MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection of Christ

Related Media

Introduction

We are approaching the Easter season and a question that is often asked concerns the Shroud of Turin. You have probably read about it or seen specials around the Easter season on TV. It has made the headlines on numerous occasions and most likely, it will again be talked about this Easter.

What is the Shroud of Turin?

The Shroud of Turin is an ancient linen cloth 14 feet by 4 feet and hailed as the genuine burial garment of Jesus Christ. It supposedly contains the very image of Jesus Christ burned into the cloth by means of radiation created by His resurrection. The proponents of the Shroud claim the image stands up to twentieth century analysis as being humanly impossible to “fake” or “duplicate.” It is hailed as a twentieth century proof of the resurrection through scientific examination.

The big question people are asking is, is it authentic? Many claim that it is. And many are claiming we have in it an outstanding proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, proof that has the seal of scientific research which ought to help skeptics to believe.

Concerning the evidence for the resurrection and the idea the Shroud adds something we have been lacking, let me share several things that I believe are important here.

People’s Problem

The problem people face concerning the resurrection is not the lack of evidence and never has been. We have tremendous evidence for the resurrection. May I suggest two propositions of Scripture:

(1) Scripture teaches us the problem is moral.

John 3:19-21 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. 20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

John 7:17 “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself.

(2) Scripture teaches us the problem is also spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The problem is not the evidence. Note these passages of Scripture:

Acts 2:22-36 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23 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. 24 “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. 25 “For David says of Him, ‘I was always beholding the Lord in my presence; For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 ‘Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope; 27 Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay. 28 ‘Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou wilt make me full of gladness with Thy presence.’ 29 “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 “And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 “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. 34 “For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘ The Lord said to my Lord,” Sit at My right hand, 35 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet. “‘ 36 “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 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,

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

Luke 16:19-31 “Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. 20 “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 “Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 “And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 “But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 ‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 “And he said, ‘Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father’s house-- 28 for I have five brothers-- that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment. ‘ 29 “But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 “But he said, ‘No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’”

This does not mean we should not use the evidence available because the Holy Spirit uses such to open the eyes of men to the truth of the Gospel and to encourage and verify truth to those who are hungry to know God.

Problems with Authenticity

Based on the historical evidence I have read, and based on the New Testament record, it is my conviction that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Rather it is of human fabrication (or perhaps even demonic fabrication) originally designed as a relic for personal profit by the exploitation of others.

For a more detailed study of this, I would suggest the book, Answers to Tough Questions, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, published by Here’s Life Publishers.

Let me summarize and give you some of the obvious reasons why I believe the Shroud of Turin is not authentic.

Declared a Forgery

About 1900, a letter was found in a collection of documents owned by Ulysse Chevalier. The letter was written in 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes, Bishop to the Anti-Pope of Avignon, Clement the VII. The letter explained that an investigation had exposed the artist who had painted the Shroud and he had confessed. Many were disturbed that the cloth was being used for financial gain. The letter further pointed out:

“For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real Shroud of our Lord, having the Savior’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint; while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy evangelist would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time.”

Jewish Customs of Burial Speaks Against It:

    The one burial cloth

There is a conflict with the idea of only one burial cloth when it is clear that in the Jewish burial customs and in the New Testament record there were several pieces of cloth used in Christ’s burial, not one 14 feet by 4 feet piece of material such as the Shroud.

    The separate cloth for the head

As was the custom of the day, John 20:5-7 shows that a separate piece of cloth was wrapped about the head of Christ. It was found by itself apart from the linen wrappings that were around the body of Christ. However, the Shroud of Turin is all one piece and depicts a face as well as the rest of the body on the cloth.

    The material and method of wrapping the body

Combining the accounts of the historical record of the New Testament teaches us that several pieces of cloth were used to wrap the body of Christ and they were in the form of “strips,” and “wrappings,” or “linen bandages” such as were used in the preparation of mummies.

Note the word “wrappings” is plural in the following passage:

John 19:39-42 And Nicodemus came also, who had first come to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. 40 And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

“Linen wrapping” is the Greek word sidon meaning fine linen cloth used for swathing dead bodies or as a single garment or wrap as in the passage here:

Mark 14:51-52 And a certain young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked.

“Linen wrappings” is the Greek word othoniois (plural of othonion) meaning “a piece of fine linen, a linen cloth.”

John 19:39-42 And Nicodemus came also, who had first come to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. 40 And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Matthew and Luke use the Greek word entulisso meaning “to wrap up,” or “to fold,” or “roll or coil about.”

Matthew 27:59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Luke 23:53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain.

Mark uses the Greek word eneileo meaning “to roll in,” or “wind in.”

Mark 15:46 And Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

John uses the Greek word deo meaning “to bind,” or “tie with the results of imprisonment.”

John 19:40 And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

The Gospel accounts are all in agreement that the body was wrapped or enfolded. It is important to compare these accounts with John 11:42-44.

John 11:42-44 “And I knew that Thou hearest Me always; but because of the people standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.” 43 And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” 44 He who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings; and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

This was the Jewish custom. Even though when Christ was buried they had to hurry because of time, Joseph along with Nicodemus (and probably some servants since Joseph was a rich man) would have followed the Jewish custom of washing the body and wrapping it in mummy-like fashion with the spices between the folds of the wrappings.

Edersheim, the great biblical scholar and historian, wrote in his monumental work, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah:

It seems as if the `clean linen cloth’ in which the Body had been wrapped, was now torn into `cloths’ or swathes, into which the Body, limb by limb, was now `bound,’ no doubt, between layers of myrrh and aloes, the Head being wrapped in a napkin (Vol. 2, p. 618).

In a footnote to the above statement Edersheim further explained:

The Synoptists record, that the Body of Jesus was `wrapped’ in a `linen cloth’; St. John tells us that it was `bound’ with the aloes and myrrh of Nicodemus into `swathes’ or `cloths,’ even as they were found afterwards in the empty tomb, and by their side `the napkin,’ or soudarion, for the head. I have tried to combine the account of the Synoptists and that of St John into a continuous narrative (p. 618).

It is evident that the Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give us the general statement of the burial. But John (who with Peter went to the empty tomb and saw the results) gives us the details of what was done with the linen cloth.

The evidence of Scripture makes it clear that Jesus was wrapped in cloth when taken down from the cross. That cloth was torn into strips, and then Jesus was bound with these linen strips, but He was not wrapped with a single piece of cloth like the Shroud.

“The words regarding the cloth clearly indicate it. The verbs used warrant it, and the specific choice of words makes it inescapable” (Answers to Tough Questions, McDowell and Stewart, p. 166).

The biblical authors of the Gospel accounts of the burial of the Lord never used two Greek words, kalutto (1 Kings 19:13) and periballo (Gen. 38:14). These words were used of garments such as the Shroud. Their failure to use these words is very significant and provide further evidence against the Shroud.

    The custom of washing the body

Another problem is that the Shroud proponents admit that its authenticity is dependent upon the body not being washed. This is important for two reasons:

(1) The Shroud is supposed to contain dried blood. This alleged appearance of dried blood on the Shroud would suggest that the body was not washed.

(2) Those who support the authenticity of the Shroud claim there is the need for morbid sweat to act as a refraction lens to focus the radiation, radiation that is supposed to have come from the risen body, to create the image on the cloth. This also would imply that the body was not washed (cf. McDowell, p. 166).

It is claimed by proponents of the Shroud that there was not time to wash the body clean with water because of the approaching Sabbath. But this is a weak argument because the Scripture says they still had time to anoint the body with over a hundred pounds of spices. And, in order to anoint the body with the spices, the body, according to Jewish custom, had to be washed.

Further support for this is the fact that a body could indeed be washed and anointed on the Sabbath according to Jewish law.

“John would not and could not have said that the Jewish method of burial had been followed if it hadn’t been washed” (McDowell, p. 167).

The Problem of Other Shrouds

Many people are not aware of the fact that after the Crusades many different Shrouds circulated throughout medieval Europe at the same time as the Shroud of Turin. It is estimated there are more than 40 “true shrouds” that were circulated. Many are still being displayed today (McDowell, p. 168).

The Problem of No New Testament Witness

It is unthinkable that the Apostles and Christians of the first years of Christianity would not mention a cloth bearing the imprint of the crucified and resurrected Savior. The New Testament presents us with the evidences of the risen Christ. If this had occurred, it would have been mentioned with the other evidences such as the appearances of Christ and the description of the linen wrappings in the empty tomb.

Evidence from Scripture

The evidence from Scripture and from the facts surrounding the Shroud of Turin in no way support its authenticity. But we do not need it! The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was:

  • Anticipated in the Old Testament (Acts 2:24-32; Ps. 16:8-11).
  • Prophesied by Christ (Matt. 16:21; 17:23).
  • Recorded in all four Gospel accounts.
  • Taught in the epistles and revelation.
  • Believed throughout Christianity.
  • Celebrated every Sunday as an historical fact as the crowning miracle and divine seal and proof of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The resurrection marks Christ out as the Son of God, as Savior and Judge of the world. It is God’s declaration that all other religions of the world are false and futile.

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

Acts 17:30-31 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. “

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

Acts 4:10-12 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 “He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. 12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church has stated it well. He says:

The Christian church rests on the resurrection of its founder. Without this fact the church could never have been born, or if born, it soon would have died a natural death. The miracle of the resurrection and the existence of Christianity are so closely connected that they must stand or fall together. If Christ was raised from the dead, then all His other miracles are sure, and our faith is impregnable; if he was not raised, he died in vain, and our faith is in vain. . . without his resurrection, his death would be the grave of our hopes; we should be still unredeemed and under the power of our sins. A gospel of a dead savior would be a contradiction and a wretched delusion (Vol. I, p. 172-173).

There are several lines of evidences for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ which defy the imagination and stand stubbornly against the philosophical prejudice which attempts to deny the resurrection by denying the possibility of the miraculous.

These lines of evidence include:

    1. The empty tomb and the linen wrappings.

    2. The stone rolled away.

    3. The many personal appearances of Christ--to Mary, the disciples, to over 500 at one time, and to Paul at a later time.

    4. But perhaps one of the most striking evidence is the rise and continued existence of the church of Jesus Christ regardless of the tremendous odds against it. It has flourished in spite of the nature of Christ’s death and his resurrection. It has flourished in spite of the disciples first reactions--scared, running, and in utter disbelief of Christ’s own predictions of his resurrection.

Of course, the primary evidence comes from the Bible itself. The Bible is its own self-authenticating record. It stands as the most unique book in all of human history. There is tremendous evidence for the God-breathed character, infallibility, inerrancy, and historical accuracy of the Scriptures, the Holy Bible.

It is a book written over 1600 years by over 40 different authors, yet with perfect continuity and without real contradiction. It has been proven by archaeology over and over again, proven true by hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, preserved against all odds, and has changed the lives of millions.

The evidence regarding the Scripture and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so complete and fantastic that anyone honestly seeking the facts and willing to allow those facts to construct history (rather than try to adjust history to his own bias or philosophical prejudice) will come to accept the accuracy of Scripture and the truth of the resurrection.

“Many today in our so-called scientific age laugh at the idea of miracles. They argue that miracles are a violation of scientific laws, and are therefore unacceptable to modern man” (Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions, p. 79, Here’s Life Publications).

The real issue is both a moral twist (John 3:19f) and a bias or prejudice against the miraculous, not scientific proof that miracles cannot happen. Why? Because scientific or natural laws do not dictate events nor do they explain them. They are merely generalizations about observable causes and effects.

“A miracle is by definition an event that is unique and without a precedent. It is impossible to account for it as we do other events” (McDowell, p. 80).

True miracles are the result of an all powerful God breaking into human history and into the natural order from time to time. Just because a miracle is outside of our normal experience does not mean miracles cannot happen. To claim they cannot occur because one cannot explain them or because of bias against miracles, is humanistic arrogance.

The proper way, indeed, the scientific way, to handle such phenomena is not whether we can explain it or understand it--but did it happen? Is there real historic evidence to prove it happened?

The evidence for the miracles of the Bible is as great and powerful historically as other historical events such as the fall of Rome, the fact of the Caesars, or the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Indeed, Christ is risen from the dead and we do not need the Shroud of Turin to prove it.

Related Topics: Easter, Apologetics, Resurrection

Sacred Imagination and the Gospel: A Review of "The Passion of the Christ"

Related Media

March 6, 2004

In as much as many have taken it upon themselves to compose reviews concerning "The Passion of the Christ," as it has been conveyed to us through cinematographic dramatization by Mel Gibson, it seemed fitting for me also to offer an account of what my eyes saw and my ears heard when I viewed the much criticized, even maligned film. I offer this account as a Protestant Evangelical, as a professor of New Testament, as an amateur film critic, but most of all as one who cherishes the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and who believes in him whom the gospel presents as the one on whom God poured out his wrath for our redemption.

Will not many who view Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" already know how the story ends? Will not many also know many of the details of the episodic climax of the four New Testament Gospel accounts concerning Jesus, the Christ, even if their memories fail them on sequential order? Are any viewers watching "The Passion" with bated breath, wondering how the brutal story will climax? Because almost everyone knows both the course and the outcome of the story, before viewing the film, Mel Gibson's movie stands apart from most others. Consequently, though this review discusses details of the film, it will hardly ruin the movie for anyone who has not yet viewed it.

"The Passion of the Christ" is Mel Gibson's extraordinary retelling of the greatest story ever told but also the most widely told story. Gibson masterfully projects onto the big screen what takes place in his imagination as he meditates upon Christ's Passion. The story unfolds in a manner that the power of the Christ's Passion will touch all who view the film. This is true for viewers whether they share Gibson's Catholic traditional beliefs or whether they are unfamiliar with those beliefs as are most Evangelicals. Evangelicals will view a familiar story that contains several unfamiliar events even protracted episodes, but for Roman Catholics those unfamiliar scenes and extended episodes will likely be not only familiar but deeply religious moments. This is so because the film is a medieval-like dramatization of a "Stations of the Cross" contemplative prayer meditation that is to be experienced in one's imagination. Mel Gibson, devout in the old Roman Catholic tradition who favors the Tridentine Latin Mass, describes his film: "I think of it as contemplative in the sense that one is compelled to remember ... in a spiritual way, which cannot be articulated, only experienced." Gibson explains the genesis of his film:

The past three years forced me to focus heavily on the Passion... . I went to the wounds of Christ in order to cure my wounds. And when I did that, through reading and studying and meditating and praying, I began to see in my own mind what he [Jesus] really went through... . It was like giving birth: the story, the way I envisioned the suffering of Christ, got inside me and started to grow, and it reached a point where I just had to tell it, to get it out.1

During an interview with Raymond Arroyo of Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), Mel Gibson, who attends only the Latin Mass, explains, "I wanted it to transcend language... . I didn't want to have to depend upon the spoken word. It is a visual art film. And I wanted to take the verb away from it, a little bit, have it there ... but to restrict the spoken word."2 Gibson's "choice of Latin and Aramaic was actually part of the message."3 Like the pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass that was spoken in Latin, Gibson presents his dramatized contemplative prayer meditation in Aramaic and Latin but with a concession-he includes English subtitles.4 Use of two languages no longer spoken for the dialogue has a touch of genius about it. Subtitles transfix attention upon the screen.5

"The Passion of the Christ" reflects a contemplative meditation upon Christ's Passion that originates in medieval times, including both "The Five Sorrowful Mysteries" and the "Stations of the Cross."6 The Five Sorrowful Mysteries, all derived from the Gospels, provide the narrative structure for the film which also features the fourteen Stations of the Cross, including the extra-biblical character, Veronica, who wipes Jesus' bloody face with her veil which retains the image of his face imprinted upon it, left as a gift for her and for Christians to contemplate forever.7 This evident medieval Roman Catholic shaping of Mel Gibson's telling of Christ's Passion is not overly obtrusive for Protestants. Protestants will tend to think that the storyline of the film resembles a harmonization of the Four Gospels that allows John's Gospel to dominate, particularly because of the extended exchange between Pilate and Jesus (John 19:1-16).

Why, then, since the story is so familiar, does the movie attract so many viewers? What holds the attention of viewers for 126 minutes? What makes Gibson's version of this well-known drama so riveting? Simply put, it is his imaginative and realistic representation of the story that draws our eyes through his camera lens to view the story as he tells it. His lens transports us across the ages to witness his telling of the tyranny of religious leaders incited by jealousy of a peasant teacher whose popularity exceeds theirs. He directs us to witness his account of the political rulers who turn to rivalry and intrigue as they stand caught on the stage of history between Jewish religious leaders bent on preserving their place of privilege, protected by Roman concessions, and Rome's Caesar who is eager to suppress Jewish rebellion so routinely stirred by insurrectionists. He compels us to witness close-up his dramatization of the sporting brutality of soldiers as they flog Jesus, first with sticks designed to inflict burning stripes of pain and then with cat-o-nine-tails devised to shred human flesh with lion-like claw strokes tearing the body open, exposing veins and muscles, leaving puddles of blood on the stone pavement.

Several reviewers criticize the movie for its graphic portrayals, especially of the flogging. Some even call it pornographic.8 David Ansen says,

I have no doubt that Mel Gibson loves Jesus. From the evidence of "The Passion of the Christ," however, what he seems to love as much is the cinematic depiction of flayed, severed, swollen, scarred flesh and rivulets of spilled blood, the crack of bashed bones and the groans of someone enduring the ultimate physical agony.9

Evidently, finding that the film does not inflame anti-Semitic emotions as many claimed it would, several film critics have turned to criticize an easy target, the brutality portrayed by the movie. They fail to recognize two interests that moved Gibson to portray brutality with such realism. First, throughout the past year with increased frequency leading up to his film's release, Gibson has been promoting his film as an attempt to portray Christ's passion realistically to challenge conventional sanitizing of the flogging and of the crucifixion that characterizes other films that regrettably forge popular opinion concerning ancient Rome's brutal practice of flogging and crucifixion. Gibson's portrayal is agonizing, brutal, bloody, bone-crunching, clamorous, messy, noisy, offensive to human sensibilities, protracted, but convincingly realistic. Second, in order to understand what moved Gibson, one has to understand the nature of medieval contemplative theology of the cross with its Five Sorrowful Mysteries and the development of the fourteen Stations of the Cross for meditation upon the agonies of the Christ. The agony and sorrow that Gibson splashes upon the screen does not derive from some irreligious and sadomasochistic fascination with gore. David Ansen is puzzled: "This peculiar, deeply personal expression of the filmmaker's faith is a far cry from the sentimental, pious depictions of Christ that popular culture has often served up."10 He concludes,

Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering, or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins. Others may well find a strong spirituality in "The Passion"-I can't pretend to know what this movie looks like to a believer-but it was Gibson's fury, not his faith, that left a deep, abiding aftertaste.11

Roger Ebert comes much closer to understanding the film's design: "What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of." Ebert correctly notes that Gibson achieves an evident purpose: "This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life." Yet, all is watched from a distance through the camera lens which never gets splattered with blood, even for the brief seconds when camera looks through the one open eye of Jesus as he is dragged across stone pavement, following his flogging, or when the camera becomes the eye of Judas whose vision contorts the faces of taunting children into demonic visages.

The fact that the story of the Christ's Passion is so well-known is ironically the source of both valid and invalid criticism of Mel Gibson's film. What do people expect? Do not movie producers take certain liberties with virtually all story scripts when they endeavor to convey those stories through the film medium? Why should we not have expected the same with this movie? Does not the film medium invariably transform text-based stories to some degree? Have non-Christian film critics who chastise Gibson for including features that appear nowhere in the Four Gospels of the New Testament now become devoted defenders of the authenticity, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture? Disingenuousness on this significantly diminishes the credibility of their reviews.

Precisely because Mel Gibson intended to challenge the sentimental and surreal portrayals of Jesus' suffering and crucifixion with his own visionary iconography and images conceived in his Catholic schooling, he might have devoted closer attention to historical research on a few matters. Had he done so, he may have given his challenge greater historical if not biblical credibility. A few examples will suffice.

  • Why does the film portray the two criminals who were crucified with Jesus as carrying only the cross beam while it represents Jesus as dragging the entire cross, crossbeam (patibulum) and upright (stipes). Historical research suggests that the condemned carried only the crossbeam to the place of crucifixion where the upright would be already erected in place to receive interchangeable crossbeams.
  • The Romans had no particular reason to single out Jesus for special punishment. Their sporting fury knew no discrimination. Surely the two criminals who died the same day would have been subjected to flogging of a similar intensity as was routine for those who were to be crucified. Yet, the film represents Jesus alone as flogged almost to the point of death. The intensity of the flogging and the absence of flogging for the two criminals imply that it was the intensity and severity of Jesus' physical sufferings that has significance for Christians. The Four Gospels do not do this. Mention of the flogging of Jesus is brief, and in John's Gospel it seems that Pilate had Jesus flogged, not in preparation for crucifixion but as punishment to appease the Jewish religious leaders. He intended to punish Jesus and then to release him from custody (John 19:6-16). Because Gibson follows John's account, it may be that his representation of the flogging exceeds biblical propriety, unless the soldiers flogged Jesus more savagely and excessively than Pilate intended for punishment prior to release from custody. But, of course, John's Gospel does not tell us how extensively they flogged Jesus. Extra-biblical historical research indicates that Roman floggings in preparation for crucifixion entailed as many as 120 strokes. Gibson's movie portrayed about 100 strokes.
  • The real excess may not be in the portrayal of the flogging but in the time allotted to portraying the flogging in comparison to time allotments for the crucifixion and the resurrection. Consequently, the agony of the crucifixion did not receive adequate portrayal. The excruciating agony that crucifixion causes for exhalation got passed over. This is particularly noteworthy for at least two reasons. First, the violent bludgeoning of the criminals' legs begs for explanation in the movie. Second, Jesus' final breath was exhalation as he cried out, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46) seemed to get lost in the movie, at least for me.
  • The 1968 discovery of an ossuary containing skeletal remains of a man who had been crucified corrects artistic misrepresentations of crucifixions. The right and left heel bones had been fastened together with a 5 inch nail stuck through them. The arm bones also showed that a nail had been driven through the arm, at the base of the hand, between the ulna and the radius bones. While Gibson's film accurately represents the placement of the nail through the midst of the metatarsal bones, one foot atop the other, it incorrectly places the nail through the fleshy palm of the hand which would be incapable of bearing the body's weight.

Purists, who expect that film scripts should adhere strictly to the texts of the books upon which they are based, will likely quibble over several elements of the film, including the following, if they know the biblical accounts well.

