zechariah 9:9; 13:7; 14:1-11

    Questions For Your Consideration

      1. What do you learn about the promised “seed” or “Messiah” from these passages?

      2. What do we learn about men and the Messiah from these passages?

      3. What do we learn about God and the Messiah from these passages?

      4. What do we learn about Israel and Messiah from these passages?

      5. What do we learn about the future and Messiah from these passages?

      6. What impact were the messianic prophecies and promises to have on the Israelite of old?

      7. How did the birth of Jesus fulfill some of the promises above?

      8. What promises remain to be fulfilled?

      9. Read through the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. What do you learn about Messiah from these genealogies?

      10. Read through the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, and note which prophecies these gospel writers tell us were fulfilled.

      11. From those passages about the first coming of the Messiah which were fulfilled, what can we learn (by inference) about the promises pertaining to the second coming of Messiah?

      12. What was it that set apart or distinguished those who recognized Messiah as such, and those who did not? How could one fall down in worship to a baby, as the king?

      13. What is it that the genealogy of Jesus is linked to the commencement of His ministry in Luke, but with His birth in Matthew?

      14. What does the New Testament make of Jesus’ incarnation? What does Jesus make of it? Does He ever refer backward to His birth and/or childhood?

      15. What’s wrong with the world is that sin was found in Satan, and then, through his tempting of Adam and Eve, sin was found in one man, and transmitted to his offspring. The problem of sin and of Satan must be solved.

    The Problem Develops in the Old Testament

    In Genesis 3 we find:

      1. God seeks out Adam, who has hidden from Him (3:8-10)

      2. God sorts out and points out the sin and meets out consequences (3:11-19)

      3. God provides a covering, to enable Adam to approach Him (3:21)

      4. God promises to save Adam, through his seed (3:15)

    In Genesis 4 it becomes immediately apparent that the sin of Adam is passing to and through his seed. One of his sons (Cain) kills his brother (Able), and not for any evil he had done, but rather because he had found acceptance with God. The one son of Adam and Eve who would seem to be the “seed” through whom salvation would come is killed! In Genesis 5 Lamech kills another for wounding him, and boasts about it (5:23-24). At the end of chapter 5, Seth is born, and because of him, men begin to “call on the name of the Lord” (5:25-26). Yet by the time we reach Genesis 6 we find that the whole world has become so totally corrupt, so that God must destroy all mankind.

    Chapters 6-9 of Genesis are the story of God, Noah and his family, and the flood. God destroyed a world that was already too corrupt to allow to continue, but He spared Noah. There is still hope for the world. God starts all over in 8:20--9:17, making a covenant with Noah in these verses, and all appears to well. And yet in the very next verses (9:18-27) Noah became drunk and Ham, Noah’s son, and Canaan, Ham’s son were involved in sin which brought another curse on them and on their seed.

    In Genesis 11 we come to the account of the tower of Babel. Men join together, in rebellion against God and against His command to disperse and to populate the whole earth. They plan to build a city, where they will dwell together, and to build a tower which reaches to heaven. God brought confusion and chaos to this plan by giving them different languages.

    Things are looking very bleak for mankind. But, in Genesis chapter 12 God made a covenant with Abraham. In this covenant, called the Abrahamic Covenant, God specified that the salvation and blessings which He had promised Adam and Eve, which would be accomplished by their “seed”, would be fulfilled through the “seed” of Abram and Sarai, who were elderly and who had no children. We are sitting on pins and needles as we watch Abram and Sarai endanger this plan by her representing herself as an eligible bride, so that at least two pagan kings try to take her for their wife. If Sarai was to have a child, it was looking like the child would be the seed of someone other than Abram, and because of Abram’s request that she lie about her identity! And not only does Abram endanger the purity of his wife and their “seed”, he also attempts to raise up a seed through his wife’s servant, Hagar, at Sarai’s request!

    How we sigh with relief when we find that God has protected this couple from their own efforts, and when that boy child, Isaac, is born. How puzzling it is when we read that God commanded Abram to sacrifice this child (Genesis 22). How can God’s promise be realized through the death of this promised “seed”? Fortunately, God stopped Abraham from killing his son, and He provided a ram to die in Isaac’s place. At last, we think, the plan of God is finally under way.