  • For example, at Caiaphas' home, Jesus was brought to an upper chamber where he was interrogated while Peter was in the courtyard below (Mark 14:66). The film portrays the interrogation as taking place in the courtyard where Peter was.
  • The sequence of Peter's denials in the film appears different from that in the Gospels.
  • Peter's repentance was not brought on by encountering Mary near Caiaphas' house but by the crowing of a rooster. The rooster does not crow.
  • The darkness that falls for three hours during the crucifixion does not seem nearly as dark as the biblical accounts suggest.
  • Mockers leave the scene of the crucifixion too early, for when Jim Caviezel mouths the one familiar Aramaic line "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" no mockers remain. Jesus' mother, Mary Magdalene, and John are alone with a few soldiers who did not run away.
  • The Roman centurion's significant words-"Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark 15:39)-are missing.
  • Mary is almost continually on the screen but is hardly mentioned in the biblical accounts. This reflects Mel Gibson's Roman Catholic veneration of Mary whom he regards as a co-redemptrix.

Despite these few deficiencies, "The Passion of the Christ" includes many adaptations that stubbornly refuse anyone to claim that the gospel message died at the flogging post, was brutalized by a penchant for gore, got upstaged by a flair for drama, or became obscured by Catholic medieval and mystic contemplative icons and images of Christ's Passion. While "The Passion" graphically portrays the physical suffering of Jesus, it also reminds everyone who has eyes to see that the greater story that unfolds is the spiritual battle that Jesus wages on behalf of God the Father against the Devil. This battle is engaged from the beginning of the movie when Satan appears in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus is praying to his Father, knowing that his hour of agony has arrived. Satan, appearing with androgynous features that disguise the embodiment of evil and veiled with a black shawl, taunts Jesus and releases a serpent that slithers to Jesus who kneels praying with his face virtually touching the ground.12 After Jesus rises to his feet, with resolve to do his Father's will, he momentarily gazes at the Devil and then, with violent action crushes the head of the serpent under his sandal, an obvious foreshadow of his conquest over Satan that will soon come (cf. Genesis 3:15). The Satan figure appears several times throughout the movie, as a figure in the crowd, unnoticed by the crowd which is mostly in league with him in their opposition to the Christ. One intriguing scene shows the androgynous figure as a mother holding what initially appears to be a plump baby that strokes Satan's almost beautiful face but turns to reveal a medieval cherubic figure with an impish grin. The image recalls a prominent subject of medieval art but its evil inverse as an "anti-Madonna and Child." A maggot, easily mistaken for a ring, in Satan's nose in one scene subtly links to another scene. Tormented Judas stumbles and kneels near the carcass of a mule that crawls with maggots and around whose neck is the rope that awaits the betrayer's use to end his own life by hanging from a tree, a tree far less gruesome but also less noble than the tree upon which his master hangs bearing the wrath of his Father.

Mel Gibson makes it clear that Jesus Christ's Passion was carried out not for himself but for others. All Christians should rejoice at the clarity of the presentation of Christ's substitutionary death. Gibson does this from the beginning with the quotation from Isaiah 53. Gibson masterfully includes a dimension in his telling of the story that reveals the fact that he understands that the real and effectual drama that takes place is in the unseen spiritual realm.13 From the opening scenes in the Garden of Gethsemane the Devil attempts to impede Jesus' resolve to go to the cross. Twice the camera takes viewers to offer God's view of the crucifixion. One view entails a divine teardrop that triggers the earthquake that accompanies the crucifixion. The other view entails Satan's frustrated defeat in failing to prevent Jesus' crucifixion.

From high above Golgotha, these two views make it evident that the death of Jesus is to satisfy the Heavenly Father's purposes, not ultimately to satisfy the interests of Satan or of mere humans on the stage in Jerusalem. Jewish religious authorities, whose petty interests move them to protect their place of influence both with Rome and with the Judeans, render them important earthly players who, unknown to them, fulfill God's purposes on the earthly stage of the heavenly drama of Christ's Passion. Likewise, Roman governing officials and soldiers, who seek to suppress Jewish insurrections so that their time in unpleasant Judea may pass without incident, unknowingly do God's bidding as well as they attempt to placate Jewish authorities who find a Galilean peasant rivaling their authority as religious leaders of the people. Similarly, pathetic Judas, whose avarice hatches a plot with the Jewish priests to betray his master, finds himself caught up in the drama of God's own making that far transcends his selfish interests but sadly brings him to his own tormented demise. Thus, as the movie begins with the text of Isaiah 53:5-"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."-so the film closes with a clear message for those with eyes to see that the story is that of God's provision of redemption by the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, on behalf of others.

Because viewers, including movie critics, know the progression of the drama of "The Passion of the Christ" before it unfolds on the screen, we do not await the next scene with expectancy to learn how Jesus, the protagonist, will get on with all his antagonists-the Jewish religious authorities, the Temple guards, Pilate, Herod, the Roman soldiers, the crowds crying "Let him be crucified!" as they are prompted by the Priests, the jeering onlookers throughout the death-march to the place of crucifixion, and the mockers and soldiers who extend their jeering to the end. Each viewer will approach the film differently depending upon one's own milieu, whether Catholic or Protestant, believer or unbeliever, pastor or pew-sitter, biblical scholar or not. All who view the film will be exposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ with powerful images and biblically derived dialogue. It is evident that Gibson's film has taken and continues to take severe criticism because of its high profile. While "The Passion of the Christ" receives harsh abuse "The Gospel of John" receives only rare comment.14 Surely the gospel's clarity in Gibson's high profile film incites severe criticism, signaling how effective the film is in conveying the gospel that so deeply offends human pride and self-sufficiency.

Scripture authorizes four narratives that tell the story of Christ's Passion. Harmonization of these four accounts is the work of Christian readers not of the apostles. So, we distinguish a harmonization of the Four Gospels from the Bible's authorized individual Gospel accounts. We also distinguish between Mel Gibson's film and God's Word. The film is an artistic rendering of a well-known story. It is a film, not a sermon or Scripture. Thus, it lacks the narrative structure that the Bible provides with its textual medium. Gibson compensates for this lack of larger narrative by quoting Isaiah 53 at the beginning to link the film's story with the Old Testament and by effectively using flashbacks to Jesus' ministry throughout the story that link from scenes of characters in particular situations of contact with Jesus especially at the Stations of the Cross. Mary is almost ubiquitous. She is hardly off screen. John, Mary Magdalene, Peter, and others call her "Mother." Why does she sop up Jesus' blood at the flogging post? Why does she pace step for step with Satan in one scene? Why does she as the only human actually see and recognize Satan among the crowd? Why, repeatedly, as Jesus stumbles under the weight of the cross, do his eyes meet Mary's from whom he derives strength to press on to his crucifixion? Why, at the cross, as Jesus expires, does Mary press her face against his pierced feet, kissing his toes and expressing a desire to die with him? Does not the androgynous female-like Devil ape Mother Mary, and by doing so feature Mary? Does not the anti-Madonna and Child image of Satan serve to feature Mary's relationship to Jesus as Mother of God?15 Veneration of Mary is evident in the film as she plays a co-redemptive role in the movie. Yet, Gibson's presentation of this is subdued, respectful to non-Catholics, and only mildly obtrusive to the presentation of the story for Protestants.

Regrettably many film viewers will have unrealistic expectations of the film, perhaps not unlike Michael Coren's, setting themselves up for some level of disappointment. On February 25 Coren confesses, "Last week, I wrote a preamble column about Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. I said that I was extraordinarily optimistic. In fact, I have never before wanted to enjoy a movie so much." He invested too much in the hype and controversy that swirled about the film before seeing it. He was disappointed after viewing it, as he says, "If the movie works for you, I am happy. For me, it is prayer, Bible and a dwelling in a God-given imagination that this hyped Hollywood product can never rival."16

Many Evangelicals have lodged undue hope in Mel Gibson's movie itself for evangelistic transformation of the masses. "The Passion of the Christ" is not the gospel though it presents the gospel with amazing clarity and accuracy for a major film production. Yet, the film does not substitute for the preached gospel in biblical proportion. Because of this, icons and images projected onto a screen prompt concern over idolatry for some Evangelicals, an issue that no one should glibly dismiss. This is not to suggest that Christians should not view the movie. Rather, it is to encourage believers to let the film bring them back to Scripture to have all of Scripture stir holy imagination that is truly vital to proper worship and remembrance of Christ who endured God's wrathful afflictions on our behalf. Visual images are powerful, yet even Jesus' disciples who were eye witnesses of his mighty works were not brought to unimpaired belief until after his resurrection. The gospel is God's authorized appeal to holy imagination of faith and not to sight.

While the film is instructive concerning the horrors of the Roman flogging and the physically excruciating agony of crucifixion, disproportionate focus upon these aspects, in comparison to the brief mention of Jesus' physical suffering in the Four Gospels, may obscure the central message of the gospel with its focus upon Christ's sacrificial death to satisfy God's wrath on account of human sinfulness, even though it is present within the film. The gospel message is present within Mel Gibson's movie, and for this we ought to praise God and pray that our Lord will use his good news within this film to deliver many from the clutches of sin's dominion. Mel Gibson's film creates significant points of contact for Evangelicals with non-Christians to speak openly of God's good news in Christ Jesus. Let us seize every opportunity presented to us.

"The Passion of the Christ" is an apropos film for our post-modern society in that it is given to both visual image and narrative. The gospel of Jesus Christ comes to us in narrative within Scripture. The Four Gospels individually convey the drama of Christ's life and suffering for us who were not there to see him. Jesus says to Thomas, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). How shall any of us believe and be saved? Is it not by hearing the gospel preached (Romans 10:14)? Does not the proclaimed gospel move us to worship and love him whom we do not see (1 Peter 1:8)? Does not the gospel call us into the "fellowship of his sufferings" (Phil 3:10)? But is the focus upon the physical agonies Jesus endured in his flogging and crucifixion or upon the greater affliction he bore as laid upon him by his Heavenly Father?

Christians need to be wary lest we permit the extended iconography and images of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" intrude and corrupt true worship of Jesus Christ. Yet, we also need to be wary of imaginations made dull by reducing the gospel to an intellectual form or by binding consciences to unmitigated imposition of the Second Commandment. Did not the Word become flesh? Do we not have a Man seated in the presence of God on our behalf, albeit the God-Man? It is vital for Christians to guard the sanctity of their imaginations from idolatry, but sacred imagination is vital to proper and true worship to avoid intellectualized sterilization. While we who view the film run the risk of idolatrous images intruding into our worship of him whom we do not see, we also must not pretend that the gospel of Jesus Christ preached in our hearing does not employ rich imagery that projects graphic visuals upon the screens of our minds somewhat akin to those captured by Mel Gibson's cameras. The Apostle Paul understood the gospel's appeal to sacred imagination when he said, "Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" (Gal 3:1 niv). How is this to happen? It happens through the preached gospel. If it happens through Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," God is to be praised.


1 Quoted by David Neff, "The Passion of Mel Gibson: Why evangelicals are cheering a movie with profoundly Catholic sensibilities," http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/passion-passionofmel.html.

2 "We didn't want an American Jesus, or a Japanese Jesus or a French Jesus. What we wanted was a language that allowed Jesus to be none of these nationalities, so that he can be all of them at the same time. This is a universal story." Gibson's interview with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN is available at http://www.ewtn.com/WorldOver/.

3 Terry Mattingly, "The Passion of Mel Gibson," (http://newsobserver.com/24hour/ opinions/story/1126365p-7837060c.html).

4 In his interview with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN, Gibson explains that he intended to have no subtitles. After testing the film's effectiveness on audiences, first with subtitles and then without, he found that subtitles added the effect he desired.

5 Lest anyone accuse Gibson of wanting to bury the message in unknown languages, in the EWTN interview Gibson also responds to criticism from three unnamed New Testament scholars who dispute the historicity of the New Testament accounts upon which he based his portrayal. Gibson makes it evident that he believes in the authority and authenticity of the New Testament Gospel narratives. He expresses confidence that the four Evangelists' accounts are historically accurate. He also asserts his right as a Christian who is not a biblical scholar to understand the meaning of the Gospel accounts.

6 The Five Sorrowful Mysteries of medieval Catholicism are: Jesus' Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Scourging of Jesus at the Pillar, the Crowning of Jesus with Thorns, Jesus' Carrying of the Cross, and Jesus' Crucifixion and Death.

7 "Stations of the Cross," http://www.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/stations-prn.html. Mel Gibson follows, though not rigidly, Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord, meditations based on alleged visions she experienced concerning The Passion. This is the source of the scene that is strange to Protestants. Emmerich claims, "[A]fter the flagellation, I saw Claudia Procles, the wife of Pilate, send some large pieces of linen to the Mother of God. I know not whether she thought that Jesus would be set free, and that his Mother would then require linen to dress his wounds, or whether this compassionate lady was aware of the use which would be made of her present. . . . I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged . . . they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen which Claudia Procles had sent."

8 For example, Roger Ebert claims, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." (http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html). Andrew Sullivan says, "In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh"

(http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107777885354905430).

9 David Ansen, "So What's the Good News? The Debate over `The Passion' May be Less Harsh than the Film" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528/).

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Mel Gibson explains the androgynous Devil in his interview with Raymond Arroyo (EWTN) that he wanted to show Satan "in a form that is most seductive . . . the great ape of God, who likes to imitate in a way that is a little off . . . pleasing on the surface, but there's something a little wrong."

13 Again, in his interview on EWTN, Mel Gibson explains, "You're seeing the big realm. It's not about us; it's about principalities. And it's about the big war that's going on. . . . The big realms, the dark and the light realms are battling over us, and the battle happens. We can't see it, but it's there. And that is what I wanted to show in the film . . . that the diabolical shows itself, and at times the divine peeks through, so you look under the surface and there it is. You're looking right at it."

14 For description of the movie see http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/mainpage.aspx. For a favorable review of the film see the Christianity Today web site: Ben Witherington III, "The Gospel of John," (http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/gospelofjohn.html#ff).

15 I thank my friend Justin Taylor who confirmed my understanding of the "anti-Madonna and Child" by sending me a link to the Christianity Today article by Mark Moring, "What's Up With the Ugly Baby? Everyone's asking about the Passion scene where Satan is carrying a hideous infant" (http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html).

16 Michael Coren, "Hideous, Stupid, and Barbaric," (http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/coren.html).

Related Topics: Crucifixion

Responses to the Revelation of the Coming of the King (Matthew 2:1-12, 16-18)

Related Media

Introduction

The story of the magi, who have come from afar to worship the one who was born king of the Jews, is a familiar one, and yet every time I read it I experience a sense of wonder and amazement. This wonder is occasioned by a variety of factors. There is, of course, the wonder of the incarnation, which overcomes me in every account of our Lord’s coming to the earth in human flesh. But there are, in addition, three occasions of wonder and amazement in our text.

First, I am appalled by the irrational jealousy of Herod the Great toward an infant, born in an obscure little village. I am horrified by the cunning and cruelty of Herod, who is willing to kill all of the infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem in order to eliminate the threat of one child.

Second, there is the additional wonder of the incredible zeal of the magi, whose search for the “one born king of the Jews” compelled them to travel to a distant land to worship of foreign king, who was still in its mother’s arms. And so far as we are informed by our text, this search is prompted by the appearance of a star.

Third, I find myself struck by an even more intense feeling of wonder at the response (or should I say the lack of response) of the entire city of Jerusalem. The magi diligently search for the infant king to present gifts and to worship Him. Herod the great also seeks eagerly to find the child, so that he may put him to death. But the vast majority of those who live in Jerusalem are seemingly unwilling to travel five short miles to the south of the city of Jerusalem to Bethlehem where they could have found their promised Messiah.

As we come once again to the Christmas season, this text has much to say to us about our response to the King of the Jews who has come as the Savior of the world. Our response will undoubtedly be like that of the magi, or Herod, or Jerusalem. How we respond has eternal implications. In addition to our response to the birth of the King, this passage also has much to say to us concerning our perspective of prophecy. We are now awaiting the second coming of the Christ, as promised by the Old and New Testament prophets. We, like the magi, Herod, and Jerusalem, may respond to this coming of Christ in different ways. Our message will thus turn our attention to the condition of our own hearts as we await the return of Messiah to the earth, and will enable us to evaluate our perspective of prophecy.

Our approach in this message will be to consider and then to compare the response of the magi, of Herod, and the city of Jerusalem to the news of the coming of Israel’s king, and then to seek to identify what it is that led to these very different responses to divine revelation.

The Mysterious Magi

Matthew’s account of the magi is garbed in a cloak of mystery. While there is much we would like to know about them, we are often left to speculate on those matters which are not elaborated on in the text. We are not certain about the precise meaning of the term “magi,”1 nor do we know where “in the east”2 they came from. It is necessary to set aside almost everything we think we know about the mysterious magi, because our thinking has been shaped almost entirely by Christmas carols and cards which are more based on imagination than revelation. If what we can know for certain is that contained in Scripture, we know very little indeed, about the magi. We do not know the number of the magi, nor their names, nor the size of the party which traveled to Jerusalem. We do not know the source of their information, other than the fact that they saw some unusual phenomenon in the sky, which may or may not have been a star.3 One should also say that what little we do know is all that we need to know. I personally believe that the mysteriousness of the magi is by design, piquing our curiosity and at the same time highlighting the depth of their understanding and commitment to find and to worship the Christ.

We can safely say that the magi were men who had an interest in astronomy, which is consistent with the stage of scientific development in the east, including the Babylonians and other nations. Something unusual was observed, which is described as though a new star had suddenly appeared. We cannot know precisely what phenomenon took place, nor does it matter. What we can be assured of is the fact that God arranged this astronomical oddity in order to signal these magi to a very significant birth--the birth of a child who was born as the king of the Jews.

While some have theorized that there can be a kind of “gospel in the stars” we are no doubt on safer ground to assume that the appearance of the “star in the east” was only a signal to an important event, and that this led to further investigation and inquiry on the part of the magi.4 Since we know of the godly testimony of men like Daniel and others, who were taken into captivity, it is not at all unlikely that at least some of the Old Testament Scriptures were available to the magi, and that there were those in the east who were genuine God-seekers, whose hearts were prepared for the coming of Israel’s Messiah. I do not find it likely that the magi could have come to such sound theology and practice without having had access to some of the Old Testament.

Matthew’s account begins with the arrival of the magi in Jerusalem.5 Contrary to popular conception, the magi did not seek out Herod to learn the birthplace of the “king of the Jews.” They knew that a baby, not king Herod, was the “king of the Jews” they sought. If Herod’s reputation was as well known as we would expect, the magi may very well have sought to avoid him. Matthew’s gospel leaves us with the impression that the magi arrived in Jerusalem, asking whomever they met where the Messiah could be found. Surely if they had been so clearly guided by God thus far the people of God must have had an even greater awareness of His birth. The magi must have marveled at the shrugged shoulders and bewildered looks on the faces of the Jerusalemites as they were asked concerning Messiah’s whereabouts.

Word must have traveled quickly about Jerusalem. The arrival of this group, the zeal of their search, the certainty that the Messiah had come must have caught the Jewish people off guard. How could foreigners from afar have received such information, without Jerusalem first learning of the Christ’s coming? How could a Jewish king be sought by those who would be considered Gentiles, so that they might worship Him? The worst part of it all was that those who considered themselves the spiritual elite of Israel could do no more than to shrug their shoulders when asked of Messiah’s residence.

Herod soon became aware of the magi’s arrival and of their search for Israel’s king. Regardless of Herod’s motives, his secret meeting with the magi supplied them with the name of the village--Bethlehem--where the Christ child could be found. Herod thus unwittingly served as a channel of divine revelation to the magi who sought to find and worship the Savior.

It was not until after they were headed south from Jerusalem that the “star” reappeared,6 this time leading them to the very house where Mary and Joseph and Jesus were staying. The “star” then stood still over the place where the Christ child would be found. From the fact that the text tells us the magi entered in “the house” (v. 11), we know that the stable provided only emergency quarters for the Lord and His earthly parents. Not only has the place changed from a stable to a house, but a certain period of time has lapsed as well--the amount of time necessary for the magi to travel from the east to Bethlehem. The wise men should therefore not be envisioned as standing around the babe in the manger, presenting their gifts.

The eagerness of magi to find the “king of the Jews” is amazing to me. While Herod and all Jerusalem are troubled by the news of the birth of the king, the magi eagerly seek Him, rejoicing greatly at the return of the star (v. 10). They fall in worship of the Lord Jesus and give Him expensive gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (v. 11). The worship of the infant Jesus is all the more amazing in the light of factors which could have dampened their enthusiasm. Why, for example, was all Jerusalem ignorant of and so apathetic to their reports of Messiah’s birth? Why was Jerusalem not informed about Messiah’s birth, and why was Jerusalem not streaming to Bethlehem to worship their king? Why, if the child was a king, was he surrounded by the trappings of poverty (e.g. “swaddling clothes,” a borrowed house, parents whose appearance must have betrayed their humble means)? In spite of all these things, the magi fell in worship and gave expensive gifts.

The wonder of the magi is inescapable. God revealed the Messiah’s birth to a people far away, but all of Jerusalem seemed uninformed and apathetic. God revealed these things to the magi through those means which were most familiar to them: the heavens (vss. 2, 9-10) and dreams (v. 12). The visit of the magi had a very practical benefit, as well. It was necessary for Mary and Joseph to escape to Egypt with the child, to avoid Herod’s scheme to kill the king. I believe that the gifts which were given by the magi provided the material means to travel to Egypt and to stay there until it was safe to return. In addition, the arrival of the magi in Jerusalem and their inquiry as to the place where the child could be found served to notify Jerusalem of the birth of Christ. How marvelous are God’s ways!

A Not-Too Royal Response

Many marvel at the cunning cruelty of Herod the Great, as it is described by Matthew. Those who are familiar with history will not be as startled, for this kind of cruelty was common among the kings of those days. While I am surprised by the response of the magi and that of the people of Jerusalem, I find Herod’s actions true to form, in the light of this ruler, whom A. T. Robertson has given the dubious title, “Herod the Great Pervert.”7

At the time of our Lord’s birth, which had to have occurred somewhere between 7 and 4 B.C., Herod the Great would have been nearly 70 years old, in very poor health, and destined to die within a short time (4 B.C.). Matthew tells us that after the death of Herod, Mary and Joseph returned from hiding in Egypt (2:19-23). It is not without significance that Herod’s rule was threatened by the magi who sought to worship “the king of the Jews.” Herod’s reign began in 40 B.C., more than 30 years before the birth of our Lord, by his proclamation by the Roman Senate as “king of the Jews.”