    But the “seed” of Abraham prove to be a sinful lot. Isaac bore two sons, and he did everything he could to reverse God’s choice of Jacob over Esau. Jacob was a deceiver and a rascal. One wonders how he even survived. By God’s grace, Jacob did survive, and due to his grasping way of life, he ended up with twelve sons, by different wives. These sons were not only willing to kill one another (as they were intending to do to Joseph), they were also willing to intermingle with the Canaanites, as Judah, the designated “seed” through whom the Savior will come (Genesis 49:8-12) is reported to have done in Genesis 38. Were this group of Abraham’s “seed” left to themselves, they would have either killed each other off, or they would have intermingled with the heathen so that there was no distinct “seed” of Abraham, through whom God’s salvation would be accomplished.

    And so God worked out a plan (which He had previously revealed to Abraham in Genesis 15:12-17) whereby He would send His chosen “seed” into captivity in Egypt. There, in Egypt, not because of their own piety or purity but because of the racial prejudice and harsh oversight of the Egyptians, God protects His “seed” from themselves and from the corruption of the Canaanites. After 400 years of slavery, the nation has grown great and strong, so strong that the Egyptians fear and oppress them. God delivered this nation from their slavery and began to bring them into the land He had promised Abraham.

    Well, at last! Its about time. God’s promise to Abraham seems to be coming to pass. But this nation began to grumble and to rebel against God’s rule. They even wanted to overthrow Moses, and to go back to Egypt. While Moses was on the holy mountain, receiving God’s laws for them, they persuaded Aaron to make an idol for them to worship. With the fire and smoke billowing from that mountain behind them, they made and worshipped this golden calf, and acted immorally as they did.

    For a moment, it appears to be all over. It looked as if God were going to wipe out this whole nation, this “seed” and start out all over. It was Moses who reminded God (not that He needed reminding) that God had made a covenant, and that His character and reputation necessitated His keeping it, in spite of the sin of His “seed”, Israel. And so God gave this people His law, a promised to go with them, and with Moses.

    That first generation of Israelites never made it into the land, because of their rebellion and unbelief. They thought that the people inhabiting the land of Canaan were too strong, and that God was not able or willing to deliver them over to His people, and so they rebelled. It was necessary for another 40 years to pass, and for this generation to die off, so that they next generation of Abraham’s “seed” could possess the land of promise.

    Once in the land, all did not go well, however. The people of Israel were only as godly and obedient as their leaders, the judges. With judges like Samson, things did not look all that promising for the nation. Israel, by God’s grace, did survive, but they wanted to have kings, not judges, just like the nations around them (1 Samuel 8). Their first king, Saul, was Israel’s kind of king. He was, as it were, tall, dark, and handsome. But he was not a man after God’s heart. And this king had to be removed. Then God appointed David, not as promising from outward appearances, but a man after God’s heart. God made a covenant with David, promising him an eternal throne, and indicating that it was through his “seed” and his dynastic line that Messiah would come (2 Samuel 7:5-17). In spite of this David sinned greatly, taking the wife of one of his men, and then the life of Uriah, to try to cover his sin (2 Samuel 11). God disciplined David, but forgave his sin and reiterated His covenant with him. The “seed” of Adam, and of Abram, and of Judah, and now of David, would be both the Savior of the world, and its King.

    The kings who followed David did not offer much assurance, for many of these kings were wicked men, who led the Israelites into idolatry and other sin. Things went well when good kings reigned, but they went badly when wicked kings ruled, and the wicked kings outnumbered the good ones. To make matters worse, David’s son, Solomon, who seemed to offer such promise, was not at wise at the end of his life as he was at first. By his own foolishness, Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, split the one united kingdom of Israel into two kingdoms. There were never again to be reunited in the history of Israel.

    To help keep Israel and her kings walking as God commanded, God sent prophets to the nation (and, after the division, to both kingdoms, Israel and Judah), to remind them of His law, and of what it meant. They also spoke of a future day of restoration, when God would first chasten His people and bring them to repentance and faith, and judge the nations and peoples of the earth. They spoke of a coming Messiah, Who would both bear the sins of the people, and who would rule as God’s mighty king, on the throne of His father, David.

    These prophets were not received with open hearts and open arms. They were persistently rejected, persecuted, and all to often put to death. Israel did not wish to hear what God had to say.

    The whole of the Old Testament can be summed up by saying that men were persistently messing up what God had provided. It became more and more forcefully clear that if salvation was going to come, if Satan were to be defeated and if sin were to be overcome and eradicated, it would not be by men, or by their efforts. To sum it all up, if God were to bring about Israel’s salvation and blessings, along with those of the world, it would have to come about through a very special “seed”, because the seed always multiplied the sins of their fathers. Things only got worse. The answer was that the “seed” through whom God would save the world was to be a true man, but also true God, God incarnate, who would dwell among men, show Himself the sinless Son of God, and then die for their sins. Israel’s hope was in a man, but in a very special man, a very special seed. And that “seed” was to be the Lord Jesus, the Christ.

    When we look at all of the different epochs or stages in the history of man and in the history of Israel, there are several consistent features which appear in every age. Let us conclude by focusing our attention on them:

    Man’s persistence in sin and rebellion against God contrasted against:

    • God’s presence--God with us
    • God’s promise of salvation--God will save us
    • God’s present provision and protection, assuring the promise will be fulfilled
    • God’s preparation for that which was promised

    These four elements of God’s presence, His promise, His provision and protection, and His preparation are evident throughout the Old Testament, virtually every time He makes a covenant with men.

    [Perhaps these four elements can be further reduced to two: (1) God’s preservation of His people, and (2) God promise of a salvation yet to come.]

    The covenants or promises which should receive our attention are these:

    • God’s Dealings with Adam, Eve, and Satan (Genesis 3)
    • The Noahic Covenant (Genesis 8:20--9:7)
    • The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3)
    • The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 20ff.)
    • The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)

    The one thing which the Old Testament made absolutely clear was the sinfulness of men--all men--and thus the impossibility of overthrowing sin and Satan by an mere man. The law did not remedy the problem of sin, but merely restrained and removed sinners. And sin was such that the Law sometimes was perverted to become an excuse, even a mandate, for sin. This becomes very clear when the teachings and practices of the scribes and Pharisees, which they thought were based on the law, became their excuse for sin, and even for the rejection and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.

    Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘AND TO SEEDS,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘AND TO YOUR SEED,’ that is Christ (Galatians 3:15-16).

    Conclusion

    Progressive revelation--growing detail about the promised seed.

    The sinfulness of men--consciously or unconsciously opposing or resisting the coming of the promised Savior.

    A strong sense of danger, or even of doubt, that God’s plan and promises would come to pass, based on man’s sin.

    The faithfulness of God, to keep His promises, in spite of our sin

    The power of God--He is unstoppable

    The creativity/freedom of God--to accomplish His purposes in ways we would never predict, expect, or believe.

    A Mysteriousness. The promised seed came in a way which completely fulfilled all the promises, but in a way that we never expected.

    A merging--of the two comings. The first coming was never separated, in prophecy, in fulfillment, or in response to His birth.

    A contrast, between first and second comings. First coming, Jesus seems vulnerable, and He is gentle, approachable by sinners, not condemning. Second coming in splendour, power, and unapproachable. Comes to judge, to overtake enemies, and to reign.

    We tend to focus on the commencement (the birth of Messiah), rather than on the consummation (second coming). Is this the way the Old and New Testament writers saw it? Both the prophecies of the Bible, and the accounts of recognition and response to Jesus point to the emphasis on His ultimate destiny and work. How many biographies spend a great deal of time focusing in on the birth of great men? No, but they rather focus in on the great work of these men. And so with the New Testament. How much do the apostles make of the birth of Jesus? Are we ever commanded to commemorate His birth?