If you can find a map of the Roman Empire at the time of Herod’s rule in the back of your Bible you will see that Judea was the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. Further to the east you will see the “Parthian Empire,” an empire which had once been a part of the Persian empire conquered by Alexander the Great, but had become an independent empire and a rival of Rome. In see-saw fashion, Judea changed possession from the rule of Rome to that of the Parthian empire.

Palestine was invaded by the Parthians in 40 B.C. and Herod’s brother Phasael was killed and he himself had to flee for his life to Rome. It was at this time that he was designated “king of the Jews.” Herod returned to claim his kingdom, recapturing Jerusalem from the Parthians, but only after a difficult battle and the aid of Roman troops. At Herod’s request, Antigonus, the ruler appointed by the Parthians, was taken away in chains and executed. It is of great significance that the Parthian empire, which gave Herod such opposition, was “in the East” and very likely the kingdom from which the magi had come. At about the same time of our Lord’s birth, pro-Parthian Armenia was fomenting revolution against Rome, which within two years was successfully acomplished.8 Herod knew that the time was ripe for another attack by the Parthians. Can you imagine the impact on Herod when the magi arrived, asking the whereabouts of the “king of the Jews”?

The cunning and cruelty of Herod displayed in the slaughter of the innocent children of Bethlehem and the vicinity is not without precedent. Herod had never hesitated to use his power to destroy anyone who might get in his way. Among the victims of his suspicion or displeasure were:

    1. Aristobulous, Herod’s brother-in-law, whom he appointed as high priest--he “accidentally” drowned while swimming in the Jordan River with some of Herod’s servants. He was guilty of winning the favor of the people.

    2. Antigonus, a Hasmonean, and thus a possible heir to the throne.

    3. Hyrcanus II, the elderly and mutilated father of Herod’s Hasmonean wife, Mariamne. He was executed because Herod viewed him as a threat.

    4. Joseph, Herod’s uncle and brother-in-law. He was accused of allegedly bestowing improper affection on Miriamne, Herod’s wife.

    5. Sohemus, one of Herod’s servants, for an alleged illicit relationship with Miriamne.

    6. Miriamne, Herod’s Hasmonean wife, executed for adultery.

    7. Alexandra, Miriamne’s mother, for who knows what reason, although she was a schemer.

    8. Alexander and Aristobulous, the two sons of Herod and Miriamne--after many family plots and counter-plots.9

Herod’s life history reads like a dime novel. One can hardly keep track of wives, children, and victims. Herod had no less than 10 wives and 12 sons, although a number of these were done away with in one way or another. Repeatedly he changed his will and thus the heir(s) to his throne. On more than one occasion, when Herod left Judea on what might be a dangerous journey, he left instructions one or more of his family (including his wife) to be killed if he were to die. His position and power were a matter of paranoid fear and sudden retaliation.

Herod’s response to the arrival of the magi is therefore totally consistent with his life. The news of these influential easterners, perhaps citizens of the Parthian kingdom, asking about concerning the child who has recently been born as “king of the Jews” would have immediately kindled intense concern for his kingdom. Imagine this, a 70 year old king, with failing health, afraid of a newly born child! When you stop to think about it, there is a sense in which this was probably the only occasion when Herod’s fears were well founded.

If Herod’s reputation was at all known in the east, it is no wonder that the magi avoided Herod’s palace in their search for the “king of the Jews.” It was not long, however, before reports reached the ears of Herod. So far as I can tell, there was never any question about what Herod was intending to do. Herod’s inquiry, first with the chief priests and scribes, and then with the magi, was regarding only two matters: the place and the time of the infant-king’s birth. There was never a question as to what he would do, only the necessity of gaining the information so that the “kill” could be done with precision.

There is a cunningness and calculation evident in the way in which Herod acquired information about the birth of the Lord Jesus. He first called together all of the chief priests and scribes (v. 4), carefully ascertaining the place of the Lord’s birth. The tense of the verb rendered “to inquire” suggests that there was a meticulous process involved, perhaps a questioning of each scholar one by one. The conclusion was unanimous: the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem. Herod now had learned part of what he needed to know. Now he need only learn the age of the child (or children) whom he would kill. If he could kill his own wife, children, and relatives, the murder of the children of others would be of no great concern.

There was a reason for Herod’s first inquiring of the chief priests and scribes about the place of Messiah’s birth. This would give him a the answer to the question asked throughout Jerusalem by the magi: “Where is He who is born King of the Jews?” Secretly, Herod called the magi, and feigning a desire to worship the King himself, sought to more precisely locate the home of the child. This is he expected to ascertain when the magi reported back to him after finding the child in Bethlehem. But just in case such information could not be gained, Herod cunningly asked about the time of the star’s appearance. Indirectly this informed him of the age of the child, thus determining what age children he must kill as a group if the one child could not be identified.

The slaughter of the children of Bethlehem (2:16-18) is horrifying, but not surprising, given an understanding of Herod’s character and conduct. I personally believe that Herod’s cruelty extended to the point of leaving himself a fairly generous “margin of error,” killing not only the children of the village of Bethlehem, but the surrounding vicinity as well, and not just killing the very young children, but those up to two years of age. Our parental emotions cause us to feel that the fires of hell cannot be too hot for such a man and Herod. Let us remember that the depravity of this man is but the depravity of any man, given the right soil in which to more fully develop.

The Response
of the City of Jerusalem

The most shocking response to the birth of Messiah is not that of the magi, and not even that of Herod the Great. The greatest wonder in Matthew’s account of the birth of our Lord in chapter 2 is that of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The most significant statement comes in verse 3:

And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Some have suggested that the city of Jerusalem was disturbed because they feared the reaction of wicked Herod to the news of the birth of Messiah.10 I find this explanation unacceptable and ill conceived. Jerusalem is said to have been troubled “with him.” This suggests that there is a common concern, a mutual apprehension, while perhaps different in some particulars, the same in general.

That the magi would travel a long distance to find and to worship a Jewish (and thus foreign) king because of the appearance of a star is amazing in itself. But in contrast, all Jerusalem failed to find the announcement of the birth of her king sufficient reason to travel the five short miles south to Bethlehem. Here is the greatest wonder of our text.

Jerusalem was the site of the temple which contained and communicated the Old Testament prophecies foretelling the birth of Messiah. It was therefore no great task for the religious leaders to inform Herod of the birthplace of Messiah.

The arrival of the magi in Jerusalem must, however, be viewed in the context of all that had transpired in Jerusalem during the previous year. The miraculous pregnancy of Elizabeth and the miracles accompanying the birth of John were well known to those in Jerusalem (cf. Luk. 1:10, 21-22; 2:57-66). So, too, the birth of Jesus was announced to the shepherds, who came to see the babe, and who proclaimed what they saw to others:

When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them (Luke 2:17-18, NIV).

The presentation of Jesus in the temple was the occasion for the Spirit-filled proclamations of Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:21-38) could hardly have occurred in secret.

Thus, the arrival of the magi, with their announcement of the appearance of the star and the birth of the “king of the Jews” could hardly have caught the city by surprise. This was but consummation of those events which were understood as imminent by those who were looking for the coming of their king.

In and of itself, the announcement of the magi could not be overlooked. The whole city of Jerusalem could not have failed to have heard of their arrival, or of their search for the newborn king. All of the chief priests and scribes had been summoned and questioned by Herod, and the prophecies of Messiah’s birth had been reviewed. Matthew is hardly exaggerating when he says that all Jerusalem was troubled with Herod.

This is a very troubling statement. Against the backdrop of the diligent search for Messiah by the magi is the apathetic disregard of the whole of Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem is more like Herod than it is like the magi. In fact, we could even say that Herod is, in one sense, more commendable than the rest of the city of Jerusalem. Herod must have believed that the child really was a king, or he would have gone to a great deal of trouble for nothing. Who would summon all the chief priests and scribes and secretly call the magi, and then kill small children if he were not genuinely threatened?

Jerusalem’s apathy is much harder to comprehend than is Herod’s annihilation of the small children of Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity. Why would Jerusalem be so apathetic? Let me suggest some possible reasons.

    1. A “helpless babe” could hardly fulfill Israel’s expectations of a mighty Messiah, who would throw off the shackels of Rome and who would throw out a madman like Herod.

    2. The object of the magi’s visit was vastly different from the intent of Jerusalem’s population. The magi did not come to the babe in the manger to receive anything, but to give. They gave the Messiah their earthly treasure and their worship. Israel awaited a messiah (I have deliberately failed to capitalize messiah) who would give them freedom, dignity, and power. A babe in a manger could hardly meet Israel’s expectations. To put the matter plainly, the babe in the manger had little to offer the Jerusalemite.

    3. To worship the babe as “the king of the Jews” was to invite the wrath of Herod, who had been appointed “king of the Jews” by Rome. It was one thing for Gentiles to come from afar to worship a babe, but something vastly different for a citizen of Judea, under the authority of a man like Herod. No doubt there was a reluctance to infuriate Herod by provoking him to jealousy.

    4. Jerusalem was unwilling to worship a Messiah who was not “properly introduced”. You will remember that Jesus was disdained by the religious leaders because He did not associate with them, but rather identified Himself with the poor and the sinners. I don’t believe that the chief priests and scribes were willing to accept the Lord Jesus as their Messiah because they assumed that God would introduce the Messiah to them first and then through them to the masses. How humiliating to have a caravan of Gentiles arrive in Jerusalem and announce that the “king of the Jews” was born.

    5. I fear that the Jews were too prejudiced to worship their king alongside Gentiles. The animosity of the Jews toward the Gentiles went far beyond the separation which the Old Testament Scriptures called for. Throughout the New Testament this animosity causes problems in the relationships between Jews and Gentiles, even in the churches (e.g. John 4; Acts 10; Gal. 2). I seriously question if the racial pride of the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem would allow them to have gone with the magi to worship Him.

    6. Jerusalem, in the time of our Lord’s birth (like today) was in unbelief, and thus was unwilling to seek Him or to worship Him. I am reminded of Paul’s description of all mankind (including Jews) in the third chapter of the Book of Romans: There is no one righteous, not even one; There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God (Rom. 3:10-11).

Unbelieving Jews are just like all other unbelievers--they refuse to seek God or to worship Him (cf. Rom. 1:21 ff.). Being Jewish no more inclines one to recognize God’s salvation (which is what the name “Jesus” means) than being raised in a Christian home does. Proximity to truth is not enough. Ultimately it is those to whom God chooses to reveal Himself who come to Him (cf. Matt. 11:27; John 8:42-47; 10:22-3). It is not shocking to find that when our Lord publicly presented Himself to the nation some thirty years later, accompanied by signs and wonders, they failed (as a nation) to accept Him as their king, and it was in Jerusalem that He was crucified.

Conclusion

The three responses of the magi, Herod the Great, and Jerusalem typify the responses of mankind to the message of a Messiah, who has come to redeem fallen man, and later, to reign over all the earth as king. Throughout history there have always been those who, like the magi, have sought God’s Messiah and found Him. Often they have not been those whom we would have expected to find in worship and adoration. But it has always been God’s way to draw some of those who worship Him from “afar,” whether that distance be geographical, racial, or cultural. We who are Gentiles should have a very special place in our hearts for the magi, for we are, in many ways, like them:

Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands--remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:11-13.

Then there are also those, like Herod, who take the claims of Jesus seriously, but who, for selfish reasons, actively seek to rid themselves of His sovereign rule. Fortunately, there are few who have been as active and aggressive as Herod in resisting the reign of Christ. History does record the fact that some earthly rulers have zealously sought to overthrow the rule of Christ and His church.

Finally, there are those, like the vast majority of those who dwelt in Jerusalem, who are so apathetic to the claims of Christ that they will not bother to make the minimal effort required to respond to the fact that He has come. On this Christmas Sunday millions will not make the effort to travel a mile or two to a church where they may adore the Christ who came to save mankind from sin. In both America and Jerusalem, it is not because they were not told of His coming and His claims, but simply that people do not really care to bother themselves to respond to Him. The apathy of Jerusalem (or America) may be more socially acceptable than the atrocities of men like Herod and others, but it is, in some ways, more abominable. At least those who have committed atrocities against our Lord and His people have taken Christ’s claims seriously.

But apathy and indifference do not remain. The city which could care less about the birth of their king is, but thirty years later, in Herod-like fashion, seeking the death of Messiah. Rather than repenting of their sins and receiving Him as Messiah, that city cried out, “Crucify! Crucify! (Luke 19:21)”

The controversy over Christ was whether or not He was the “king of the Jews” (cf. Matt. 27:11; Luke 19:37; John 18:33; 19:1-2, 19-22). And rather than bowing down in worship before Him as their king, they shouted, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

Apathy has its way of turning into animosity. Those who, at first, ignore the Christ who has come, will eventually attempt to irradicate the world of Him and His rule.

May I ask you very honestly as we approach another Christmas celebration, “Which response most accurately reflects your response to the coming of our Lord Jesus?” I doubt that there are any Herod’s around, for they would probably be trying to burn the church building down. But is it possible that we have become so preoccupied with our holiday celebration that we have failed to do what is most important of all--to seek Him and to worship Him? Let us learn from the apathy of the city of Jerusalem.

The second lesson which we can learn from our text is to gain a proper perspective on prophecy. I do not know all that was revealed to the magi, but I am convinced that their revelation was not nearly as complete as that given to the Jews, and specifically Jerusalem. I am dumbfounded to read that the appearance of a star in the east could prompt the magi to embark on a long and dangerous journey to worship of foreign infant-king, while the people of Israel would not travel five short miles to Bethlehem, to worship the “king of the Jews.”

The chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem had no difficulty in supplying Herod with the birthplace of Messiah--Bethlehem. I believe that they had a very good understanding of the details concerning the coming of the Christ, but in spite of all this knowledge, they did not recognize His coming or respond properly to it.

Should this not serve as a warning to those of us who have a very meticulous map of God’s plan for the future? Does it not caution us that while we may know a great deal about the particulars of Christ’s coming, we might not recognize the person of Christ when He does come? This is especially pertinent in the light of the fact that Christ is coming again, and that before His return, many will come claiming to be the Christ (cf. Matt. 24:24). Knowing about His coming is no guarantee that we will know Him when He comes.

What, then, is it that enables some to recognize the King and keeps others from doing so? There are two answers, I believe, both of which are indicated by our Lord, when He said,

At that time Jesus answered and said, “I praise Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light” (Matt. 11:25-30).

The first answer is that it is only God who can illumine the darkened hearts and minds of men, enabling them to see the Christ as their Savior. Only those come to the Savior to whom the Son has willed to reveal the Father (11:27). Since there is none who is righteous and none who truly seeks God (Rom. 3:10-11), God must seek out men and save them. Divine election and calling are the basis for the salvation of any saint.

The second answer is to be found in the state of heart and mind of those who seek God and find Him. While it is paradoxical, in the same text in which our Lord claims that only those to whom He wills to reveal Himself will come to Him, we find that those who do find Him are called “babes” (v. 25). The words of our Lord then conclude with an invitation for all to come to Him (vss. 28-30). I believe that those who worshipped our Lord at His birth were those whose hearts were prepared for His coming. It is the godly whose desire to see the Christ was rewarded (cf. Luke 2:25-32).

The more I have thought about the common characteristics of those who worshipped the Lord Jesus as the “king of the Jews,” the more my mind has turned to the words of our Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:

  • “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
  • Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
  • Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
  • Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
  • Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
  • Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:3-8).

Does this not describe the hearts of those who “saw God” in the manger and in that little house in Bethlehem, and who fell in worship? And does this not describe the state of heart and mind that we should have as we wait for the Lord’s second coming? Let this spirit be ours this Christmas.


1 While some commentators are quite dogmatic about the meaning of the term “magi,” others are more cautious. William Hendriksen, after considerable investigation (cf. footnote 159 on pp. 151-152) concludes: “We know very little about the wise men mentioned in Matt. 2. We know, however, that, as their actions are here described, whatever they do makes them deserving of the name ‘wise men.’ The best course for us to follow would appear to be to adhere strictly to the text, and to agree that these magi came from ‘the east,’ in all probability from either the one or the other of the two favored areas [Medo-Persia or Babylon].” William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), p. 151.

2 “The expression “from the east” is rather indefinite. Did they come from the regions inhabited by the Meses and Persians, as some think, or from Babylonia, as others have confidently affirmed?” Ibid, p. 150.

3 “Out of the 28 occurrences of the words [aster, asteron] only five may be described as ordinary or literal: Acts 27:20 (as guides to navigation at sea); 1 Cor. 15:41 (where aster occurs three times in reference to differing orders of glory); and Heb. 11:12 (referring to the innumerable descendants of Abraham). . . . Unique to the infancy narrative of Matt. (2:1-12) is the story of the magi and the aster which led them to Bethlehem. It was not uncommon in the ancient world to associate the birth of a great ruler with extraordinary phenomena in the heavens. Whether in Mat. we have to do with a miraculous star or something natural such as the conjunction of planetary bodies or a supernova is uncertain. Quite possibly the star seen by the wise men was, as Johannes Kepler first suggested, a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn which occurred three times in 7 B.C. This possibility is strengthened by a Jewish astrological tradition about the conjunction, as well as the common association of Jupiter with kingly rule (and hence the messiah) and Saturn with the Jewish people.”

D. A. Hagner, “Sun, Moon, Stars” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), p. 735.

4 “. . . since astrology is undoubtedly confined within the limits of nature, its guidance alone could not have conducted the Magi to Christ; so that they must have been aided by a secret revelation of the Spirit. I do not go so far as to say, that they derived no assistance whatever from the art: but I affirm, that this would have been of no practical advantage, if they had not been aided by a new and extraordinary revelation.” John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, inc., n.d.), Vol. 7, p. 57.

5 The appearance of the star in the east to the magi is our conceptual starting point, but a closer look at the text informs us that Matthew begins his account with the arrival of the magi in Jerusalem. The appearance of the star is reported by the magi to Herod, as an explanation of their arrival and of their search for the king. Such an explanation must have seemed more necessary as time went on, for all of Jerusalem seemed to be caught off guard by the news of Messiah’s birth.

6 Calvin’s comments on the “star” are insightful: “. . . it may be inferred from the words of Matthew, that it was not a natural, but an extraordinary star. It was not agreeable to the order of nature, that it should disappear for a certain period, and afterwards should suddenly become bright; nor that it should pursue a straight course towards Bethlehem, and at length remain stationary above the house where Christ was. Not one of these things belongs to natural stars. It is more probable that it resembled a comet, and was seen, not in the heaven, but in the air. Yet there is no impropriety in Matthew, who uses popular language, calling it incorrectly a star.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 7, p. 57.

7 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933), I, p. 15.

8 D. W. Jayne, “Magi” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), p. 34.

9 Hendriksen, p. 3. Most of the facts concerning those whom Herod killed have come from Hendriksen, although there are many accounts of his executions.

10 A. T. Robertson, for example, writes, “He showed his excitement and the whole city was upset because the people knew only too well what he could do when in a rage over the disturbance of his plans.” Robertson, I, p. 17.

Related Topics: Christmas, Incarnation

Prophecies of the Birth of Christ

Related Media

Introduction

I would like to invite you to climb on board an imaginary time machine with me for an intriguing journey back into history. Why do I invite you to go with me on this journey? Well, look at our world today. In spite of all the technological advances and social programs, it is a world ripped apart by strife, murder, moral breakdown of the highest magnitude, wars and rumors of wars, broken homes (divorce, child abuse, spousal abuse), and on and on the list goes. The Israeli-Arab dispute continues, yet without any real resolve. Pollution, the threat of nuclear holocaust and the destruction of mankind hangs over our heads, and yet we are helpless to solve these problems. People devise human social programs, reforms, and solutions, but the problems don’t go away. Not only do they continue, but they are increasing just as the Bible warns (2 Tim. 3:13).

The ‘one worlders’ of our society, of course, see things very differently. For instance, in the past several years we have seen tremendous changes in Europe, the removal of the Berlin wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the opening up of Russia, the ongoing talks about peace in the Middle East. We have seen the apparent changes toward freedom that have taken place in the other communistic countries, and government officials and society as a whole see this as a sign that we are on the verge of a new era of world peace. In fact, mankind has been saying for years that what we need is an influential, powerful, charismatic leader to come on the scene of human history to mold the world into unity and peace. So, the world watches for such a person, someone who has the skill, the wisdom, the political power and charisma to draw the world together into a new age of globalism where there will be peace.

But if we look among the world’s leaders, can we find such a person? No, not at all! The problems are just too big for any ordinary man. Scripture does, however, promise just such a Savior, and it is because of this promise that I invite you on this journey. It also warns us that in the last days three key counterfeit conditions will be prevalent:

(1) The last days will be days of apostasy: As time moves along, Scripture warns there will be a growing universal revolt against God and authority that will manifest itself in a humanism in which man, believing the age-old lie of Satan that he can solve his own problems, becomes the center, source, and answer to all his problems (2 Thess. 2:3, 11; 2 Tim. 3:1f).

(2) The last days will be days of globalism: Because of wars, rumors of wars, and the threat of international crises that will build in preparation for the scenario found in the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24 and Rev. 6-19), and because of man’s humanism [human self-reliance], there will be a spirit of globalism (a modern day Tower of Babel). More and more the human race will look to a one-world international system to bring peace and safety (1 Thess. 5:3).

(3) The last days will be days of false messiahs: This hope and search for some form of a one-world system will lead to the longing and search for someone who can come on the scene of human history and mold the world into unity and peace. The last days will be days of false messiahs, a time when the world will be looking for solutions in a great world leader until such a person arises in the form of the Antichrist, the Beast of the tribulation period (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; 2 Thess. 2:3b-4; Rev. 13:1f).

Please note, this new globalism will not only be wrapped up in humanism, itself a form of religion, but it will involve a universal religion that is both mystical and eclectic--that is it will seek to draw all religions together regardless of beliefs. It will be tolerant of any and all religions, except, of course, Christianity which it will hate with a vengeance and persecute with gusto for two reasons:

(1) Outwardly, it will be because genuine Christianity is not eclectic or broad-minded in this sense. While the Bible reaches out with its message to all men, it also teaches there is one way to heaven--the narrow way through faith in the Savior who alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

(2) Inwardly, this persecution will exist because the one-world movement and the people in it will be energized by Satan and his antichrist program.