    We focus on the first coming of the Christ because it is warm and fuzzy, reassuring and comforting. We like to keep Jesus in that manger, helpless, dependent on us. But the Bible never leaves Him there. Indeed, there is very little time or emphasis placed on the early years of Jesus, in terms of biblical proportions.

    The “seed” is the “servant” in Isaiah. There is an inter-weaving of the servant as Israel, as individual men, and as Messiah. The Lord became the “seed” and the “servant” because no other seed or servant could do what had to be done.

    Note the progressive revelation in the life of Jesus as to who He was. He was not introduced, at His birth, as the “little lamb of God,” but rather at the commencement of His public ministry, by John.

    Related Topics: Christology, Christmas, Prophecy/Revelation

    The Significance of the Resurrection

    Related Media

    Introduction

    This week I found it necessary to do some of my research and preparation for this Easter message in a nearby dime store. I went there to learn how the average person attempts to celebrate Easter. That’s right, the dime store. One of the best sources of material on the theology of Easter is to be found in the “Easter” section of the greeting cards. I found a fairly good sized selection of cards on display, the vast majority of which were entirely secular. They ranged from the “thinking of you at Easter” variety to the ones which had pictures of fuzzy teddy bears, rabbits, and Easter eggs, and some kind of inane holiday greeting. Frequently there was a “Spring is Here” motif with Easter somehow associated with the coming of Spring, and the happy thought of leaving behind a dreary winter and looking forward to the fresh new life which signals the coming of Spring.

    There were three or four cards which might loosely be called “religious” cards. For example, one had a picturesque church on the cover, another had “an Easter prayer,” and another had a religious word or two. Not so much as one card contained a cross, an empty tomb, not even the name of the Lord Jesus.

    If the greeting card displays of most stores are like the one I visited, we would have to agree that the resurrection of Christ is not considered very significant by the marketplace. Easter bunnies and eggs have won “hands down” over Christ, the cross of Calvary, and the empty tomb.

    The significance of Easter is often overlooked or distorted by churches in America. All too often, Easter Sunday is more of a “coming out” ritual, a part of the celebration of the commencement of Spring, than it is an observance and celebration of the resurrection of our Lord. Ladies can show off their new hats and outfits. Once a year church attenders can show up to shock the preacher, and to give him his annual “shot” at them as they attend.

    Typically, many evangelical preachers take this occasion to give an apologetic sermon, seeking to show that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is a proven fact of history--and that it is. I am convinced, however, that many of the non-Christians who attend Easter Sunday services accept the resurrection of Christ as a fact. They simply have not come to recognize and act of its significance. It is for this reason that I am addressing this message to the religious unbelievers who believe in the fact of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, but who fail to grasp its significance in a personal way. I will seek to demonstrate the significance of the resurrection of Christ by focusing on the uniqueness, the necessity, and the urgency of the resurrection.

    The Uniqueness of Christ’s Resurrection

    The significance of resurrection of our Lord is first to be seen in the uniqueness of His resurrection from the dead. There are several facets of the uniquesness of the resurrection of our Lord which we shall focus on:

    (1) The resurrection of our Lord was unique because of His deity. The significance in the event of the resurrection is intertwined with the significance of the person who was raised. It was no mere mortal who rose from the dead on that Easter morning, it was the Son of God. Throughout His life, Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, for which reason the religious leaders sought to put Him to death (cf. John 8:31-59). At the sight of our Lord’s death, a soldier standing nearby declared, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39). Beyond this, the resurrection was proof positive that the Lord Jesus was the Son of God, even as He had declared (cf. Rom. 1:3-4).

    In his message on the resurrection of Christ, one of Peter’s arguments was that if the Lord Jesus was indeed God, it would be impossible for God to have remained dead, to decompose in a tomb (cf. Acts 2:24-32). For anyone to have been raised from the dead would have been significant; for the Son of God to have been raised is all the more so. One therefore cannot take the resurrection of our Lord too seriously.

    (2) The resurrection of our Lord was unique because of the death which preceded and necessitated His resurrection. The death of Christ was the death of one who was sinless, on behalf of those who were sinners. Over the years there have been some who have sought to show that the death of Christ was less noble than it is. A few have thought that it was our Lord’s own folly that brought about His death. After all, they might say, He made ridiculous claims to be God Himself, and He persistently offended the religious leaders by publicly attacking and ridiculing them. No wonder He died, some would say, because this “man” did not have the sense to recognize his own humanity or the diplomacy to pacify the power structure of that day.

    Most men would not dare to go so far, but would rather look upon the death of Christ as a great tragedy. It was not our Lord’s folly, but the “fickle hand of fate” or the “evil plots of a few threatened men” which brought about the premature death of Jesus, before He could establish His ideal kingdom on earth.

    The death of Christ was unique, however, because it was a part of God’s eternal plan that Christ would die as an innocent sacrificial lamb, as a substitute payment for the sins of men. The sacrifices of the Old Testament system anticipated Him who was to come as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29; cf. I Cor. 5:7). From eternity past, Christ was designated as the perfect sacrifice, without spot or blemish, whose death could thus atone for the sins of others (Is. 53; Heb. 9:11-14; 1 Pet. 1:18-20; 2:21-25).

    (3) The resurrection of our Lord was unique as an event which had no precedent.1 Never before had anyone been raised from the grave in such a way as to be completely transformed and thus beyond the icy fingers of death. Our Lord’s resurrection was the first genuine resurrection in the history of man. His resurrection is referred to as “the first fruits,” for there will be many who will follow after Him (1 Cor. 15:23).

    The Necessity
    of our Lord’s Resurrection

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is significant because of its necessity. There are several reasons why the resurrection was necessary, and we shall consider some of them below.

    (1) The resurrection of Christ was necessary to prove that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be. Our Lord had clearly claimed to be the son of God, which was the reason why the religious leaders conspired to kill Him (cf. John 19:7). The resurrection was God’s proof that the Lord Jesus was Who He claimed to be: the Son of God:

    Who was declared with power to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 1:4).

    (2) The resurrection of Christ was necessary to prove that Jesus Christ had accomplished what He had promised. The death of our Lord alone would not have sufficed, since it is by our identification with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection that we are saved.

    Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Rom. 5:9-10).

    In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, that great resurrection chapter of the New Testament, Paul argues that apart from Christ’s resurrection, we would have no hope:

    But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. . . . For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (1 Cor. 15:13-14; 16-17).

    In his message at Pentecost, Peter taught that the resurrection of Christ by the Father (through the Holy Spirit) was God’s vindication of His Son, His message, and His work:

    “This Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its powers. . . .

    This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. . . . Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:23-24, 32-33, 36).

    (3) The resurrection was a necessary in order to fulfill biblical prophecy. In Acts chapter 2 Peter argued that the resurrection was biblically necessary, citing David’s words in Psalm 16:10:

    “Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay” (Acts 2:27; cf. 13:33).

    Peter argued from Psalm 16 that David could not have referred to himself, but rather to his Son, Messiah, whom God would raise from the dead. The Old Testament Scriptures were understood by the apostles to foretell the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ was thus a biblical necessity.

    (4) The resurrection of Christ was also a logical necessity. In his message in the second chapter of Acts, Peter also contended that the resurrection of Christ, the Messiah, was a logical as well as a biblical necessity.

    “And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power” (Acts 2:24).

    Peter argued here that it is impossible for God to remain in the grave and to decay, as men do. By virtue of being God, Christ could not have been left in that tomb, dead.

    (5) The resurrection of Christ is vital because it is a necessary element of a saving faith. In both the Old and the New Testaments, a saving faith was a faith in a God’s who could and would raise men from the dead. A careful study of the 11th chapter of Hebrews will indicate that the faith of Old Testament saints was a resurrection faith.2

    Allow me to use one Old Testament figure to demonstrate the resurrection dimension of faith, the faith of Abraham. The initial absence of this kind of faith is apparent from Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his wife’s purity in order to save his own skin. As Abram and Sarai approached Egypt, he said to her,

    “See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman; and it will come about that when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well with me because of you, and that I might live on account of you” (Gen. 12:11-13).