We find in today’s New Age writings their religious heroes are Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Teilhard de Chardin, Martin Luther King, Hammerskjold, and U Thant. These are individuals who transcend races, nations, and groups and fit well into their global ideology. But in their writings, if they list Jesus at all, he is simply passed over as just one of the religious greats. He is wedged between the likes of Buddha and Gandhi, thus betraying their open rejection of the Savior’s claims as the Son of God, the one and only Savior of the world--the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In the recent so called million man march in Washington DC, Jesus was mentioned, but only as another of the great world religious leaders, which is tantamount to his rejection.

The world is truly in a mess and desperately needs a deliver. We do need someone to come and take charge of our lives personally and universally. Again, the Bible promises just such a Deliverer, but how can we know who the true Deliverer is when he comes on the scene? How can we clearly identify and distinguish him from the counterfeits?

In writing to the Ephesians, Paul spoke of their past and reminded them that before they came to Christ they were like the rest of the Gentile world. They were “strangers to the covenants of promise (lit. the covenants [plural] of the promise [singular]), having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). All the covenants with their individual features were ultimately pointing to one great promise--the coming of the Christ. Because the Gentile world did not have or know these covenants and this great promise, which is woven everywhere into the fabric of the Old Testament like a golden thread, they had no hope.

Writing to the Romans, the Apostle said, “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). The Scriptures we will look at in this study are those that deal with the lineage of Christ and the prophecies of His birth. These prophecies, as a part of that hope, form an incredible line of truth and remarkable evidence which authenticate the claims of Christ and shows us the real meaning of Christmas.

Every Christmas season I have watched a number of Christmas specials. Many were musical and most were stories with a Christmas theme. They were warm, entertaining, and usually sought to communicate some kind of moral or positive message about hope, giving, and loving one another. But generally, they never come close to communicating the true hope of Christmas as it is found in the coming of Jesus Christ according to the facts of Scripture. As stated by the Apostle, they were without true hope.

The early church and the writers of the New Testament appealed to a number of things to establish faith in Christ as the Old Testament Messiah and as the Savior and Son of God and hope of mankind. They appealed to: (1) His miracles and wonders as signs (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4) (2) His resurrection as that climactic event of Christ’s earthly life in His first coming that truly marked Him out as Son of God and Savior of all mankind (Acts 2:23-24). (3) But there was also the character of His life, and the way His life, including His birth, fulfilled prophecy, an amazing and incredible line of evidence.

The Old Testament, written over a period of 1000 years and written several hundred years before the time of Christ, contains some three hundred prophecies of the coming Messiah. The fact these prophecies were written at least two hundred years before Christ is proven by the Septuagint [LXX], the Greek translation of the Old Testament written in 200 B.C., and by the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which are dated over 200 years before Christ as well. All of these ancient prophecies were fulfilled in the one person of Jesus Christ, and they provide solid confirmation:

    for His credentials as Messiah,

    for His claims as the Son of God and Savior,

    for His unique life in comparison to all the other

    religious

    leaders of the world, and

    for our hope and confidence that truly He and He alone is the one to whom we (and the world) must look for salvation and meaning in life.

The probability of all these being fulfilled in one person as merely coincidence is beyond comprehension and, for all practical purposes, mathematically impossible. The entire Old Testament, though dealing with the history of the nations and of Israel, ultimately spoke of the Messiah, the Redeemer who would come. This is evident from the following verses of Scripture:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”

Luke 24:27 “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”

Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me;

When the person of Messiah comes on the scene is there some way we can clearly identify Him? How can we know that He is the right one and not an imposter--someone who ends up being a Hitler or the Beast as described in Revelation 13? How can we know this Jesus of the New Testament is this Deliver to whom we are to look?

The Scripture not only promises the Messiah, but it does so in such a way that we can precisely identify Him. This is an important point because many have arisen who claimed to have the answers to society whether political or social, and the Bible warns us that many more will arise. How, then, can we identify this one of whom the Scripture speaks?

Let’s say that you are courier carrying a very valuable, highly classified document which must not fall into the wrong hands. You are to give the document to a particular person that you do not know and have never seen. How can you recognize and be sure that once you meet that person, he or she is the right one and not an impostor? One way is by having a number of marks of identification. The more marks of identification (gender, size, color of hair, complexion, meeting location, specifics of dress, password, etc.), the better your chance of identifying the right person. The Bible has done precisely this. It has given us dozens of ways to identify the promised Deliverer.

Using the Bible as our road map, we will climb aboard our time machine and journey back into ancient history, back to the Garden of Eden where we will begin our journey forward through the corridors of time with the Word of God to guide and illuminate our path. With the light of the Word, we will look for road signs and marks of identification to guide us on our journey in quest of finding and identifying this person of whom the Scripture speaks, the one promised to the human race as the only solution to the problems of the world--yet the one the world resists.

As we look at these road signs scattered along the highway of history, we need to note that each sign is above all else, an identifier. Many of them are also predictions, in some cases warnings, but also promises. We begin with Adam and Eve and each new sign or prophecy will add more details. This will constantly narrow the field of possible candidates until all the important factors of identification are revealed. As a result, there can be no doubt about God’s plan of salvation for mankind as well as where and in whom it can be found.

In our study, we are looking at only those signs that focus primarily on his birth or lineage, but many more focus on His life and works which further identify and prove the identity of the only one in whom we must place our trust for the salvation that is offered freely, without cost through faith.

Quickly now, let’s fasten our seat belts, and with everyone aboard, let’s journey back some 6500 years where we will arrive at a place called the Garden of Eden.

The Fall of Mankind

We find the Garden of Eden was designed by God to be a paradise. But wait a minute! Something seems to be wrong! It is quite apparent something terrible has happened. Our map shows us that, following the suggestions of the serpent, Adam and Eve sought to live independently of God and sin entered the human scene.

    1. Whereas man and woman had life, now death rules.

    2. Whereas there was joy and pleasure, now pain has been introduced.

    3. Whereas there was a joyous occupation with abundance, now a meager subsistence by toil and the sweat of the brow has become the rule with pain in childbirth.

    4. Whereas there was perfect fellowship with God and each other, now we see alienation and fear, blaming, hiding, and attempting to cover their nakedness with fig leaves.

So what now?

Road Sign Number 1:
The Promised Seed (Genesis 3:15)

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

In this verse, we have the sign of the promised seed. This is often called the protevangelium, the first flicker of the gospel. It is only a broad generalization without a lot of detail, but, though only in embryo form, Genesis 3:15 is: (1) a prophecy, (2) a warning, and (3) a promise. But above all, it is (4) the foundation for the many promises and the beginning of many road signs that follow down the pathway of Scripture. The signs which follow will clarify and develop many details in the progress of God’s revelation. These added details will point us clearly to the one who is to come and to what we can expect.

Some Important Observations About the Passage--Since this is the foundation of all the promises that follow, it is important to note a number of observations:

(1) The promise of Genesis 3:15 is addressed to the serpent, not to mankind. Begun in 3:14, it is part of a sentence of judgment passed on one who is the enemy of both God and man. Though it contains, in seed form a promise for mankind, it is more directly a sentence of judgment on the serpent (clearly a reference to Satan). This teaches us that God’s plan “is about God’s rule as much as about man’s need.”1

(2) Though Genesis 3:15 contains great hope for mankind as a promise, it is also a prophecy of hostility and struggle. “Enmity” comes from a Hebrew word which means “to hate.” This first road sign and prophecy is cradled in a warning of great conflict and foreshadows the perpetual struggle and incessant activity of satanic powers which will oppose mankind and God’s plan of salvation through the One who would come. To be sure, Satan is a hater of mankind, especially those linked with the promised Deliverer.

(3) “Enmity” is a term not really applicable to dumb beasts. Its scriptural use limits it, like its verb root, to enmity between persons or morally responsible agents. This fact, and the revelation of the New Testament reveals the figure of Satan behind the serpent (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9; 20:2). This rules out the idea of mere hostility between mankind and snakes.

(4) We note that the struggle is between the serpent and the woman, between his seed and her seed, and between a single individual and the serpent. The text says, “And I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman (Eve), . . . he (the seed of the woman) shall bruise you (the serpent) on the head, And you (the serpent) shall bruise him (the seed of the woman) on the heel.” Adam is simply and plainly passed over. The reason for this is not given here, but as we journey through history the light of God’s revelation will both identify the serpent and show why Adam is passed over. The reason is the virgin birth. Though perhaps not understood then, we have in Genesis 3:15 the anticipation of the virgin birth. Satan’s defeat and that of his seed (the unbelieving world) would come from the seed of the woman. It speaks of her seed, not his (the man’s) nor theirs (the man and the woman). Deliverance would come from the woman without the aid of a man. The seeds referred to here are not defined. Later revelation will do this, but the text is suggestive by itself:

    First, the seed of the serpent is a collective noun meaning “offspring,” and must refer to the children of the evil one, those who are in a spiritual sense the children of the devil. John 8:44 reads, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (NIV). The text is obviously not talking about an offspring of snakes.

    Second, if “seed” must refer to a whole class and is used in the collective sense in the first half of the statement, then “seed” in the second half of the statement must be used collectively for the descendants or posterity of the woman. The enmity is one that will exist between two groups throughout history, the serpent’s and the woman’s.

    Third, in the last part of verse 15, however, the seed is narrowed to the singular “he” and the singular “you” which anticipates a person--a particular seed who does battle with the serpent--who is Satan. (Though Galatians 3:16 and 19 deal with the seed of Abraham, it is still applicable. Also compare Romans 16:20; Hebrews 2:9-14 and Revelation 5).

(5) Two things are stated about the seeds and their enmity: First, her seed would bruise, crush the serpent’s head. This clearly portrays a mortal wound which means her seed would be victorious. A deliverance is anticipated. Second, the serpent would bruise her seed on the heel. Her seed would suffer, but it would not be a mortal wound or one that would lead to defeat. A deliverer who suffers, but is ultimately victorious is promised.

We anticipate, then, a struggle but also a deliverance by one who will suffer. But to what or to whom shall we look? What form would the struggle take? Eve, the mother of all living, would have many sons and daughters who would eventually spread out all over the earth, so to whom do we look?

In Genesis 4 we find the first mention of birth. Could the promised seed be Cain which is probably best understood to mean, “acquired” or “gotten.” “Cain” sounds like qana, the verb used here which means “to get, acquire”? Literally the Hebrew reads, “I have gotten (acquired) a man with the Lord.” This was apparently a cry of faith, an expectation from Eve. Did Eve think this was the promised seed?

Eve probably did not know or sense that the enmity in the human race would be so long. She may have thought Cain was the promised seed or at least the first in the lineage of the seed who would crush the serpent and restore what was lost. But as the passage shows, Cain was not a man of faith because he brought a bloodless offering. His brother Abel, however, brought a blood offering which was accepted by God. By doing so Abel displayed his faith in the coming Redeemer, perhaps even understanding he was one who must suffer.

Thus, Able represented the godly seed, the line of the Savior, while Cain represented the ungodly seed, the line of Satan.

But we immediately see that Cain murdered Abel. This is the first illustration of the enmity between the two seeds. Very early on we begin to see the trail of destruction and deception. As illustrated with Cain, not all would believe and the promise of Genesis 3:15 became ignored or distorted by the ancient mysticism of Babylon and a religious system that has been call “the mother-child cult.” This was a clever counterfeit of the promise of Genesis 3:15 which would flourish all over the world and rise again in the last days.2

In order to keep the promise pure, God would need a remnant, a godly line of believers who would believe the promise, proclaim it, and become the channel for the seed of the woman. So, in the lineage of the seed we will see how God protected the promise and eliminated millions that we might know just where to look for Messiah. We will see how God identifies the seed and fulfills His promises to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, and to others in spite of the continued opposition of the serpent.

This line of prophetic truth regarding the birth of the seed of the woman becomes more and more amazing and miraculous. These road signs will enable us to pinpoint with great accuracy just who this Deliverer is, when and where and how He would be born, and other amazing details foretold by the Scriptures hundreds of years in advance. Here stands an impressive line of evidence for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The evidence demonstrates that He is not just another of the world’s great religious leaders, but that truly He and He alone is the promised seed, the answer to mankind’s many needs, and the one in whom the nations would be blessed.

Road Sign Number 2:
The Line of Seth—The Godly Seed
(Genesis 4:25-26)

And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel; for Cain killed him.” And to Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

“Seth” is from a Hebrew word which means “to set, place, appoint.” With this name and Eve’s statement in verse 25b, it is evident this child becomes the one appointed to be the godly line, the line out of which the seed of the woman will come.

Who names the child? Eve does, and I think this again illustrates her faith. The mention of “another offspring” in place of Abel, literally, “another seed,” takes up the promise of Genesis 3:15 and in essence, announces from which of Eve’s sons the seed would come. So the line is narrowed, but note that in verse 26 we read, “Then, men began to call upon the name of the Lord.” The “then” refers to the logical consequences of the birth of Seth and the establishment of the godly line of men from which the seed of the woman would come. “This stands in contrast to the ungodly line of Cain, who ‘went out from the presence of the Lord’“ (vs. 16).3

Let’s move forward again several hundred years (at least 1656 years following creation) and maybe more if this list of the sons of Seth is not exhaustive and there are no gaps in the record. Ryrie writes, “It is likely, however, that the genealogy is selective, resulting in gaps in the list and pushing the date of creation farther back.”4

We turn next to Genesis 6 and the time of Noah, but again we see the enmity and the path of destruction and deception in human history. Once again Satan attempts to stop the promise of Genesis 3:15. Genesis 6 is an extremely puzzling and difficult passage which has a very pointed connection with the flood as God’s judgment on the earth. Time will not allow a discussion of this passage in this series, but it seems evident, regardless of one’s viewpoint concerning “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” that this passage describes Satan’s attempt to “take over the earth and banish the name of God and His Christ from this planet.”5 Regardless of one’s understanding of this passage, it was certainly Satan’s attempt to kill out any belief in the coming Redeemer with the grossest type of immorality.

Ross remarks, “Genesis 6:1-4 . . . describes how corrupt the world got when this violation was rampant. It is also a polemic against the pagan belief that giants (Nephilim; cf. Num. 13:32-33) and men of renown (Gen. 6:4) were of divine origin, and that immortality was achieved by immorality.”6 In other words, in part at least, it was Satan’s attempt to blind men to the true message of immortality or salvation through the promise of Genesis 3:15.

But God raised up man, a preacher of righteousness, whose name was Noah. Noah, his wife, their sons and their wives believed God and for 120 years Noah warned of a coming judgment which would clearly prove that these heroes or “men of renown” were mere flesh, under God’s authority and control, and would die--which they did in the flood. So God destroyed the human race with the flood, except for Noah and his family. Now it is obvious the seed of the woman would come through Noah. But Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth who became the fathers of the entire human race. Which one would be the godly line, the one from which the seed would come?

Road Sign Number 3:
Blessings on Shem (Genesis 9:26)

He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant.

The wording here is unexpected. In verse 25, Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan,” but here, rather than “blessed be Shem,” he said, “blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem.” The point is that Shem’s good fortune was the product of his relationship to the Lord as his God. This is not only a prophecy and a pronouncement of blessing upon Shem and his posterity, but in it God declares that Shem’s posterity would know and serve the one true God. His descendents would become the godly seed or line. From Shem would come the Deliverer, the seed of the woman and the means of blessing to the other brothers (Gen. 9:27).

We see two key developments as we continue to look for the seed of the woman.

(1) Shem also, had many sons. So to which one do we look? The descendants of Shem became the Semitic people, many of whom dwelt in the east around the land of Shinar or Babylon.

(2) Furthermore, as time moved along, the nations revolted under the leadership of a man called Nimrod, whose very name could mean “let us revolt” (Gen. 10:8-10). “The name Nimrod ‘no doubt suggested to the Israelites that idea of rebel . . . against God’”78 Nimrod’s Tower of Babel became Satan’s first attempt at a one-world system of government by which man sought unity and prosperity apart from God. It was clearly an anti-God, humanistic kingdom and the first try at a United Nations.

Unfortunately, this rebellion included the Semitic people (the descendants of Shem), many of whom lived in Babylon and all of whom became involved in this Babylonian system of idolatry. History teaches us that Nimrod had a wife by the name of Semerimus who established the worship of what may be called “the mother-child cult.” This became Satan’s clever counterfeit to the promise of the seed of the woman. Here was the beginning of the “Mother of Harlots” of Revelation 17:3-6.

Again we see the enmity at work, the trail of blood and deception. Let’s move on down the corridors of time and look for more road signs.

Road Sign Number 4:
The Call of Abram and the Abrahamic Covenant
(Genesis 12:1-3)

Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

The whole world had fallen in with Satan’s system just as it will again in the last days and the days of the Great Tribulation as described in the book of Revelation. The world lay in humanism, pantheism, idolatry, and unbelief. But God always has his man and His remnant and, as faithful and sovereign God, He will fulfill His promises and purposes. So, God called a man by the name of Abram. How we are not told, but while Abram was in Ur of the Chaldeans, a wealthy, populous, and sophisticated pagan center of idolatry, Abram heard the call of God and believed Him.

As foretold in Scripture, Abram is in the line of Shem from whom the seed would come. In this text, several new tidbits of information are given.

(1) A specific portion of land is now in view, one that will become the center of the world as God views it. The seed of the woman will come out of a special parcel of land, the land of Canaan, later to be known as Palestine.

(2) A specific nation is now in view, one that would come out of the loins of Abram. So we look for a nation that will arise out of the descendants of Abram.

(3) Universal blessings are promised for all the nations. Abram’s seed would become a channel of blessing to all the world. This means we look for the Redeemer and promised Seed to come from Abram’s people.

In subsequent sections in Genesis, God amplifies and enlarges on these promises, but now we know in what family and in what land we should look for the seed of the woman. We won’t look in China, in Babylon, in Assyria, in India, in Western Europe, in Italy, in Turkey, or in the Americas. No, we are to look for this Deliverer, this seed of the woman, from a small piece of ground along the Mediterranean Sea, the land of Israel.

But as we journey on down the pages of Scripture, we soon learn that Abram would be the father of a multitude. Many nations would come from Abram, so many God even changed his name to Abraham meaning “father of a multitude” (Genesis 17:4-7).

“As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. “No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. “And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. (NASB)

To whom do we look now? As we continue our trek down the pages of Scripture, we find another sign.

Road Sign Number 5:
In Isaac and His Descendants
(Genesis 17:19 & 21:12)

Genesis 17:19 But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

Genesis 21:12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.

We are to look for the Deliverer in the descendents of Isaac. But wait! Isaac would have two sons and two nations would come from him. Which nation would be the channel for the seed? Would it be Esau, the father of the Edomites, or Jacob, the father of Israel?

Road Sign Number 6:
In Jacob and His Descendants
(Genesis 25:22-23 & 28:13-14)

Genesis 25:22-23 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it is so, why then am I this way?” So she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.”

Genesis 28:13-14 And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants. “Your descendants shall also be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Again, God’s road signs, placed carefully along the pages of Scripture and the corridors of time, guide us and the line is narrowed. Still, as we continue our travels, we find that Jacob had 12 sons (Gen. 35:22b-27). From which son do we look for the seed of the woman and the deliverer and source of blessing to the nations. Is it Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph or Benjamin? As always, God does not leave us guessing.

Road Sign Number 7:
In The Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

In Genesis 49 Jacob pronounces blessing on each of his sons and in the process narrows the line to the tribe of Judah. Made on his death bed, this is a prophecy of Jacob describes the future of Israel. In this prophecy, God not only narrows the field again, but broadens our expectations to look for One who will one day become a ruler in Israel. Let’s note some of the ingredients of this prophecy.

(1) Judah means praise. In this tribe, God would do that which would cause men to lift up their voice to Him in praise.

(2) “The scepter” and “the ruler’s staff” clearly refer to the right to rule or to the royal line.

(3) “Shiloh” is clearly a messianic title for “the seed of the woman, the Deliverer who would come.”

(4) “Shiloh” may mean “peaceful” or “peacemaker” after the promise of Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Eph. 2:14-17). Or it may mean, “whose it is” or “he to whom it belongs,” i.e., the right to rule.

This then is a prediction that tells us two important facts: First, Judah would become the royal line, the tribe that would rule in Israel and one day rule over the world through this Deliverer who is to come. Second, it is not saying that once Judah began to rule there would always be someone on the throne of Israel. Rather, the declaration is that the right to rule would remain in Judah and that out of Israel herself, no impostor would sit on the throne of Israel until Shiloh, the Peacemaker, comes to rule and his kingdom is established.

Now as we travel on down the pages of Scripture and history we find the tribe of Judah increases by many thousands. Again we look to Scripture to see who would be the channel?

Road Sign Number 8:
In the Family of Jesse
(1 Samuel 16:1 & Isaiah 11:1, 10)

1 Samuel 16:1 Now the LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons.”

Isaiah 11:1, 10 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. … Then it will come about in that day That the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious.

Road Sign Number 9:
In the Person of David

Prophecy: 1 Samuel 16:12-13; Isaiah 9:6-7; 2 Samuel 7:12-16

1 Samuel 16:12-13 So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance. And the LORD said, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

2 Samuel 7:12-16 “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. “He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 “And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”’”

Fulfillment: Luke 1:32-33; 3:23-38, Matthew 1:1, 6-7

Now we can see that the prophecies become even more precise, so we not only know in what line, but when, where, and how. When we come to the lineage and birth of the Savior, the accuracy of Scripture and its uniqueness among the religious writings of the world is absolutely incredible and intriguing! Why? What does this do for us? In these prophecies and in the lineage of Messiah we see several things:

(1) We see that which is miraculous and impossible apart from the intervention and work of a personal God in human history.

(2) We see how God kept the line of identification clear so no impostor might be mistaken for Messiah.

(3) We also see how God minutely fulfilled His Word in the face of the enmity of Satan and the sinful acts of men.

In 1 Samuel 8 the people of Israel in stubborn rebellion cried out for a king like the nations (1 Sam. 8:4-10, 19-22). It was God’s plan to give them a king, but one after His own heart who would rule under God’s authority with God ruling over the king’s heart.

The first king God chose was Saul of the tribe of Benjamin and not from the tribe of Judah as prophesied by Jacob in Genesis 49. Why? In Genesis 38:6-30 we have the account of the sin of Judah and of his illegitimate child, Perez. There was also a twin, Zera. But since Perez was the firstborn he became the seed or the royal line (Matt. 1:3; Luke 3:33). However, Deuteronomy 23:2 declares that an illegitimate son could not enter the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation. What does this mean? It means that such a son and none of his descendants until the tenth generation could serve as king or priest.

Jesse, the Father of David was a descendant of Perez and, as you might guess, he was the ninth generation making David the tenth (cf. Ruth 4:18-22 and Matt. 1:3-6). As a result, God chose Saul until David could come of age. In the process of this, (1) thousands of the line of Judah were eliminated, (2) the line of identification was kept clear, and (3) God’s Word was not broken.