    This was far from a resurrection faith on Abraham’s part. He was so fearful of dying that he was willing to sacrifice his wife’s purity to save his own skin.

    As God continued to work in Abraham’s life, a resurrection faith resulted. When God promised Abram and Sarai a son in their old age, Abraham believed God because he had come to possess a saving, resurrection faith. Paul writes about Abraham’s faith in his epistle to the Romans:

    And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Romans 4:19-20).3

    Abraham’s resurrection was put to its most crucial test, once again pertaining to his son. The writer to the Hebrews tells us,

    By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews 11:17-19).

    Thus we can see that the faith of the Old Testament saints was a resurrection faith. So, too, the faith of the New Testament believer must be a resurrection faith. Jesus said,

    “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26)

    The apostle Paul wrote:

    . . . if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Rom. 10:9).

    Personal faith in the resurrection of Christ is therefore necessary because it is a vital element in a faith that leads to salvation.

    The Urgency of our Response to Christ’s Resurrection

    Up to this point there is probably little that I have said which is new to you. Hopefully this is true. But in spite of the fact that many believe the things which I have spoken about, a number of them are not genuinely born again. Belief in the resurrection of our Lord alone does not necessarily save a man.

    I am reminded of Matthew’s account of the resurrection of our Lord. He tells us that the soldiers who guarded the grave in which our Lord was buried were terrified by the things which accompanied the resurrection of Christ, and were terrified by the sight of the angel, who rolled away the stone:

    And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men (Matthew 28:2-4).

    In spite of all this, there is no evidence that these men came to faith in Christ. Instead, they were paid off, and became a part of a conspiracy to cover up the resurrection:

    And when they assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while they were asleep.’ . . . And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day (Matthew 28:12-13, 15).

    The resurrection of Christ is not just a matter of fact, which can be taken lightly--it is literally a matter of eternal life or death. The resurrection is not simply a fact to be believed or rejected, it is a fact to which our response will determine our eternal destiny. The resurrection of our Lord was a kind of watershed event in the New Testament. It was an event which brought about some significant, but seldom considered changes. Here, I wish to underscore two changes which are the result of our Lord’s resurrection. These will be of particular concern to those who are not really born again Christians, and yet who falsely find the resurrection a source of hope.

    At Christmas time we tend to think of the great change which took place when our Lord came to the earth in human flesh, in His incarnation as the babe in the manger in Bethlehem. Seldom, however, do we think of the changes4 which took place at the resurrection and ascension of our Lord. We make the mental distinction between Old Testament times and the time of Christ, and rightly so. Yet there are certain changes which occurred at the time of our Lord’s resurrection and ascension, which are seldom observed, but have great significance. Allow me to draw your attention to the changes which occurred as the result of our Lord’s resurrection.

    In the first place, there are the changes in the physical make-up, appearance, and outward manifestation of our Lord, as a result of His resurrection and ascension. When our Lord came in human flesh, He had laid aside the outward manifestations of His splendor and glory, so that men were not attracted by His outward appearance. His lot was suffering and the rejection of men. Outwardly, none would have immediately concluded that He was, indeed, the Son of God:

    Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him (Isa. 53:1-3).

    The same humiliation which Isaiah foretold in his prophecy is described by Paul as history, in the life of the Lord Jesus:

    Who, although He existed in the form of god, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:6-8).

    This bodily humiliation, however, was set aside when our Lord was resurrected. The gospel accounts emphasize the change in our Lord’s body after His resurrection. Jesus could appear and disappear at will (Luke 24:31). He could enter into a room that was sealed off by a barred door (John 20:26).

    And, after His ascension, the Lord was highly exalted by the Father (Phil. 2:9-11). We are thus in error to think of our Lord as remaining on in the present exactly as He was at the time when He walked on the earth among men. John, with whom our Lord seemingly had the most intimate relationship, describes Him in the Book of Revelation in terms very different from those found in the Gospel of John. Likewise, John responds very differently to the Lord in His heavenly appearances:

    And in the middle of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His breast with a golden girdle. And His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire; and His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been caused to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. And in His right hand He held seven stars; and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:13-18).