Road Sign Number 10:
The Royal Line to Pass Through David’s Son, Solomon

Prophecy: 2 Samuel 7:12-17 and 1 Chronicles 28:4-5

2 Samuel 7:12-17 “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. “He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. “And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”’” In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

1 Chronicles 28:4-5 “Yet, the LORD, the God of Israel, chose me from all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever. For He has chosen Judah to be a leader; and in the house of Judah, my father’s house, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. “And of all my sons for the LORD has given me many sons, He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

Fulfillment: Matthew 1:1, 6-7;

Second Samuel 7:12-17 declared God’s covenant with David. In this covenant (known as the Davidic Covenant) God passed the royal line through Solomon with certain unconditional promises. God assured David that his house, throne, and kingdom would be established forever. Though the house of David would degenerate and though there would be interruptions to its rule, the right to rule would remain with David’s family as predicted in Genesis 49:10, and one day it would be permanently established through Messiah (2 Sam. 7:16, cf. Lk. 1:32,33).

What happens following this is intriguing as well as miraculous because of what happens to the royal line of David through Solomon. The next prophecies (or road signs) along the course of prophetic history deal with this royal line and Messiah’s birth.

Road Sign Number 11:
Messiah to be Preceded by a Forerunner

Prophecy: Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1

Isaiah 40:3 A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.

Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts.

Fulfillment: Mark 1:2-4; Matthew 3:1-3

It is predicted that Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner who would prepare the hearts of the people for the Lord. Compare Mark 1:2-4 where Mark uses Malachi 3:1 to introduce and explain the meaning and purpose of the Isaiah passage as it is fulfilled in John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ.

Road Sign Number 12:
Messiah to be Born by the Miracle of the Virgin Birth

Prophecy: Isaiah 7:13-14

Isaiah 7:13-14 Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? “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. (NASB)

Fulfillment: Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35

Isaiah 7:13-14 announces the birth of a wondrous child through a virgin as a sign of deliverance to the whole house of David--the birth of Messiah by the miracle of the virgin birth. This passage, quoted by the angel to Joseph to explain what had happened, is included by Matthew as one of the many fulfillment prophecies regarding Messiah that were fulfilled in the conception of Mary and the birth and life of Jesus. Though this will not be a detailed explanation of this passage, I do want to emphasize a few important points.

There is a promise and judgment on the house of David (Isaiah 7:14). It is important to notice that this section is addressed to the whole house of David (vs. 13), and not to just Ahaz or the immediate situation. It becomes both a promise to the house of David and a judgment.

First, by the sign and promise of Isaiah 7:14, God is assuring the house of David that this alliance of Syria and Israel (7:1-2) would not come to pass. No impostor would ever sit on the throne of David.

Second, I believe the promise of the sign and the virgin birth was saying that the line of David which had spiritually degenerated would be replaced by One who was not degenerate, though still in the royal line of David and with all royal rights to the throne. God would set aside the physical line of the merely human and degenerate house of David, which would become even more degenerate during the reigns of the kings to come. This will become even more evident when we get to the curse of Jeconiah.

Finally, the sign guaranteed the deliverance of God’s people and the final establishment of David’s throne though the birth of this marvelous child called Immanuel, which means, “God with us.” No impostor would take the right of rule away from David’s line.

Many see a double fulfillment here. The first fulfillment in the birth of a contemporary whose birth represented God’s presence with the ultimate fulfillment referring to the Lord Jesus. I personally have problems with this and have become convinced this is a direct messianic prophecy which has its fulfillment only in the birth and person of Jesus Christ. True, there is a son born to Isaiah in the next chapter who becomes a confirmation of the Messiah prophecy of 7:14, but his name is not Immanuel. It is Maher-shalal-has-baz, “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” (Isaiah 8:1). The statement of 8:8, “. . . will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel” is not addressing Isaiah’s son. It addresses Messiah and declares that His land will be invaded by Assyria.

Regardless of whether one sees a dual fulfillment (one for the time of Isaiah and one for the time of Messiah) or exclusively messianic (referring to Messiah only), one of the primary purposes of the prophecy was to show the sinful, degenerate, and merely human line of Ahaz had become impotent, and that it would be replaced by One who was more than man. He would be the God-man, Immanuel, conceived miraculously in the virgin. He would be the One who would become the marvelous Son of chapter 9:6, the One called “Mighty God,” and the Son of 11:1, the One who would one day “strike the earth with the rod of His mouth . . .” Furthermore, no child as recorded in Scripture is ever called Immanuel. No son of Isaiah or Hezekiah or any other contemporary was ever called Immanuel. When Christ was born He was called “Jesus,” never “Immanuel.”

What’s the Point? “Immanuel” is not a name, an appellation; it was instead a designation, a title or a description of who this Child would be--God with us in the flesh, both God and man (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2).

“Virgin” is the Hebrew, `alma, which means “a mature, young, unmarried, and chaste woman.” `Alma . . . represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is born out by several facts:

(1) The Septuagint, long before any Christological controversies, used parthenos (the Greek word for virgin) in two of the seven occurrences of `alma, and this includes Isaiah 7:14. This is what the angel quoted to Joseph as a prediction of the virgin birth.

(2) There is no instance where one can prove that `alma designates a young woman who is not also a virgin.9

(3) Further, it is the only Hebrew word that unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman. No other Hebrew word would clearly indicate that the one whom it designates was unmarried.10

(4) It is sometimes argued that the Hebrew language had a more precise word for “virgin,” bethulah, but this word may also designate a betrothed virgin or one who was actually married (cf. Joel 1:8). In such a case, the birth of the child might be viewed as the result of the normal husband/wife relationship. Had Isaiah used this word, he would or could have left us in confusion or with the wrong idea (cf. Young, p. 288). But not so with `alma. He is speaking of a young, unmarried virgin who conceives miraculously. `Alma was used because it combines both the ideas of virginity and the condition of being unmarried.

In this way, one would be born, but not by normal conception, but by a miracle work of God so that the one born would not only be true man, but God with us in the sense of being the God-man (cf. Isa. 9:6a, c). Thus, we are to expect precisely what we find in the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Road Sign Number 13:
The Royal Line Cut Off and Cursed, Yet the Promise Preserved

Jeremiah 22:28-30 clearly shows the royal line was to be cursed and cut off. Included in the royal line of David through Solomon was Jeconiah (or Coniah).11 The curse clearly states that no physical seed of Coniah could ever occupy the throne of David. This means the royal line of David through Solomon was cut off. God saw to it that this prophecy was carried out by the following conditions:

(1) The captivity of Babylon and the nations that followed Babylon which would rule over Israel with the result that no one would be able to sit on the throne of Judah or of David. The nations following Babylon were Medo-Persia, Greece and finally Rome.

(2) This condition has been maintained by what the New Testament calls “the times of the Gentiles,” the period of Gentile domination that will continue until the second advent of Messiah according to Luke 21:24.

But what about God’s promises to David concerning his throne and kingdom? Are they abrogated and thus fulfilled in the spiritual reign of God in the church as many teach today? Is God finished with the nation of Israel? Will there be then no millennial reign? The answer is and emphatic NO! God is not finished with Israel. And YES, there will be a millennial reign! God’s promises to David are not abrogated and the reason they are not is because of the Immanuel promise and its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ. How does the virgin birth accomplish this? Through the virgin birth Jesus became the legal son of Joseph by adoption, but the physical son David through Mary. Joseph, who was in the royal line of David through Solomon, gave Jesus legal title to the throne by adoption (Matt. 1:1-17). Mary, by the Spirit-wrought miracle of the virgin birth, made Jesus a literal son of David through Nathan another one of David’s sons (Luke 3:23-38).

Remember we said that the prophecies of the birth of the Messiah, or the seed of the woman, are so precise that they not only tell us how, (that the Savior would come through the miracle of the virgin birth), but they would even tell us when and where and more about how!

Road Sign Number 14:
The Time of Messiah’s Birth

The Prophecy: Daniel 9:24-27

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. “So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

Fulfillment: Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-38, the Triumphal Entry.

Daniel 9:24-27 add several more important facts about the Messiah: (1) This passage tells us when Messiah will appear on the scene. It obviously anticipates His birth. (2) It tells us that after His appearance, Messiah will be rejected by His people, and (3) that Messiah will be cut off temporarily, an obvious reference to the cross.

Verse 25 refers to a specific time for the coming of Messiah. The seven weeks with the sixty-two weeks combine to make 69 weeks of years (483 years) until the coming of Messiah. The starting point for the 483 years was the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This is a reference to the decree given in the time of Nehemiah in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes in 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8). After this, Messiah would appear on the scene.

The words “until Messiah the Prince” refer to a time when Messiah would be manifested as the prince of Israel. The point of manifestation is debated, but it most likely refers to the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday when He presented Himself and was recognized by the people as Messiah prince. This would be around A.D. 30-33, so the time of His birth as the Immanuel of God would have to be around A.D. 0-4.

By the way, though somewhat debated, it is a believed that at the time of Christ’s birth there was an air of expectancy among godly Jews who still had the hope of Messiah.

Road Sign Number 15:
The Place of Messiah’s Birth

Prophecy: Micah 5:2-3

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Therefore, He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel.

Fulfillment: Luke 2:1-7; Matthew 2:1-6

The Micah prophecy was well known by Israel and when the men from the east came seeking the one born King of the Jews and inquired of His birth, the religious leaders told Herod precisely where He was to be born, in Bethlehem.

Road Sign Number 16:
The Celestial Announcement of Messiah’s Birth

Prophecy: Numbers 24:17

Numbers 24:17 “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, And a scepter shall rise from Israel, And shall crush through the forehead of Moab, And tear down all the sons of Sheth.

Fulfillment: Matthew 2:1-2

Matthew 2:1-2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.”

The question of the Magi in Matthew 2:2a, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews” and their stated reason in 2b, “For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him,” is presented by Matthew as another identifying evidence that this Jesus of whom he was writing is truly the long awaited Deliverer of Old Testament expectation. In fact, the overall purpose of Matthew is to present Jesus as the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies to prove that Jesus is the Deliverer and long awaited Messiah. This is evident by the ten fulfillment quotations he employs in presenting Jesus as the expected Messiah.12

Regarding the Magi of Matthew 2, Wiersbe writes:

We must confess that we know little about these men. The word translated “wise men” (magi) refers to a group of scholars who studied the stars. Their title connects them with magic, but they were probably more like astrologers. However, their presence in the biblical record is not a divine endorsement of astrology.

God gave them a special sign, a miraculous star that announced the birth of the King.13

Some have looked for some historical and astronomical occurrence to explain the star like a super nova, a special comet, or a conjunction of stars, but I believe Pentecost is right in his statement:

While there seems adequate astronomical support for the appearance of a heavenly light of such proportions as to indicate to these searchers the birth of the King of the Jews, this scarcely seems to be an adequate interpretation. This was not a natural phenomenon but a supernatural one. If these men were astronomers, they would have been familiar with such a phenomenon and would have explained it naturally. It would have required more than a natural phenomenon to send them on such a journey.14

This star is better explained as a manifestation of the shining glory of God perhaps in the form of a star that He used to reveal and identify the Savior. No star in the distant heavens could provide such direction. It is probable that these men from the east had become acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures because of the deportations of Israel to Babylon and to Medo-Persia. If so, the prophecy containing a star and which linked that star to the scepter of Israel found in Numbers 24:17, would cause them to associate this supernatural occurrence with birth of the Deliver in Israel.

In addition, the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks in Daniel 9 would cause great anticipation for the coming of the King at this time. It is not without significance Daniel was well known as a “wise man” in the royal courts of Babylon. Since the Magi were astrologers, the sign of the star was highly significant. This with their evident knowledge of some of the Old Testament prophecies brought them to Jerusalem.

Matthew affirms the supernatural birth of the King by noting the reference the Magi make to the star. Morgan writes, “It was an extraordinary and special movement in the stellar spaces, designed to lead these men to Christ” [G. Campbell Morgan, The Crises of the Christ, p. 98]. Such a significant display in the heavens would cause no little stir among those who were looking for the coming of a king. That there was at this time a universal expectation of a world deliverer is both asserted and denied. In either case the Magi were evidently acquainted with the Old Testament prophecies, and because of the stellar manifestations which they say, had come to Jerusalem to seek out the Messiah of Israel.15

We have another mark of identification and a fitting one on which to conclude. It is one with interesting points of application for us to think about.

Matthew tells us the Magi came “to worship Him.” In what sense did they come to worship Him? I believe they came to worship Him as God. While the verb used here could refer to the homage one pays to men or to God, it was generally used of God.16 This is further supported by the fact that in the New Testament this verb, proskuneo, denotes exclusively worship addressed to God or to Jesus Christ as God.17 If this were not the case, why would these Magi bother to come to a tiny nation to worship its new ruler? No, the supernatural occurrence along with the prophecies of the Old Testament pointed Him out to them as the Deliverer of the Old Testament and they came to worship Him.

Matthew also shares this story with us because it highlights another important issue and one of contrast. It draws the reader’s attention to the apathy and disinterest of the religious leaders of Israel and the hatred and actions of Herod. Though they knew where Messiah was to be born, the religious leaders couldn’t be bothered, and Herod sought to kill the child. Again, Scripture draws our attention to the struggle and enmity of Genesis 3:15 continuing the battle between the spiritual and the carnal, the godly and the worldly, and faith versus unbelief.

The magi were seeking the King; Herod was opposing the King; and the Jewish priests were indifferent to the King. The priests knew the Scriptures, but ignored them. Isn’t it sad how much people can know of the Word of God and at the same time how little it often affects their lives. “Such is the appalling gulf between religious belief and practice.”18 They would not even take the time to go to worship Him themselves. This illustrates how we can know the Bible, yet fail to appropriate it by faith so that it changes our objects of worship; indeed, so that it changes us to make us like the Lord Jesus.

Conclusion

In summary, what are the marks of identification of the Deliverer who would and now has come?

    1. A male child, a son (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 9:6)

    2. A child born in the line of Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, David, and Solomon.

    3. A physical descendant of David and legal heir to the throne through Solomon, yet not a physical descendant through Jeconiah.

    4. A child born of a virgin in circumstances which validate the fact of a virgin birth as seen in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

    5. A descendent of David, son of Jesse, but not until the tenth generation after Perez.

    6. Born around 4 A.D. in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel 9:24f.

    7. One who would be preceded by a forerunner who would prepare the way as did John the Baptist (Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:1-4).

    8. Born in Bethlehem of Judea (Mic. 5:2).

    9. Born of circumstances that would identify Him as the Savior and the Star of David, the long-awaited Deliver (Luke 2:9-14; Num. 24:17; Matt. 2:1-9).

    10. One whose life would also fulfill the many other Old Testament prophecies regarding Messiah.

God has given us these clear marks of identification (road signs) that we might not be misled into believing the false claims of the various religious leaders who have and will rise on the scene of human history. It behooves us to know these great prophecies and to remember our Lord’s warning in Matthew 24:4-5

And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.

May the fact and truth of these marvelous prophecies comfort and give you joy this Christmas season!!


1 Derek Kidner, Genesis, An Introduction and Commentary, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 70.

2 For details of the mother-child cult of ancient Babylon, see The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, Loizeaux Brothers.

3 Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 31.

4 Notes on Genesis 5:3, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, 1995, p. 11.

5 Unger, p. 36.

6 Allen Ross, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Editors, p. 36.

7 For more information on this, see J. Dwight Pentecost’s, Prophecy For Today, Zondervan, and Hislop’s The Two Babylons, Loizeaux Brothers, p. 131f.

8 A. Dillmann, Genesis, 1:350, quoted from Unger, p. 48.

9 Cf. the Theological Journal of the Old Testament, Volume 2, p. 672.

10 E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, p. 288.

11 Compare Jeremiah 22:28-30 with Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:17-38.

12 Cf. 1:23 [Isa. 7:14]; 2:15 [Hos. 11:1], 18 [Jer. 21:15], 23 [Isa 53:2-4]; 4:15 [Isa. 8:23]; 8:15 [Isa. 53:4]; 12:18-21 [Isa. 42:1-4]; 13:35 [Ps. 78:2]; 21:5 [Isa. 62:11]; and 27:9-10 [Zech. 11:13].

13 Warren Wiersbe, Be Loyal, Victor Books, p. 18.

14 J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, Zondervan, p. 67.

15 Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King, Multnomah Press, p. 49.

16 James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 549.

17 See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown, Vol. 2, p. 877.

18 John Walvoord, Matthew, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 22.

Related Topics: Christology, Christmas, Prophecy/Revelation

The New World Translation and Christologically Significant Article-Substantive-<FONT FACE="Greek">Kaiv</font>

Related Media

In an effort to defend the assertion that two distinct persons are in view in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the New World Translation (NWT) committee approvingly quotes Abbot’s appeal to two supposedly parallel article-substantive-kaiv-substantive (TSKS) constructions in the New Testament.1 Of course, Abbot’s theory encounters a slight problem here, since neither of his supposed parallels fall within the scope of Granville Sharp’s rule.2 First, his example in Matthew 21:12 of two distinct groups buying and selling in the temple employs the use of plural participles. This is not parallel to Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 where two singular nouns are in view, and it ignores the fact that not all plural participles in the TSKS construction require identical referents.3 Abbot’s second example in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 of a distinction between the Father and Jesus Christ also falls outside the scope of Sharp’s rule, since kurivou =Ihsou' Cristou' is a common title possessing the qualities of a proper name.4

In addition to his two proposed parallel TSKS constructions, Abbot appealed to Winer’s argument that the insertion of hJmw'n before swth'ro" in Titus 2:13 definitizes the noun, thus explaining the absence of the second article. However, Paul’s reference in Philippians 2:25 to Epaphroditus as toVn ajdelfoVn kaiV sunergoVn kaiV sustratiwvthn mou (“my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier”) clearly demonstrates that the intrusion of a genitive pronoun does not invalidate Sharp’s rule.5 Both Abbot and the NWT appendix show an imprecise understanding of Sharp’s rule, and the latest NWT apologia6 shows a continuation of that trend.

Despite the somewhat complex approach to his argument, Greg Stafford’s discussion of christologically significant TSKS constructions7 can be broken down rather simply. On the one hand, his arguments depend almost exclusively on one area of limited data,8 and on the other hand, he almost completely ignores an overwhelming corpus of contrary evidence.

Stafford’s argument for viewing two persons in the christologically significant TSKS constructions relies almost exclusively on his attempt to find compound proper names. If he can somehow demonstrate the fact that “the Great God” (Titus 2:13) or “Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1) are compound proper names, then the limitations on Sharp’s rule apply and two distinct persons are intended. However, Stafford has not assembled nearly enough primary data to establish his case.9

Stafford’s first attempt at establishing the case for a compound proper name begins with “the Great God” (tou' megavlou qeou') in Titus 2:13. A one paragraph statement was all that Stafford deemed necessary,10 and his sole argument leans on Wallace’s admission that it is just possible to construe similar phrases “the only Father” and “the God and Father” as virtual proper names.11 Running with this remote possibility, Stafford muses that since the title “the Great God” also appears frequently in the LXX,12 it too might be considered a compound proper name.

It is our contention that frequency of usage in the Old Testament does not automatically prohibit qeoV" mevga" from being applied to Christ in the New Testament, and thus does not constitute a proper name. This can be demonstrated with a brief examination of another title frequently applied to Yahweh in the LXX, and which we believe is securely applied to Christ in the New Testament.

The title “Almighty God” (qeoV" oJ pantokravtwr) refers specifically to the Father over a dozen times in the LXX.13 The same construction occurs nine times in the New Testament, all confined to the Book of Revelation.14 We would submit that within the pages of the Apocalypse the title is applied to both the Father and the Son.

It is not our intention to offer an explanation for each occurrence of qeoV" oJ pantokravtwr in the New Testament, but merely to offer some observations which we believe make it likely that Christ is referred to as “God Almighty” in the Book of Revelation. Stafford agrees that Revelation 1:17 and 2:8 make clear reference to Christ as “the First and the Last” (oJ prw'to" kaiV oJ e[scato"), and he recognizes that the LXX version of Isaiah 44:6 provides an exact parallel in reference to the Father. Nevertheless, he is unwilling to apply the full force of this phrase to Christ in Revelation 22:13.

First, Stafford objects to Christ being the speaker in Revelation 22:12-15, arguing that the appearance of the first person singular pronoun in 22:16 signals a shift in speaker. He cites two supposedly similar shifts in the same book:

The first example is Revelation 1:9, which reads according to the NASB: ‘I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance [which are] in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos, because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.’ Here John, right after ‘the Alpha and the Omega,’ finishes speaking in verse 8, refers to himself in the first-person singular, followed by an explicit identification through the use of his name. Surely no one will argue that this means John is ‘the Alpha and the Omega’ of the previous verse!15

No, we would not argue that John is “the Alpha and the Omega.” But we would argue that the explicit phrase levgei kuvrio" oJ qeov" (“says the Lord God”) in 1:8 clearly identifies the previous speaker. Thus, the sudden change poses no problem in 1:9. The shift is rather obvious, and there is no room for confusion as to the identification of the speaker in either verse. Stafford continues:

The second example is found in Revelation 22:8: ‘I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me.’ (NIV) Will anyone conclude based on the opening of this verse that John is the one ‘coming quickly’ in verse 7?16

No, we would not conclude that John is the one “coming quickly.” But we would conclude that John’s admission to having just heard and seen the things of the previous verse clearly distinguishes him from the one speaking those words and showing those things. It seems pretty clear that the examples set forth by Stafford involve contextual indictors which plainly signal a shift in the speaker. However, when we come to Revelation 22:12-16, that is not the case. Once “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (v. 13) begins to speak in verse 12, there are no contextual indicators to hint at a shift in speakers at verse 16. Thus, there is no difficulty with viewing Christ as the one who is speaking for the duration of 22:12-16,17 and he may be understood as identifying himself as the “Almighty God” of 1:8.18

If “Almighty God” (qeoV" oJ pantokravtwr) can be used of the Father frequently in the LXX and yet applied to Christ in the New Testament, then recurrent LXX usage cannot be offered as a reason for denying Christ the title “the Great God” (tou' megavlou qeou').19 This becomes highly significant in Stafford’s treatment of christologically significant texts in the TSKS construction, since Titus 2:13 does not allow him the concession of calling Christ qeov" in some qualified sense. The title “Great God” can imply nothing less than full deity.

Continuing his quest to find a compound proper name in the aforementioned TSKS constructions, Stafford does some spade work with the epithet “Savior Jesus Christ” (swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov") and digs up the following argument:

It is similar with 2 Thessalonians 1:12, where the compound name ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ does not require the article to be considered a second subject. In Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 the use of swthvr, together with ‘Jesus Christ,’ puts these example [sic] outside the general category of article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions, which do not have the equivalent of a proper name in either the first or second position.20

As with his first attempt to find a compound proper name, Stafford’s handling of the primary data is found wanting. In fact, in all of his discussion regarding swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov" as a proper name, Stafford does not provide one argument from primary data. He does a good job, however, of locating secondary sources that agree with his position.21

Since we prefer not to give secondary sources primary authority, a closer look at the two pertinent christological titles is in order. According to the current version of acCordance,22 the title “Lord Jesus Christ” (kuvrio" jIhsou'" Cristov") occurs a total of sixty-two times in sixteen different New Testament letters.23 It is particularly significant to note that the title occurs early24 and is evenly distributed throughout the New Testament (see Appendix). Such early, frequent and evenly spread attestation gives abundant evidence for treating the title as a proper name.

On the other hand, the title “Savior Jesus Christ” (swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov") is scarcely attested. It occurs only five times, and is confined to two later writings25 produced in roughly the same time period (see Appendix).26 Considering the fact that its semantic pattern is so far removed from that of kuvrio" jIhsou'" Cristov", it is quite unlikely that swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov" assumes the former’s semantic force. In other words, there simply is not enough primary data to make a case that swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov" functions as a compound proper name.

Interestingly, swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov" never occurs outside of the TSKS construction, and three of its five occurrences undisputedly indicate shared identity with the head noun (cf. 2 Pet 1:11; 2:20; 3:18). This would seem to indicate that Stafford assumes proper nouns can fit the contours of Sharp’s rule,27 despite the fact that Wallace did not find a single reference in which proper nouns in the TSKS pattern were identical.28

In sum, Stafford has not dealt adequately with the primary data, and his arguments fly in the face of all TSKS constructions examined to date. There are not sufficient grounds for viewing qeoV" mevga" or swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov" as compound proper names, and there is yet more compelling evidence that qeov" should be inseparably linked to swthvr in the TSKS construction. We will now briefly turn our attention to this evidence which Stafford has largely ignored, namely, the well-established idiom qeoV" kaiv swthvr.

The cohesiveness of the time-worn expression qeoV" kaiv swthvr has been noted by more than a few scholars,29 but perhaps Harris has most succinctly captured its early force and accompanying significance for TSKS constructions of christological import:

The expression qeoV" kaiv swthvr was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology (see Wendland), was (apparently) used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, and invariably denoted one deity, not two. If the name jIhsou'" Cristov" did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person; yet jIhsou'" Cristov" is simply added in epexegesis.30

If the idiom is found to be early, frequent and uniformly asserting singular identity, we would expect such a force to naturally accompany usage in the New Testament.31 Thus, it is not surprising that Stafford is careful to emphasize the admitted lateness of examples Wallace found in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,32 while forgetting to mention that “there are earlier uses of the phrase circulating in Hellenistic circles—and not a few which antedate the New Testament” (emphasis added).33 A deceptively small footnote in Wallace’s dissertation is loaded with evidence for early attestation:

Cf. the references in BAGR, s.v. swthvr, dating back to the Ptolemaic era [332-30 BCE]. Cf. also L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, CN: American Philological Association, 1931), who gives a helpful list in her ‘Appendix III: Inscriptions recording Divine Honors,’ 267-83. Frequently, and from very early on, the inscriptions honor the Roman emperors as qeov", swthvr, and eujergevth". Almost invariably the terms are in a TSKS construction (among the earliest evidence, an inscription at Carthage, 48-47 BCE, honors Caesar as toVn qeoVn kaiV aujtokravtora kaiV swth'ra; one at Ephesus honors him as toVn . . . qeoVn ejpifanh' kaiV . . . swth'ra; Augustus is honored at Thespiae, 30-27 BCE, as toVn swth'ra kaiV eujergevthn; and in Myra he is called qeovn, while Marcus Agrippa is honored as toVn eujergevthn kaiV swth'ra).34

Stafford seems unimpressed by the evidence that qeoV" kaiv swthvr was a stereotyped formula commonly used in the first century, and assumes that “this is quite beside the point,”35 since Paul clearly applied the title swthvr to both the Father and Christ. He continues by saying that “we must not arbitrarily assume that just because the two titles ‘God’ and ‘Savior’ are used together in such close proximity that they ipso facto apply to one person.”36 Stafford’s use of rhetoric is a bit much here, since the abundance of evidence is far from arbitrary. The fact is, Stafford has not adequately addressed the evidence for the idiomatic force of qeoV" kaiv swthvr in extra-biblical literature. That the title swthvr is applied by Paul to both the Father and to Christ does not make the idiom beside the point—it is the point.

Stafford seems to realize the implications of this, and offers the concession that even if qeoV" kaiv swthvr were an established idiom, it would merely provide yet another qualified reference to Jesus as qeov".37 This qualified notion is difficult to maintain in light of the apparent interchangeability of qeov" and kuvrio" as swthvr (cf. Titus 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6),38 and does not accord with other uses of qeov" in the TSKS construction where one person is clearly in view.39

Evidence presented suggests swthvr is best understood as a title and its historical inclusion in the idiomatic construction qeoV" kaiv swthvr makes separation of the combination difficult in Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1. The fact that such an idiom antedates the New Testament and always deifies one person40 squarely places the burden of proof on one wishing to break the construction in the New Testament.

Although a few possible exceptions to Sharp’s rule were found by Wallace in extra-biblical literature,41 he notes that “the phrase oJ qeoV" kaiV swthvr (Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1) admitted of no exceptions—either in Christian or secular writings.”42 Thus, the evidence presented requires that those who wish to see two persons43 in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 produce contrary evidence on two fronts. First, they must demonstrate that qeov" or swthvr should be excluded from Sharp’s rule because they appear in compound proper names. Second, they must provide evidence that oJ qeoV" kaiV swthvr ever refers to more than one person in Hellenistic Greek. Until such evidence is produced, there is little left to discuss.

APPENDIX


1 The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985) Appendix 2E, 1144.

2 Wallace offers the following restatement of Granville Sharp’s rule: “In native Greek (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kaiv (thus, article-substantive-kaiv-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.” Daniel B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaiv in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995) 134-35.

3 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 285 n. 82.

4 Ibid., 276 n. 55.

5 Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 266. See also John 20:17; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Thess 3:2; 1 Tim 6:15; Heb 12:2; Rev 1:9.

6 Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Huntington Beach: Elihu Books, 1998).

7 Though Stafford discusses the TSKS construction in Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, our interest lies solely in the final two passages. The first two passages involve proper names and thus do not indicate identity between the two nouns. Nonetheless, the TSKS construction always indicates some sort of unity between two nouns, and may even connote equality. See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 270. Thus, Ephesians 5:5 and 2 Thessalonians 1:12 may very well be implicit references to Christ’s deity.

8 We are referring to Stafford’s attempt to establish swthvr jIhsou'" Cristov" as a compound proper name in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Less effort is spent arguing for patristic exceptions to Sharp’s rule and qeoV" mevga" as a proper name in Titus 2:13, and we address those arguments in turn. Stafford’s only other argument appears under 2 Peter 1:1, where he suggests two persons should be in view since New Testament epistles typically make an opening reference to both the Father and the Son. See Witnesses Defended, 246. However, a simple comparison of the opening verses in 1 and 2 Peter make this unlikely. 1 Peter 1:1 makes an opening reference to Christ, and no mention of the Father occurs until the following verse. So, it is not so strange that Peter’s second epistle would mention Christ alone in 1:1, and wait to mention the Father until verse 2.

9 With Wallace we agree that, “Any significant statements as to the semantics of a given construction must be based on a large number of examples,” and that, “Any judgment as to the semantics of the disputed passages must be based on clear examples that parallel, in all the essentials, the semantic situation of the target construction.” Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 1-2. We will see that Stafford’s argument for compound proper names in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are lacking in this regard.

10 Stafford, Witnesses Defended, 239-40.

11 Wallace rejected this view on the grounds that one would then also expect phrases such as “the God over all” (oJ ejpiV pavntwn qeov") and “Almighty God” (qeoV" oJ pantokravtwr) to be used only of the Father. However, these phrases are not restricted to the Father, and do occasionally refer to Christ in the patristic writings. See Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 268-69.

12 Stafford cites Abbot’s list of examples where qeoV" mevga" occurs in the LXX, Witnesses Defended, 239 n. 70. See (as numbered in the LXX) Deut 7:21; 10:17; 2 Chron 2:4; Neh 1:5; 8:6; 9:32; Ps 77:13[14]; 85:10; Dan 2:45; 9:4.

13 See Hos 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:8, 14, 15, 16, 27; 9:5, 6, 15; Nah 3:5; Zech 10:3. See also 2 Sam 7:27; 1 Chron 17:24; Jer 39:19.

14 See Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22.

15 Stafford, Witnesses Defended, 59.

16 Ibid., 60.

17 Of course, Stafford would find a difficulty based upon theological a priori; i.e., Jesus cannot be called Almighty God because he cannot be Almighty God. It is interesting to note that for all of Stafford’s complaints regarding the misrepresentation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he himself misrepresents what Trinitarians are actually saying. This is evident by his statement that “To teach Christ has two-natures in one person is not only against the teaching of Scripture, but it flies in the face of logic and reason,” Witnesses Defended, 65. We know of no responsible Trinitarians who attempt to explain the Trinity under the guise of logic and reason. To the contrary, Trinitarians try to deal faithfully with the text of Scripture while remembering that our finite minds cannot fully grasp the nature of our infinite God (cf. Isa 55:8-9).

While we cannot produce a one-to-one correspondence between the reality of God’s nature and human experience, this does not mean that our beliefs regarding God’s nature are illogical. If that were the case, then it would be unreasonable to conclude that God is an eternal being, since our finite minds cannot comprehend a person who has no beginning. Nonetheless, we confidently affirm God’s eternality because it is something which he has revealed about himself. In our discussion of God’s triune nature, it is important to distinguish between that which defies logic and that which is merely incomprehensible to the human mind.

18 It seems clear that Christ is speaking through the angel beginning in 22:12, and this raises a rather interesting point. Beginning with the announcement that the Apocalypse is the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” communicated “by His angel” (cf. Rev 1:1), one is hard pressed to find the angel ever speaking as a conduit of the Father. Thus, it is all the more likely that Christ is “the Alpha and the Omega” speaking in 22:13.

Furthermore, the grammar of Revelation 22:13 suggests that Christ is the one who is speaking: “There can be little doubt that these are the words of Jesus since (i) the phrase =Idou e]rcomai tacuv recalls Jesus’ words e]rcomai tacuv in 2.16 and 3.11, and (ii) in 22.20 the wordsnaiv e]rcomai tacuv are followed by the response, =Amhn, e]rcou kuvrie =Ihsou`. There is no reason to suppose that the subject of 22.13 is different from that of 22.12.” Peter R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 116.

19 It is also worth noting that mevga" is nowhere else used as a description of the Father in the New Testament.

20 Stafford, Witnesses Defended, 247-28.

21 A sympathetic pen is noted in Abbot, Winer and Blass-Debrunner. See Stafford, Witnesses Defended, 240-41, 244, 246.

22 AcCordance 3.0: Software for Biblical Studies (Vancouver, WA: Gramcord Institute, 1998).

23 AcCordance searched for the masculine singular of kuvrio" followed by (within two words) the masculine singular of V jIhsou'" followed by (within one word) the masculine singular of Cristov".

24 The first occurrence is found in the direct discourse of Acts 11:17. Schaff places the conversion of Cornelius as early as 37 CE, thus opening the possibility that the title was used before 40 CE. See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996) 1:278.

25 The title occurs late enough for one author to view 2 Peter 1:1 as the evolutionary climax of swthvr being applied to Christ in ways previously applied to the Father. The implication is that calling Jesus swthvr becomes just as significant as calling him qeov". See C. H. Moehlmann, The Combination Theos Soter as Explanation of the Primitive Christian Use of Soter as Title and Name of Jesus (Rochester: Du Bois, 1920) 17.

26 AcCordance searched for the masculine singular of swthvr followed by (within two words) the masculine singular of V jIhsou'" followed by (within one word) the masculine singular of Cristov".

27 Indeed, Stafford explicitly states that “In Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 the use of swthvr, together with ‘Jesus Christ,’ puts these examples outside the general category of article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions, which do not have the equivalent of a proper name in either the first or second position. This is not to say that such constructions cannot describe one person with two nouns, for, clearly, in the case of 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:18 and Jude 4, they do,” Witnesses Defended, 247-48.

28 Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 166-67.

29 E.g., Moulton, Wendland, Moehlmann, Cullmann, Harris, Wallace. For a discussion of the contribution of various authors, see Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 253-57.

30 Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 178-79.

31 It is interesting to note that the occurrence of other proper names immediately following swthvr in the TSKS construction never break the force of singular identity. A search of PHI Documentary CD #7 (Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1991-96) surfaced ten examples, four of which contain no significant textual ambiguities. See oJ [b]asileuV" kaiV swthVr Ptolemai/'o" in Aegean Islands [general] Inscriptiones Graecae XII,7 [Amorgos] document 506, a, 11; tw'i ktivsthi kaiV swth'ri Aujtokravtori JAdrianw'/ inAttica, Inscriptiones Graecae II et III [2789-5219] document 3370, 2; toi/'" . . .qeoi'" kaiV Swth'ri Ptolemaivwi inDelos, Inscriptiones Graecae XI,4 [510-1349] document 1038, 25; tw'/ eujergevth/ kaiV swth'ri JAdrianh'" Moyouestiva" th'" Kilikiva" in Italy and the Occident, Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae [IGUR I-IV] document 1:24, 8.

32 Stafford rejects the papyrological examples, arguing that they were written with the Trinitarian concept of God in mind, Witnesses Defended, 241 n. 76. However, it is significant that the Latin fathers did not see Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as necessary formulae for the deity of Christ, largely because the article does not exist in Latin. So to argue that the Greek papyri are influenced by Trinitarianism does not explain why the examples were packaged in the TSKS construction in the first place. Thus, “the uniformity in the Greek fathers was probably due to Greek syntax, not to nascent creedalism,” Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 252.

33 Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 255.

34 Ibid., n. 228.

35 Stafford, Witnesses Defended, 241.

36 Ibid., 242. Not only is this loaded rhetoric, but it fails to appreciate the fact that qeov" comprises the single largest set of examples that fit Sharp’s rule.

37 Ibid., 247.

38 As with Paul’s apparent interchangeability between qeov" and kuvrio" as modifiers of swthvr (cf. Titus 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6), Peter may have been using qeov" as a variant for kuvrio" in 1:1. Harris notes a further interchangeability between hJmevra kurivou in 3:10 and tou' qeou' hJmevra" in 3:12. See Harris, Jesus as God, 232.

39 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 276.

40 Harris, Jesus as God, 178-79; 233-34; Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 255. It is also significant that Titus 2:14 refers back with o}" e[dwken eJautovn as if only one person were in view. See G. W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992) 323. Contextually, Christ is shown to be the great God and Savior by means of his sacrifice to achieve redemption. See Harris, Jesus as God, 270.

41 Stafford notes two patristic exceptions in particular, namely, the reference to “the God and Father and Holy Spirit” (tw'/ qew'/ kaiV patriV kaiV aJgivw/ pneuvmati) in Martyrdom of Polycarp 22:1, and “the only Father and Son” (tw'/ monw'/ patriV kaiV uiJw'/) in Clement of Alexandria’s Paedogogus 3.12.101. Wallace points out that these texts are confined to second or early third century patristic literature, involve only members of the Trinity and involve two terms to describe the Father. See Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 268. That the early fathers had not yet articulated a full Christology void of occasional modalism is evident. Burgess notes that “Polycarp utters words which serve as the earliest known doxology in which the Holy Spirit is exalted together with the Father and the Son.” He further says that “Clement follows Neoplatonic doctrine which makes heavy use of negative theology,” and thus “does not. . . attempt any formal definition of the Trinity nor of any Member thereof.” It is significant that Burgess ultimately describes Clement’s treatment as “highly speculative.” See Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions (Peabody, Hendrickson, 1984) 20, 70. For a full discussion of patristic exceptions to Sharp’s rule, see Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 267-72.

42 Wallace, “Multiple Substantives,” 256.

43 It is important to note that a lack of affirmation regarding a single identity in Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 is not the same as a denial of singular identity. Stafford is careful to point out how Moule “agrees that in passages such as Titus 2:13 it is possible that two persons are in view,” Witnesses Defended, 228 n. 28. Two comments regarding this statement are in order. First, in a personally signed letter dated September 22, 1998, Moule stated that, “[Daniel B.] Wallace’s investigation has indeed narrowed the possibility that two persons are referred to in Tit. 213 and 2 Pet. 11.” Second, Trinitarianism does not stand or fall on the interpretation of these verses. To the contrary, Stafford must categorically deny the possibility that either verse has one person in view (noting previous evidence against a qualified sense for qeov") or his entire theological system is jeopardized.

Related Topics: Christology, Grammar, Text & Translation

The Miracles of Calvary

Related Media

Introduction

Surrounding Christ’s death on the cross, was a chain of miraculous events that gave tremendous testimony to (1) the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, (2) His claims as the Son of God, and (3) as a result, to the fact of the redemption that comes through faith in Him. Any one of these miracles alone would be astounding, but linked together they form an unbreakable chain of evidence that authenticates and declares Jesus Christ as truly the Son of God and the redemptive Savior of the world.

Matthew 27:45-53 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “ Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ?”that is, “ My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ?” 47 And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, “This man is calling for Elijah.” 48 And immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. 49 But the rest of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.” 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split, 52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Five miracles are recorded in this passage. They include:

  • The miraculous darkness that settled over the land.
  • The rending of the veil in the temple.
  • The shaking of the earth and the rocks splitting.
  • The opening of the tombs.
  • The raising of many saints who had died.

I. The Miraculous Darkness

The darkness from 12 noon until 3 p.m. is sometimes passed over with little comment by expositors, but it is rich in meaning not only because of the significance of the cross but because darkness itself is an important concept throughout Scripture from Genesis 1:2 through Rev. 16:10. The words for darkness and light occur approximately 390 times in Scripture (over 160 times for darkness and 229 times for light). It is not without meaning that the first act of God in Genesis was the removal of the darkness by the creation of light.

Background of this Miracle

Six trials were now over (three Jewish and three Roman). Christ had been illegally condemned and turned over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified between the two thieves. He had been chosen in place of the notorious Barabbas who was released because Pilate gave in to the cries of the Jewish mob--all of which is a fitting picture of Christ’s work as the innocent Lamb of God taking the place of the guilty.

Christ was nailed to the cross at the third hour (9 a.m.). This was a time of contrasts with a lot of activity taking place. There was the gross iniquity and activity of His malefactors who were parting his garments, casting lots for His seamless coat, watching, mocking, shaking their heads and hurled abusive language at the Lord as he hung on the cross for their sins and the sins of the whole world.

These were also busy hours for the Savior--hours of activity which stood out in striking contrast to those of His enemies. Though suffering horribly at the hands of men, His focus was on others rather than himself. It was in these first three hours of light that He utter his first three sayings.

    Christ’s First Saying

Christ was audibly interceding on behalf of those crucifying Him, saying over and over again as the original Greek text suggests, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). This in itself is another wonder of the cross which showed the Savior’s uniqueness.

For the Jews it was an eye for an eye. For the Romans revenge was God. Together these had nailed Him to the cross. They had spit on Him, slapped Him, brought false accusers against Him, mocked Him and beat His face to a pulp so that His features were unrecognizable according to Isaiah 52:14. But Christ said, “Father, forgive them . . .” Note that He did not say “Father forgive me,” for He was without sin, spotless and pure. It was “forgive them.” “He committed no sin nor was any deceit found in His mouth.”

Christ was aware of His mission and purpose. He had come to die for their sin so they (as well as you and I) might be forgiven. This was a request to lay their sin upon Him. Christ was there to assume their debt and ours. He was there to die judicially and literally for the moral guilt of man (Isa. 53:4-6). Indeed, it was not just the Romans and the Jews who put Him on the cross, but the sin of the world, yours and mine.

    Christ’s Second Saying

In Christ’s second saying, He was also personally caring for and listening to the cry of the dying thief and answering Him with the assurance of salvation--the salvation which He was about to purchase. To the thief He said, “today thou shalt be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

    Christ’s Third Saying

In Christ’s third saying, He was recognizing the presence of His beloved mother and disciple and commending her to John’s care (John 19:25-27). In this He was executing His last will and testament, yet He was also thinking of you and me.

Please note, Christ called Mary not “mother,” but simply “woman.” He was destroying the basis for viewing her as a second mediator--the Queen of Heaven. She was the mother of His humanity, but as she stood before Him while on the cross, she was just a woman who, as with anyone else, had to believe in Him for salvation

The first three hours were hours of hate, rejection, mockery and cruelty on the one hand, but on the other they were hours of love, intercession, and mercy.

The Darkness and the Silence

It is now noon, the sun is high in the sky--and suddenly total, dismal darkness falls over the land accompanied by a somber silence.

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-45 And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

We are told that at the brightest time of day “darkness fell.” “Fell” is the aorist tense of the verb ginomai meaning “to happen, come to be,” and this tense combined with this verb suggest the suddenness of this. The darkness was sudden, not gradual. It was just like someone had turned out the lights.

“Upon all the land.” Whether the darkness was over the entire daylight portion of the globe, we don’t know. But we do know it was at least over the entire land of Palestine. The word “land” is the Greek word ge which may refer to (1) the earth, or (2) a region of land or country.

Can you imagine the scene? What must have become the mood of the moment? There was no abusive language now, no wagging of heads, no more jeering, only horror, amazement, shock, fear, suspense, and the anxious whisperings of the onlookers.

Listen to the words of 1 Samuel 2:9-10:

“He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness. It is not by strength that one prevails; those who oppose the Lord will be shattered. He will thunder against them from heaven;”

Can you imagine the effect of this sudden darkness in the midst of all the activity of the spiritual darkness of this hour (Mark 15:33).

Listen to what we read in Job 5:13-14:

“He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away. Darkness comes upon them in the daytime; at noon they grope as in the night.

The Source and Cause of the Darkness

Where did the darkness come from? What caused it?