    The One against whom John used to recline (cf. John 21:20), is now the One before whom John falls as a dead man. In outward appearance, our Lord has greatly changed from the days of His earthly life among men.

    In the second place, the resurrection of our Lord has changed His response to sinners.5 All of us (sinners) find great comfort in the words of our Lord, spoken to the woman caught in the act of adultery,

    “Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more” (John 8:11).

    The accusers of this woman were right in understanding that the Law condemned such persons as those who were guilty of adultery. While every other person there was guilty and thus could not have taken up a stone to cast at this woman, Jesus could have, and the Law would demand that He do so.

    Why, then, did our Lord not condemn this woman? The answer is really quite simple: JESUS DID NOT CONDEMN THIS WOMAN BECAUSE HE HAD COME TO BEAR THE CONDEMNATION OF THE LAW HIMSELF. The purpose of our Lord’s first coming was not to judge, as much as it was to be judged:

    “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17; cf. 8:15; 12:47).

    Some have mistakenly sought consolation in these gracious words of our Lord to the adulterous woman as recorded in John’s gospel. They believe that because Jesus was raised from the dead, they, too, will be raised. And, to whatever degree they envision a judgment, they wrongly suppose that the resurrected Lord will respond to them in a way similar to our Lord’s response to the woman who was fallen in sin. This is indeed a deadly error, for things have changed now that our Lord has been raised from the dead, and things will be very different for those unbelievers who someday will be raised from their graves.

    The resurrection of our Lord assures all men, saved or unsaved, of being resurrected from the grave, but it in no way assures all men of experiencing the same blessings:

    “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).

    “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds, to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29).

    And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. . . . And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:13, 15).

    And He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:6-8; cf. 22:13-15; Acts 5:31).

    While the purpose of our Lord’s first coming was not to judge, so much as to be judged, the purpose of His second coming will be to judge all those who have rejected Him, and who have sought to establish themselves with God on the basis of their good works, rather than on the basis of His death, burial, and resurrection. It was not the repentant sinner, who cast themselves on our Lord for mercy who were condemned, but those who proudly trusted in their own religious self-righteousness who were so soundly rebuked (cf. John 8:6-9; Matthew 23; Luke 18:9-14).

    The resurrection of our Lord means that the sacrifice for sinners has been paid, once and for all, by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this sacrifice has been accepted. Those who would persist in their sins, and who would not cast themselves on Christ for salvation must look for Him to return as a righteous judge, who will judge all unbelievers. To reject the Lord Jesus as the Savior is to expect Him as Judge. The resurrection of our Lord from the dead should not bring comfort, but dread, to the hearts of all unbelievers.

    Conclusion

    If our response to the resurrection of Christ is of such significance, what keeps some, who sincerely believe in His resurrection, from the salvation which His death, burial, and resurrection are promised to provide? I believe that there are several reasons why some who believe in the resurrection are not saved.

    First, we fail to grasp our own true condition as it relates to the death and resurrection of Christ. Since our Lord was the innocent, sinless Son of God, His death was on our behalf, and not for His own sins. Peter put it this way:

    Who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. for you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls (1 Peter 2:22-25).

    If Christ did not die for His sins, but for the sins of men, then we must first acknowledge that we are sinners, and that it was our sins that He bore on the cross. In a very personal way, my sins put Christ on the cross.

    I should even go beyond this to say that my sinfulness would have eagerly participated in rejecting Christ and calling for His execution, just as the crowds did as recorded in the gospels. My sinfulness not only made it necessary for Christ to die--it would have willingly participated in the crucifixion of Christ. It is very easy to condemn the fickle crowds, who a few days before hailed Jesus as the King, and then cried out for Pilate to crucify Him, and to release Barrabas, a murderer, instead. Had I been there, I would have called for Christ’s crucifixion.

    The greatest problem we face is not accepting the resurrection of Christ, and that fact that “He lives” today. The greatest problem we face as sinners is recognition of the fact that we are dead in our transgressions and sins, and are eternally lost apart from His death, burial, and resurrection. It is our condition of being helplessly dead in our sins which makes the resurrection of Christ such a vitally needed truth (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10).