(1) An Eclipse? This was the time of the Passover and the time of a full moon. According to what I have read, an eclipse was impossible at this time. An eclipse never occurs suddenly as did this incident and an eclipse only lasts for a few minutes--never three full hours.

(2) A Natural Phenomena? Could it be a darkness like that associated with an earthquake or a volcanic eruption? Perhaps, but probably not. This darkness covered the entire land and it came suddenly. Also there is no record of an earthquake prior to this, only after this recorded event.

(3) A Dust Storm or Cloud Cover? What about a dark cloud cover which suddenly rolled in or perhaps a very heavy dust storm? Again, this seems unlikely because of its suddenness.

(4) An Act of God? The only proper answer is that this event was a miraculous solar eclipse or a cosmic sign. God the Creator who placed the sun, moon, stars and planets in their place caused it. This was God directly intervening in nature. As a miracle, we do not understand it, we only have the evidence that it occurred. But above all, the darkness was a fitting symbolic act of God. Through out Scripture, God uses darkness as a vehicle through which to express certain truth to sinful man (cf. Gen. 15:12-18; Ex. 10:21-22; 20:21; Josh. 24:7; Deut. 4:10;11; 5:22; Prov. 4:19; Joel. 2:2; Amos 5:20; Zeph. 1:15; Mat. 8:12; 25;30).

The Credibility of the Record

Since it does not appear to have been caused by any of the normal phenomenon of nature, we should say a word about the credibility of this account before we go on to its significance.

    Recorded by Three Authors of Inspired Scripture

For the person who believes the Bible, this immediately settles the question. For others, there is the tremendous evidence for the uniqueness and incredible accuracy of Scripture which stands behind this record.

Luke records this event, along with Matthew and Mark, and tells us in connection with writing his gospel that he “investigated everything carefully.” Luke and Matthew were there in Palestine and probably Mark also. They were living at that very moment in that very place. They saw the darkness and talked to others who saw it as well.

    Recorded by Church Historian

But in case that is not enough for someone, Tertullian, a great church historian and defender of the faith, writing as an apologist to his heathen adversaries in the second century wrote, “at the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your (speaking to heathen adversaries) own annals and is preserved in your archives to this day.”1

This was no normal action of nature nor a quirk of nature. Jesus, the Son of God, the God-Man was dying for man’s sin and God was, with great drama, declaring this to the world. Jesus hung between heaven and earth--the bridge from one to the other--and suddenly darkness covers the land.

This miracle was a providential act of God both to (1) authenticate and (2) to interpret the death of His Son to the world.

The Significance and Meaning of the Darkness

    It Authenticated Christ’s Character and
    Interpreted His Death and Mission

Christ told the people that He had come to save them from their sin and they were offended.

When He said, “I Am the Son of God,” they took up stones to stone Him.

Another time they said, “show us a sign from heaven.” Now they had a sign. And other signs would soon follow like reverberating peals of thunder echoing the world-wide importance of this historic event.

The Roman centurion standing close by got the picture. At the close of this event he exclaimed, “truly, this was the Son of God,” and proclaimed, “Certainly this man was innocent.”

The character of Christ’s sufferings, followed by the darkness, proved that Jesus Christ was without sin and qualified to bear our sins and deliver us from our own spiritual darkness.

PSA 107:10 Some sat in darkness and the deepest gloom, prisoners suffering in iron chains,

PSA 107:14 He brought them out of darkness and the deepest gloom and broke away their chains.

But to do that, God had to face the blackness of doom for us in the person of His incarnate Son.

    It Exhibited the Universal
    Magnitude of Christ’s Death

This supernatural manifestation proved the importance of this person, and the death He was dying. His death was for man’s redemption from sin and reconciliation to God. From man’s standpoint, what could be more important than this?

    It Demonstrated God’s Holiness
    and the Barrier Sin Creates

As Isaiah declared, it demonstrated that Christ was judicially smitten of God. It showed that a holy God had turned His face away from His Son in a judicial sense, not a relational sense, and had poured out His wrath of divine justice on Christ who was there bearing our penalty, taking our place.

This was the point in time when Christ bore our sin and when God the Father and the Holy Spirit had to turn their backs on the suffering Savior.

The darkness demonstrated that:

  • God is of purer eyes than to behold sin (Hab. 1:13).
  • Christ was smitten of God because of God’s holiness and man’s sin (Isa 53:4-6).
  • Christ was bearing the sin of the entire human race as man’s substitute (Isa 53:10-12).

But this does not mean that Christ was utterly forsaken by the Father. He was not, for the Father heard His prayers and delivered His Son from the cross and the tomb. But for a while the darkness spoke of Christ separated from God by the sin of the world and smitten for us as He bore our sin.

    It was a Prophecy of the Doom
    that Awaits the Unbelieving

(1) Scripture teaches about a coming day of darkness--the Tribulation (John 3:16-18, 36).

ISA 13:9-11 “See, the day of the Lord is coming --a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger--to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless.”

ZEP 1:15 “That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness,”

(2) Darkness is also used in the Bible of the final day of judgment (Great White Throne Judgment) when all unbelievers will be cast into outer darkness for rejection of Christ.

MAT 8:12-13 “But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

    It was Designed to Hide Christ’s
    Sufferings from Human Eyes

It was not fitting that man should see the Son in this hour of His intense suffering when the sin of the world was placed on Him.

Think about your sins--fornication, pride, gossip, hate, lying, indifference or complacency, unfaithfulness, rebellion, etc. It was in this dark hour that God put our sin upon Christ. It was the time He bore the iniquity of us all.

Man could only hear the great cry, “Eloi, Eloi . . .” (Matt. 27:46). Was this the exact moment when our sin was placed upon Christ? Or was this cry because He could endure no longer our sin and the spiritual separation from God and He cried out for deliverance? We don’t know the answer to those questions. But what we do know is that Christ was bearing our iniquity in those hours of darkness and the cry affirmed His abiding trust in the Father’s deliverance, reflected in the words, “My God, My God.”

    It was a Fitting Symbol of the
    Darkness of the Human Soul

Concerning His arrest and all that would follow, Christ said to the religious leaders,

Luke 22:53 “Everyday I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour, when darkness reigns”

Pr. 4:19 “But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble.”

Christ came as the light of the world to lighten every man, but men loved darkness rather than the light and they rejected Him.

John 3:19 “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

The Jews held two trials in the night, a procedure that was illegal according to Jewish law, to falsely accuse the Savior and to find a reason to kill Him because as the Light, He revealed their darkness.

In the early morning hours, another trial was held to make it all legal. Then came the Roman trials, another travesty on justice. This was followed by the first hours on the cross in the daylight with the sneering and insults--acts which demonstrated the darkness of the human soul--the very reason God had to send His Son.

Then suddenly the darkness came--a fitting picture of why Christ had to go to the cross.

Summary Thoughts

The psalmist wrote,

“He brought them out of darkness and the deepest gloom and broke away their chains (PSA 107:14).

“Even in darkness light dawns for the upright, for the gracious and compassionate and righteous man. For the Lord is gracious and compassionate and righteous” (Ps. 112:4).

While the darkness portrayed the sin and darkness of man and the wrath of God upon sin, it also dramatically demonstrated the love of God acting sovereignly in history to deliver us from the darkness of Satan’s kingdom and from sin and death.

Thus, just as suddenly as it had come, the darkness was dispelled by the light of day and Christ was then heard to speak again. He said tetelesthai, meaning, “it is finished.” He was able to say this because during those hours of darkness man’s redemption had been accomplished once and for all.

The words “it is finished,” represents the Greek tetelesthai, the perfect tense of teleo. Interestingly, this word was used in the Papyri of a son reporting to his father that the job he had been sent to do was done, accomplished. It meant, “mission accomplished!”

Then, crying out one last time, Christ said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit,” the Lord voluntarily, by the power of His own will, yielded up His Spirit and died. (Matt. 27:50)

John 1:4-5 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

John 12:46 “I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.

In the Damascus road experience when the apostle Paul was converted, the Savior told him, regarding the world of lost men, that He had come

“ . . . to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18).

In Ephesians we read,

“Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light” (Eph. 5:7-8).

Romans 13:12 tells us,

“The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.”

Our Savior has conquered the darkness, and as His people, we ought to live as the children of light as we walk in the power of His life with His character and purposes as our own.

II. The Torn Veil

Background and Context

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

Mark 15:37-38 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Luke 23:46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.” And having said this, He breathed His last.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.

There is a cause-and-effect relationship between Matthew 27:50 and the verses 51-53. It appears from the accounts of John and Luke that the last two sayings of Christ on the cross, “Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit” (Luke 23:46), and “It is finished” (John 19:30), were said simultaneously and most likely these two together made up the last cry mentioned by Matthew and Mark.

Regardless, it is important to note both of these last words of Christ (summed up by Matthew as the final loud voice) present the death of Christ as occurring immediately afterward with the rending of the veil occurring at that point (cf. Mark 15:37-38). Luke 23:45 mentions the rending of the veil in connection with the sun being obscured and just before his final words, evidently not focusing on the chronology but on the fact and the general time. Even so, Luke closely associates His final words and death with the rending of the veil.

    “It is Finished”

The preceding actions and words of Christ manifested what kind of man He was, sinless and innocent. They dealt with His person and showed Him to be the sinless God-Man Savior--the only one qualified to die for our sin.

But the cry, “it is finished,” dealt with His work. With these words, we see our Lord’s confidence and satisfaction with the past, with what has now been accomplished by His vicarious sufferings on the cross. He did not say “I am done,” but “it is done.” The “it” referred to His work as the Lamb of God.

    “Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit”

With the words, we see our Lord’s confidence and satisfaction with the future. Earlier He had addressed the Father as “God.” But now he again addresses Him as “Father.” This means:

  • Fellowship had been restored and God’s perfect holiness which demanded judgment on sin had been satisfied.
  • Satan had been defeated.
  • Jesus Christ had successfully born the sin of all mankind—both yours and mine.

Here we have the victorious Son, of His own volition, releasing His spirit in death. This was the final act of the cross. Christ entrusted Himself to the Father knowing he had paid the penalty for sin and that His resurrection was assured.

Immediately, following these words with their tremendous and obvious implications, our attention is focused on the next momentous event--the rending of the veil from top to bottom.

Matthew begins with “and behold.” Behold is designed to arrest our attention to show us that these miracles were authenticating signs from God which were brought about at this very moment to dramatically emphasize the accomplishments of the death of Jesus Christ. Each is significant in its own way and tells its own story concerning the results and significance of Christ’s death.

It appears that it was the loud voice of the victorious Savior and His death that caused the chain of miraculous events: the veil tearing, the earth shaking, rocks breaking, and the tombs opening with many bodies of Old Testament saints raised from the dead (cf. Mk. 15:37-38).

To see the significance of this next miracle in this chain of events, the rending of the veil, we would do well to review and study the meaning of the veil of the temple in Scripture.

The Symbolism of the Veil

The veil and the ritual of the temple took its meaning from the tabernacle as described in Old Testament Scripture. There were many differences between the temple and the tabernacle, but the meaning of the veils and the Old Testament ritual in their production and purposes remained the same.

The veil was a covering, a concealment and a barrier that stood between the holy place and the Holy of Holies. It spoke of the barrier that separates man from God. In the Old Testament ritual, it showed the way into God’s presence was not yet open.

Hebrews 9:1-14 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3 And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 5 And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (NASB)

The congregation of Israel assembled in the court and daily the priests entered the holy place ministering according to their office. Into the Holy of Holies no one was allowed except the high priest, and he was only allowed once a year on the Day of Atonement. Each year on this day the high priest would come with blood from the altar of sacrifice and with smoke of incense from the altar of incense which he would place in the Holy of Holies.

This spoke of the person of Christ, who through death, opened the way into God’s presence (Heb. 10:20). It spoke of Christ as God’s way into His presence, but it also manifested the fact that Christ became the new barrier since there is no salvation apart from personal faith in Christ. So, the veil was prophetic and spoke of Jesus Christ.

John 3:16-17, 36 “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. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. . . . 36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

The Significance of the Event

The tearing of the veil from top to bottom showed that the way into God’s presence had been opened by the death of Jesus Christ, the perfect substitute, so all men may now have fellowship with God through Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 9:14-15 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 10:19 Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

It showed the barrier which separated man from God had been removed and effectively dealt with once and for all.

Hebrews 9:26-28 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. (NASB)

Ephesians 2:11-16 Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

It showed that Christ’s sacrifice was the final and all-sufficient sacrifice. It signified that not only was He the fulfillment of all the Old Testament types and pictures, but that no other form of human works or system of religion opened the way into God’s presence.

John 14:6 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

Acts 4:12 12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

Colossians 2:16-23 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 which all refer to things destined to perish with the using-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Hebrews 10:10-14 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Because Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament Law, it showed that the Old Testament system had been abrogated--done away by the work of Christ. It nullified any kind of elite and selective priesthood system and made every believer a priest of God with perfect access to God.

Hebrews 10:1-9 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, But a body Thou hast prepared for Me; 6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure. 7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come In the roll of the book it is written of Me To do Thy will, O God.’” 8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast not desired, nor hast Thou taken pleasure in them” which are offered according to the Law, 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Thy will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

The tearing of the veil down the middle from top to bottom miraculously showed:

  • Christ’s work was a work of God.
  • Christ’s work was sufficient and complete
  • No human works or religious system could ever accomplish what God had done in Christ

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

John 6:26-40 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled. 27 “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you, for on Him the Father, even God, has set His seal.” 28 They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30 They said therefore to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 They said therefore to Him, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 “But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

This is a stupendous event for man to ponder. It was no doubt one of the reasons that many priests came to accept Christ as their Savior (Acts 6:7b). Just imagine the picture. Priests were ministering in the holy place at the very time of Christ’s death when suddenly this huge curtain (19 feet high, 60 feet wide, and the thickness of a man’s hand) was ripped in half from top to bottom revealing the Holy of Holies and opening the way into God’s presence.

This was an historic occurrence, one alluded to by secular historians as Tacitus and Josephus, and even by the Jewish Talmud. It was an act of God authenticating and interpreting the death of Jesus Christ as God’s solution to the sin and death dilemma of the human race.

    Significance for Believers

(1) It means complete confidence in Jesus Christ as the only means of eternal life or true spirituality. It means away with legalism or acts of self-trust. It means the need to trust fully in the finished work of Christ. It is not what I do that saves me, but what He has done.

(2) It means the need and moral obligation for full commitment--not as a proof of my salvation or to keep me saved--but because I am God’s child and complete in Christ.

(3) It means nothing is more crucial to an effective Christian life than a clear awareness of its foundation. Christian experience begins with a clear understanding of justification based on the finished work of Jesus Christ. Justification is the act of God which declares the believer to be acceptable on the basis of His finished work. If we are to become psychologically whole and spiritually mature, we must understand that our acceptability to God is not based on our merit or behavior, but rather on the merit and behavior of Jesus Christ.

Because people worry about their acceptance, they often look to people to feel accepted or to gain their acceptance. As a result they operate to please men, or in seeking to please God they are actually trying to be accepted rather than to please Him because they already are accepted.

(Cf. Hebrews 3:7f; 6:1f; 9:14 and 10:21f.)

    Significance for Unbelievers

It means a need to honestly consider this tremendous evidence and to make a decision regarding receiving Jesus Christ by faith. It means facing the fact of the warning that if one rejects Christ’s death and judgment for his sin, then he will face God’s judgment for rejection of Christ (cf. John 3:18, 36, 8:24).

“Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary. Any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ as their only hope of heaven, refusing to trust in anything else, receives the gift of eternal life which, once granted, can never be lost” (Statement of Faith, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society).

III. The Earth Shaking and Rocks Breaking

This third miracle has a special significance of its own in the chain of miraculous phenomena surrounding the death of Christ. As with the darkness and the splitting of the veil, this occurred at the same time and was a supernatural notation from God to make known the significance of the death of Christ. As noted above, it was the loud voice of the victorious and dying Saviour which split the veil, shook the earth, broke the rocks, and opened the tombs (cf. Mark 15:37-38 with Matt. 27:50-51).

Not only was our Lord’s final shout and His death the cause of what followed--the opening of the graves--but it was a sign of great scope and great power. It demonstrated the earth-shaking nature of the death of Christ, the manifestation of the power of God for the entire world.

The Nature of the Event

Because of the precise moment of this event and the way Scripture connected it with the death of Christ, it was supernatural and miraculous.

  • It was miraculous because it was the result of the direct interference of God.
  • It was supernatural because it was not the result of any of the natural or normal causes of earthquakes. Because of the significance of the death of Jesus Christ, it was independent of nature: it was the sole act of God.

There are four things which I believe support this. There are four coincidences that form the evidence for this view of the shaking of the earth.

  • It coincided with the death of Christ. It is set forth in Scripture as a result of His death.
  • It coincided with and was a part of the attestations of the darkness and the veil--which were clearly direct miracles and unnatural events.
  • It coincided with the final shouts of Christ’s victory on the cross, “It is finished” and “Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit.” Thus, the Father acted to attest to the importance of Christ’s death.
  • It coincided with the rending of the rocks and the opening of the graves. Yet, from the narratives of the gospels, nothing else was disturbed as in a normal earthquake. As violent and powerful as it was, nothing else seems to have been disturbed. It did not displace the Savior’s cross, though Golgotha itself was shaken. It opened graves, yet not all graves, only the graves of the saints. It worked selectively and intelligently as a miraculous act of God interpreting the death of Christ.

The Testimony of this Event (what it teaches us)

    Testimony of Creation

When man sinned (the first Adam) mankind became cursed with sin and death, and the earth (the adamah), the ground out of which man had been made was also cursed. But when Jesus Christ died (the Last Adam, as Christ is called by Paul) the earth shook as a powerful display of the power and truth of the results of Christ’s death. Here was the one who had redeemed man from the curse of sin and would one day redeem nature or creation from its curse as well.

    Testimony to Reconciliation and Propitiation

There was one other time when God caused the earth to quake miraculously. It was at Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Law (Ex. 19:16f). There it stood for the absolute holiness of God and warned the people that they could not touch the mount or even approach God apart from the sacrifices of the Law which, of course, pointed to the person and work of Christ.

The Old Testament Law given at Sinai is called “an administration of death” because it showed man his sinfulness and that, because of God’s perfect holiness, man was cut off from God, lost and without hope (2 Cor. 3:7). But the Law provided man with no power to break out of the clutches of sin and death. It only condemned man and showed him the sinfulness of heart.

But at the death of Christ, the quaking of Golgotha (the place of the skull--itself a picture of death) God was giving His answer to Sinai and the Old Testament Law.

  • The quaking of Sinai stood for the barrier between God and man--God’s holiness and man’s sin which keeps man separated from God.
  • The quaking of Golgotha stood for God’s love and grace which, through the death of Christ, satisfies the demands of a holy God and makes God approachable through the one who died on the cross.

IV. The Opened Graves

The disturbance of the place where people are buried has a special significance all its own. It stands as a climax to what has gone before. It also is an event of anticipation for people would wonder why the graves opened when nothing else was disturbed. The text tells us, “and the tombs were opened.”

As suggested by the chronology, it was caused by the shaking of the earth. The tombs opened were most likely the rock hewn tombs that were so numerous around Palestine which were sealed with stones covering the entrances.

The Significance and Meaning of this Event

    Power of Death Broken

This was a further effect of the power and significance of the death of Christ. The Scriptures teach us that the power of sin is death. God told Adam regarding the tree of good and evil, “in the day you eat from it, you will surely die.” He would die spiritually and begin, as a result of sin, to die physically. Thus, throughout the history of the human race, men have died and have been placed in the grave--the wages of sin.

But now with the death of Christ, the penalty of sin had been paid, and so also the cause of death was dealt with. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:56, “the sting of death is sin and power of sin is the Law.” By sin death gains power over man. But then Paul added, “but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Christ by His death paid the penalty of sin, removed its stinger, and satisfied the demands of the law and the holiness of God.

    An Act of Preparation

It was an act of preparation for that which would follow--the raising of the dead. The graves were opened immediately after Christ’s death and victory over sin, but their resurrection was delayed until after Christ’s resurrection.

Matthew 27:53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

By the one act of Adam’s disobedience came sin and death on all, but by the one act of Christ on the cross came righteousness and life.

Romans 5:18-19 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The graves were opened on Friday afternoon just before the Sabbath at the time the lambs were being slain. Because no work was allowed, the graves could not be closed. As a result, the graves stood open all day Saturday as a marvelous exhibition of the effect of Christ’s death.

V. The Raising of Saints Who Had Died

Because these people are called saints they had to be those who died as Old Testament believers--believers in the coming Messiah and the covenants of promise. They were undoubtedly those who had been buried around Jerusalem in the rock-hewn tombs to be an exhibition to those who could know about the death of Christ.

Note the text says, “many,” and not “all.” The number of people raised from the dead we are not told, but there were enough to cause a stir and give a great testimony. It did not include all Old Testament saints because this would contradict the chronology of Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15. It was only a sample, a portion to serve as an evidence.

Time of this Resurrection

The NASB and the KJV translations of Matthew 27:53 shows us this resurrection did not occur at the same time as the opening of the graves, but after Christ’s resurrection. The NIV translation makes it simultaneous with the opening of the tombs, but with the Old Testament saints remaining in their tombs until after Christ’s resurrection. However, the Greek can be translated and understood as in the NASB, and from the analogy of Scripture, this seems best.

Christ is the resurrection and the life, He is the life-giving spirit. To make this evident, the resurrection of these saints was delayed until after His resurrection. Our resurrection is based on His death and resurrection.

As the one who broke the power of sin, He is also the only one who has the power of life and can break the power of death.

Type of Resurrection

Was this a resurrection like that of Christ with an immortal, imperishable, and glorified body? Or was it one like that of Lazarus--a body resurrected and revived to its former mortal and corruptible state, to an earthly body like ours?

In light of Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-24, many Bible teachers and students believe they were probably the latter--earthly bodies that would see death again.

If they were glorified bodies, there had to eventually be an ascension and nothing is said about this. An event of that magnitude would be of such importance, you would think Scripture would mention it.

Further, a resurrection to glorified bodies at this time seems to be out of God’s own established order for the resurrection, i.e., before the return of Christ (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:20f). Of course this could be an exception. One passage might support a resurrection like the Lord’s, since this would mean they would die twice, but it appears Lazarus did (cf. Heb. 9:27).

The opening of the graves implies the resurrection was like that of Lazarus. When Lazarus was raised by the Lord, Christ told them to take away the stone, and then Lazarus was told to come forth. Here the graves were opened first and then they came out. The stones covering the graves were removed to allow for the exit of the mortal bodies.