    Second, we fail to properly grasp the majesty, power, and awesome holiness of the resurrected Lord as He presently is, and as He will be when we stand before Him. Not only do we tend to minimize the seriousness of our own condition; we also fail to grasp the majesty, purity, and power of Christ’s present condition. Let me challenge you, my friend, to read the description of the resurrected Christ which the apostle John gives us in the Book of Revelation. If this does not inspire a godly fear of the coming wrath of God, nothing will.

    Third, we fail to take the death and resurrection of Christ personally. There are all too many religious unbelievers who have taken the resurrection of Christ to be true academically, but they have not taken this matter personally. Allow me to give you two biblical examples of those who took the resurrection of Christ personally.

    In the second chapter of the Book of Acts, we find the church being baptized by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The unusual manifestations of the Spirit caused a great crowd to gather in Jerusalem. Peter took this occasion to explain that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s power was a partial fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. This prophecy spoke of the coming “day of the Lord” when God would judge the sins of His people. Peter then went on to show that the power of the Spirit was poured forth on these chosen ones because He had been raised from the dead, a fact to which the empty tomb and the Old Testament Scriptures testified. Peter boldly proclaimed that while they had been responsible for the death of Christ, God had purposed to save them by His death, and had also overruled their actions by raising His Son from the grave. The bottom line of Peter’s message was this:

    “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).

    Here we have it in a nutshell. They were guilty of rejecting and crucifying Christ. By the resurrection of Christ, God had overruled their actions, and had proven His Son to be both Messiah (the sin-bearer promised in the Old Testament) and Lord, the one who would come in judgment, as Joel had prophesied. Taking this personally, many in that crowd confessed their sins and professed faith in Christ as their Savior (cf. Acts 2:37-41).

    Saul, later known as Paul, also had a personal encounter with the resurrected Christ, as recorded several times in the Book of Acts (cf. chapters 9, 22, & 26). When Saul was intercepted by Christ on his way to Damascus, he acknowledged Christ as Lord, and he came to see the ugliness of his own sins, even though they were religious and outwardly commendable in the sight of men (cf. Philippians chapter 3). It was when Saul saw his own sinfulness and Christ’s majesty and power that he was converted.

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most significant events in history. I pray that you, like those in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) and like Saul (Acts 9), will come to recognize the seriousness of your sinful condition, the holiness and awesome majesty of God, and will come to trust in Him as your Savior and Lord. I urge you to trust in Him, in His death, burial, and resurrection, not only in an intellectual and academic way, but in a very personal way, as God’s only provision for your salvation.


    1 The resurrection of our Lord was anticipated and prototyped, in a sense, by the numerous instances of bringing men and women back to life after they had died, but none of these “resurrected” individuals received glorified bodies which were immune to decay and death.

    2 I strongly encourage the reader to study this chapter in the Book of Hebrews and to note how prominent the term (or the concept of) death is. The author is attempting to show the future dimensions of faith, and the future to which the Old Testament saints looked forward was that which would be theirs after death.

    3 Notice that in verses 23-25 of this same chapter Paul likens this incident with Abraham and his resurrection faith to the faith of the New Testament saint:

    “Now not for his sake only was it written, that ‘it was reckoned to him,’ but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.”

    4 In James 1:17 we are told that with God there is “. . . no variation, or shifting shadow.” The point here is that God does not change in His character. There is no vascillation, such as that which is common to men (cf. James 1:6-8). While God does not change, in principle, in His dealing with men (for example, He always deals with men through grace, and by means of faith), He does change in some of the particulars of His dealings with us. It is thus both necessary and legitimate to call attention to those changes which have come about as a result of the resurrection of our Lord.

    5 God has always hated sin, and has never changed in this regard. There is a distinct change evident however, in his response to sinners after His death and resurrection. It is this change which I am focusing on here.

    Related Topics: Soteriology (Salvation), Easter, Resurrection

    Pages