If their resurrection was like that of Christ, this would have been unnecessary. The stone was removed from Christ’s tomb after His resurrection in order to let men in to see the evidence of the graves clothes--not to let the Lord out.

This miracle was designed to show that Christ had conquered death, that He was the resurrection and the life. It was an evidence of the glorious power of our Lord.

Conclusion

If you are reading this study and have never put your trust in the Savior, may we invite you to turn to Christ and trust in Him as the blessed Son of God who gave His life for you personally that you might know God and receive eternal life as a free gift.

Maybe you have been trusting in your good works or your religious up-bringing, or maybe you have never thought much about spiritual matters. Regardless, God loves you and gave His Son for you. How can you know God, become a child of God, and receive eternal life?

The Bible declares that all have sinned and, as a result, fall short of God’s holy character. This means that apart from faith in Christ, you are spiritually dead, separated from God, and will face eternal judgment and a place called the Lake of Fire.

But the Bible also assures us that while we are all born sinners--spiritually dead and separated from God--God gave His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, that He might die in our place and bear our judgment, pay the penalty for our sin.

God offers eternal life freely to all those who will trust, believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, as their personal Savior for their sin problem. To trust in Christ means to turn to personal faith in the person and work of Christ as the sole means of salvation. Please read the following verses carefully.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.”

May we encourage you to pray this prayer in faith (or one similar)? We assure you by the promises of the Word of God, you will be saved and enter into the family of God as a child of God, born anew by the Spirit of God.

“Father, I understand that I am a sinner and separated from you, but that Jesus Christ has died for my sin and offers me eternal life and an abundant life that can turn my life around through a relationship with Him. Right now I turn from myself and place my trust in Him as my personal Savior. Thank you heavenly Father for saving me and giving me eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ.”

If you have prayed this prayer, you are now a child of God, but you are also a babe in Christ who needs to grow through spiritual nurture. You need to be discipled, to have fellowship with other Bible believing Christians in a Church that truly teaches the Bible so you learn the Word of God. These things are crucial for your spiritual health and growth. For your personal study check out the series, The Basics: Truths that Transform, on our web site. Begin with the first lessons and use them as the foundation for growth and a personal walk with the Savior.

1 Peter 2:2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation.

2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. is a 1966 graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a former pastor of 28 years. Hampton currently writes for the Biblical Studies Foundation and teaches Greek at Moody Northwest (an extension of Moody Bible Institute) in Spokane, Washington.

Related Topics: Christology, Easter, Miracles

The Messianic Banquet and the Eschatology of Matthew

Related Media

Introduction

This paper is a portion of the author’s Ph.D. dissertation with the title, “The Messianic Banquet as a Paradigm for Israel—Gentile Salvation in Matthew.”1 What is of interest in the dissertation is what the Gospel of Matthew teaches its Jewish Christian readers about the salvation and inclusion of Gentile Christians into the people of God. Its major focus is the ecclesiology of Matthew. However, as Bornkamm has shown long ago, it is impossible to divorce Matthew’s eschatology from his ecclesiology.2 Today there is revised interest in Matthew’s use of Jewish apocalyptic imagery as it relates to both eschatology and ecclesiology.3 An important, but often overlooked, apocalyptic theme in Matthew is the Messianic Banquet. Matthew’s use of the Messianic Banquet theme is a key component of Matthew’s theology concerning the nature of the church, Israel, and the future of the true people of God. The dissertation has been done to fill in the gap of the lack of studies done on Matthew’s use of this theme.

Here we will assume that it is highly probable that the author and his audience were primarily Jewish Christians. As Jewish Christians it is likely that they would have had a pre-understanding of the theme of the Messianic Banquet which Matthew employs in his apocalyptic eschatology. That pre-understanding is studied with a look at Old Testament prophetic literature, especially Isaiah and Ezekiel. The Jewish expectations of the eschatological Messianic Banquet found in the prophetic literature is then traced through the Jewish apocalyptic literature, Qumran, and rabbinical materials. What emerges is not a single unified set of expectations, but a number of possible options that a particular group of first century Jews might have. Defining those possibilities will allow for some new approaches of reading Matthew as a first century Jew might have done given the possible expectations surfaced in the literature.

A number of key passages in Matthew make use of the Messianic Banquet theme. In this paper, we will discuss only the story of the Centurion’s servant (Matt 8:5-13). The dissertation’s detailed exegesis of other significant passages must be omitted here. They include the parallel passage concerning the faith of the Canaanite Woman (Matt 15:21-28). Also significant are the three eschatological parables that utilize the Messianic Banquet theme, the Vineyard (Matt 21:33-46), the Great Supper (Matt 22:1-14), and the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt 25:1-13).

In short, this paper is looking for a fresh approach to the question of the relationship between the church and Israel that is neither traditional dispensationalism nor covenantalism. It will be argued that reading Matthew from the background of the Jewish pre-understanding of the Messianic Banquet predisposes his audience to see an eschatological messianic age in which there is unity for the people of God as one people saved from all the nations along with the continuation of national distinctions. Thus, Israel maintains its national distinction as an ethnic nation while individuals from among that nation form the true people of God united with Gentiles from other nations. That unity within the Matthean community must be understood as the Church which becomes the true remnant which will inherit all the blessings of the final eschatological kingdom eternally.

Traditional dispensationalism has held that only during the current age of the Church is it possible to have only one true people of God united together from all the nations.4 However, the nature of that unity must change with the second advent.5 This paper is distinct from traditional dispensationalism in the argument that the current unity has no end. The one Church made up of individuals from many nations while maintaining national distinctions has no end in the Jewish expectations of the messianic age. If the future of Matthew’s messianic kingdom has already begun with the first advent, and it is similar to the Jewish expectations of that same kingdom, then the future make-up of the people of God will be equivalent to today’s Church. Just as today there is one people of God united together but with national ethnic distinctions, there will continue forever one people of God united together with national ethnic distinctions after the return of the Lord Jesus at the consummation of his kingdom.

The Jewish Pre-Understanding of the Messianic Banquet

Given the conclusion that Matthew wrote largely to a Jewish-Christian community, it is important for this thesis to ask how that community would have understood the Messianic Banquet prior to or contemporary to the use of this theme in the Gospel. For the purpose of this paper, the Messianic Banquet refers to either an “apocalyptic banquet” or an “eschatological banquet” to which the Messiah is somehow directly related.

The Messianic Banquet in the Old Testament

    The Messianic Banquet in Isaiah

The banquet motif in Isaiah is related to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (Deut 28:1-14; 30:1-20). In Deuteronomy 28-30, the nation is promised prosperity in the land if they obey Yahweh’s commandments, but cursing if there is disobedience. The nation will suffer exile as a result of their disobedience, but later be restored and brought back from captivity (Deut 30:3). The restored nation will prosper even more than the former one (Deut 30:5). In Isaiah, the nation is promised bountiful provisions in their land as blessings that will follow repentance and obedience (Isa 1:19; 9:3; 27:2-6, 12, 13; 29:17-24; 30:19-29; 32:1-8; 49:6-13; 51:3; 55:1, 2). This bountiful future is directly related to the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 24:23; 11:1-5; 42:1-9; 49:6-13) and the gathering of dispersed Israel back into the land (Isa 24:23; 26:1-4, 15-19; 27:6, 13; 35:1-10; 43:5-7; 45:20; 49:8-13; 22-23; 51:11-14; 54:7; 60:4-14). Israel is protected and fed as the Messiah leads them back into the land of promised blessings (Isa 49:10). These messianic blessings are not exclusive to Israel, but include blessings upon all the nations (Isa 2:1-4; 9:1; 11:10-12; 18:7; 19:18-25; 25:6-8; 42:6, 7; 49:6, 7; 49:22, 23; 56:3; 61:7; 66:21). The nations have a participatory role in the return of Israel (Isa 2:1-4; 49:22-23; 56:3-8; 60:10, 11; 66:21).

The clearest passage of an eschatological meal and the most influential for later Jewish expectations is Isa 25:6-8.

And the almighty6 Yahweh will prepare for all the nations7 on this mountain a banquet8 of rich foods,9 a banquet of preserved (wines), of spread out rich foods, (and) preserved refined (wines). And on this mountain he will swallow up the covering10 that is over all peoples, even the covering woven11 on all the nations.12 He will swallow up death forever. And the Lord Yahweh will wipe clean the tears from upon all faces. And the shame of his people he will remove from upon all the earth. For Yahweh has spoken.13

Chapters 23-27 of Isaiah concern the fall of Tyre (Isa 23:1) in contrast to the future restoration of Israel as the center of God’s rule on the earth. It is significant that the future destruction of Tyre is considered gain and food for the benefit of the people of God (Isa 23:18). The wealth of the enemies of Israel becomes her wealth. The destruction of Tyre (Isa 23:1-18) is expanded into a judgment of the earth (Isa 24:1-23). A curse is upon the earth because of humanity’s disobedience to God’s laws and covenant (Isa 24:5, 6). As a result of the curse, the productivity of the earth is destroyed (Isa 24:7-9) and war, treachery, and disasters will prevail (Isa 24:10-22). At the end of judgment, Yahweh will reign over the earth from Jerusalem (Isa 24:23).

From Jerusalem, Yahweh will call all the nations to a great banquet (Isa 25:6-8). It is likely that the idea of a great banquet at the coronation of Yahweh (Isa 24:23) was suggested by such feasts at the coronation of Israel’s kings (1 Sam 11:15; 1 Kgs 1:9, 19, 25).14 The call to the “mountain” is previously established in Isa 2:1-4. It is a call from the Temple Mount from which Yahweh will teach all the nations his law and lead them toward unending peace. In the description of the banquet, it is clear that the vision (Isa 22:1; 23:1) is not intended as a literal event, but as a representation of the blessings of the final days after the judgment of evil humanity (Isa 25:2-5, 10-12) and the end of death (Isa 25:8).

Although the banquet is metaphorical, it does represent actual physical blessings in the final days for all people.15 The banquet of wine and fatty food implies a sustained abundant harvest of grapes and multiplied well-fed livestock. The promise to end war (Isa 2:4) is now put in terms of ending the effect of war, that is death. Yahweh will “swallow up” ([L"Bi) death in a reversal of how personified “sheol” (l/av]) is said to swallow up its victims (Isa 5:14; Exod 15:12; Num 16:30, 32, 34; 26:10; Deut 11:6; Ps 106:17; Prov 1:12; Hab 2:5). The covering is the mourner’s covering that is removed as Yahweh’s rule brings an end to war and to the death that came from war.16 Although some argue that the covering is the death shroud placed over the dead body,17 the veil is more likely that worn by those who are in mourning (2 Sam 15:30; Jer 14:1-12; Esth 6:12).18 Death is swallowed up in a reversal of the curse of death that lies upon the whole land because of humanity’s disobedience and opposition to Yahweh (Isa 24:6).19 Although some argue otherwise,20 it is probable that Isaiah’s vision includes a future resurrection of the dead.21 This is more clearly stated at Isa 26:19.

There is a unique blessing upon Israel distinct from the other nations, in that they are no longer the object of any special reproach (Isa 25:8). Rather than being the object of scorn, Israel will now be established as the center of Yahweh’s rule over all the nations (Isa 54:3; 60:11, 16; 61:5-7).

As a result of the future deliverance, Israel will rejoice (Isa 25:9) and sing of God’s protection from her enemies (Isa 26:1-21). In the song, the banquet is related to a joyful celebration of Yahweh’s victory over the enemies of Israel. This joyful celebration continues into chapter 27, where at Isa 27:1 the destruction of the enemies of Israel is depicted as the slaying of Leviathan.22 The great sea monster Leviathan is metaphorical for Tyre because of its geographical location as a great seaport (Isa 23:2, 4, 11).23 Rather than a passage that predicts an eschatological destruction of the great serpent (understood as Satan or as moral evil as in Rev 12),24 the use of Leviathan is metaphorical for the destruction of Tyre within this context. Tyre is further representative of all the political enemies of Israel since the author himself extends Yahweh’s judgment beyond Tyre in chapter 23 to all humanity in chapter 24. It is the enemies of Israel, those who are disobedient to Yahweh, who are singled out for destruction (Isa 24:5, 6; 26:11). Placing Isa 26:20 through 27:1 together reveals that Israel must wait upon Yahweh’s destruction of her enemies pictured as Leviathan and then they will be restored in prosperity like a renewed vineyard of wine (Isa 27:2-6).

The argument that the banquet motif extends throughout the messianic age in Isaiah is further substantiated in Isa 55. The universal invitation to come and buy provisions without money (Isa 55:1, 2) is possible because of a messianic covenant (Isa 55:3-5) which requires repentance (Isa 55:6-9). The ingathering of those who accept the invitation will be accompanied by the physical blessings of the messianic age (Isa 55:13).

Chapter 65 is also significant because it makes a contrast between the sinning majority of Israel and the blessings due to the righteous remnant during the future messianic age. The remnant shall inherit the land blessed with flocks, herds, food, and drink. However, those who forsake Yahweh will be slaughtered, be hungry, be thirsty, and be put to shame.

The contribution of Isaiah to Jewish expectations of the Messianic Banquet would have been much broader than a single future eschatological event. The Banquet would have been understood from Isaiah to be metaphorical of a description of the entire future messianic age. It would include the following elements: Yahweh’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel; bountiful provisions and blessings in the land of Israel; repentance, obedience and the restoration of the remnant of Israel; the reign of the Messiah on earth; a gathering of the dispersed Israelites back to their homeland; the inclusion of all nations within the blessings offered at Jerusalem; the resurrection of the righteous dead; the end of death; the end of war; and the judgment of the enemies of Yahweh and of Israel. While the righteous remnant will enjoy the bountiful provisions of the messianic age, the enemies of Israel will be destroyed. The inclusion of other nations give a strong universal emphasis to the eschatological hopes in Isaiah. Other nations are invited to participate in the blessings of the messianic age, however they maintain their national identities just as Israel retains hers.

    The Messianic Banquet in Ezekiel

In Ezekiel is found a clear example of the use of the messianic banquet theme as a warning of judgment and destruction of the enemies of Yahweh. The prophet envisions a time well after the restoration of Israel (Ezek 38:8) under messianic rule (Ezek 37:22, 24-28) when Israel will come under attack by the forces of Gog. They will be destroyed by God and their bodies will become a great feast for predators (Ezek 39:4). The feast is called a sacrifice at Yahweh’s table (Ezek 39:17-20). A previous feast is mentioned of the destruction of Egypt by Babylon (Ezek 32:1-16). In that passage, the Pharaoh is compared to a sea monster captured by God and set out to be fed upon by predators (Ezek 32:2-5; Tg. Onq. Ps 74:12-17). In Ezek 32, the banquet motif in relation to the destruction of Egypt is not eschatological but describes eminent political events (compare Ezek 12:21-28). Likewise, the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in Ezek 24:1-14 is compared to a boiling pot of stew in which unfaithful Israelites are destroyed. However, the banquet motif is used eschatologically when it describes the far off future destruction of Gog.

Ezekiel repeats similar themes to those that were found in Isaiah. The Jew of the first century reading Ezekiel would discover the following expectations when reading about the banquet motif. Israel’s external enemies will be destroyed and fed to predators. The unrighteous within Israel will be destroyed (Ezek 34:2-10) and the righteous remnant will return to the land of Israel where they will be abundantly fed and blessed by the Messiah himself (Ezek 34:17-30). These blessings, as in Isaiah, will extend to the righteous worshipers of Yahweh from other nations (Ezek 47:22, 23).

Beyond Isaiah, Ezekiel specifically states that the destruction of the future enemies of Israel is a great sacrifice to Yahweh and food for predators. Thus, two aspects of an eschatological messianic meal emerge. First, the future righteous remnant can expect to receive great prosperity in the messianic kingdom. Yahweh will feed his people. Second, the enemies of Israel are destroyed in a sacrifice to Yahweh. He will feed his enemies to predators. This message is a consolation to Israel because Yahweh himself will take vengeance upon those who have brutally conquered them. These two aspects of an eschatological messianic meal are distinct but related in that Yahweh takes vengeance upon his enemies while blessing his faithful remnant.

    Summary of the Messianic Banquet in the Old Testament

This overview of the use of the Messianic Banquet theme in the Old Testament Prophets reveals that banqueting as part of prophecies concerning the future of Israel is used metaphorically. There are two distinct meals. One is the sacrificial meal of Yahweh’s enemies in which they become food for predators. The other is the feasting of the righteous remnant within Israel along with the righteous of other nations. The banquet of these righteous ones represents the promised future prosperity of the messianic reign after Yahweh defeats the enemies of Israel. This future time of prosperity is extended to the righteous followers of Yahweh from all the nations who are invited to participate alongside restored Israel in these blessings. There is no single event, but the banquet describes an entire age beginning with the judgment of Israel’s enemies, the coming of the Messiah, and the restoration of the righteous remnant back to their homeland. It is significant that this future age is highly universal as Israel becomes a source of blessing to all the nations when Yahweh rules them directly from Jerusalem and all the nations come to worship him together at Jerusalem. National distinctions remain even while there are universal blessings upon all nations with future restored Israel at the center of the messianic reign.

It is also important to observe that these hopes for future prosperity in the coming messianic age are terrestrial rather than heavenly. The context of the reversal of fortunes within which the two aspects of the messianic banquet theme occurs takes place on the earth. The nations who have oppressed Israel are punished and the righteous within Israel are blessed in their land. The righteous from among the other nations are called to worship Yahweh in Jerusalem which is the center of his earthly rule. This terrestrial location for eschatological hopes concerning a future messianic banquet will not always be so placed in later Jewish literature.

The Messianic Banquet in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature

The major Jewish Apocalyptic passages that make use of the Messianic Banquet must only be summarized here. They include the Sibylline Oracles, Book 3; 1 Enoch 60; 4 Ezra 6; and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 29. The Jewish apocalyptic literature continues to express the eschatological hopes of the OT for a future time of prosperity for the nation of Israel (Sib. Or. 3:580-83, 616-23, 657-60). There will be a reversal in which Israel’s enemies will be destroyed becoming a meal for predators while the righteous inhabitants of the future kingdom will be filled with great prosperity (Sib. Or. 3:697). The future literal prosperity of the messianic age is usually extended to the righteous from other nations (Sib. Or. 3:740, 772-75). All nations maintain their national distinctions in the future messianic age (Sib. Or. 3:573, 597-99), with restored Israel becoming the center of God’s direct rule on the earth (Sib. Or. 3:756, 767-76).

The previous mythopoetic tradition about Leviathan evidenced in the OT becomes more concrete within first century Judaism. Rather than a mythological creature that could metaphorically represent the enemies of God, the creature is actually preserved for an eschatological meal. This meal is a distinct part of the overall blessings in the world to come for the righteous. The two major aspects of the Messianic Banquet found in the OT are combined so that God’s ultimate enemy among beasts, Leviathan, is destroyed and its corpse becomes food for the righteous ones in the age to come. With this reduction of the Messianic Banquet into a final eschatological event, the banquet no longer represents the overall future prosperity of the entire messianic age. It is only one of many blessings. The literal future banquet upon the flesh of the monsters is only one example among the many other physical ways in which God will bless the righteous in the future (1 Enoch 62:14; 4 Ezra 6:52; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:4). This is obvious in 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:5-8, where the author strings together a series of distinct traditions about the blessings of the future messianic age: the feeding upon the monsters, aromatic fragrances, dew, and manna. The banquet is only one of many other eschatological blessings.

The context of these passages does not suggest that Gentiles will automatically participate in the future banquet. In a seeming reversal of Isa 2:1-4 and 25:6-8, the author of 1 Enoch describes the arrival of foreign kings to bow down in repentance before the Messiah only to be punished for their oppression of the Jews (1 Enoch 62). Such ungodly people will become food for the mythological monsters (1 Enoch 60). The blessings of the future age are limited to the righteous and elect ones of Israel. The author of 4 Ezra also limits the banquet to only Israel. Leviathan and Behemoth, as well as the entire universe, were created for Israel. Other nations are of little importance to God (4 Ezra 6:56). The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch is an exception, since the blessings of the future messianic age are extended to some nations. All the nations who have ruled over and trodden down Israel will die, but the others will be spared especially if they have been subjected to Israel (2 Apoc. Bar. 72:2-6). Israel is distinguished from other nations as the only true people of God (2 Apoc. Bar. 72:5). However others can participate with Israel in the future messianic blessings depending upon how they treated Israel in the past.

Also, references to the destruction of Leviathan and Behemoth as a source of food for the righteous are not equivocal in terms of the location of that future banquet. Having become a single eschatological event rather than metaphorical for the entire age, allows for the belief that the event will be heavenly rather than terrestrial. In part of this tradition, the monsters are served the unrighteous as food on the earth (1 Enoch 60:23, 24), but the righteous are blessed in Paradise (1 Enoch 61:12). Other authors place the literal banqueting of the righteous upon the flesh of the monsters on the earth after a great tribulation (2 Apoc. Bar. 29:3-7).

Thus, the future participation of other nations outside of Israel in the prosperity of the messianic age is not assured. In 1 Enoch 60-62 and 4 Ezra 6:56 the banquet and the general prosperity of the future age would be limited to Israel. However, the universalism of the OT is maintained in the Sibylline Oracles 3 and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. In these examples, God’s future judgment of destruction will fall only upon the unrighteous enemies of Israel. Like in Isaiah, other nations can and will repent in order to participate in the prosperity of the future messianic age. All nations maintain their national identity and distinction, including Israel that becomes the center of God's rule in the age to come.

The Messianic Banquet in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The passage most referred to as reflecting belief at Qumran in the Messianic Banquet is The Rule of the Congregation (1QSa). In actuality it has been found not to contain the major features of the Messianic Banquet previously discovered in Jewish literature. The scroll is unique because it reveals that the Qumran community expected the future Messiahs to join their already existing community rules in terms of their council and communal cultic meals. This messianic participation adds nothing new to the already ongoing practice of the community. This implies that the community already was living according to rules and norms they expected to be carrying out during the future messianic age in terms of actual current practice. Little change is needed in this practice for the Messiahs to fit into their already prepared roles in the community.

However, the aspects previously surfaced in terms of the Messianic Banquet in Jewish literature are also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A few examples were found where the suffering community will be vindicated upon the arrival of the Messiah by means of the punishment of its enemies and the reversal of fortunes for the future messianic age. In an expansion of Isaiah 61, the Messiah will not only release the captives and comfort the afflicted of the community (11Q13 ii 4), but he will also give sight to the blind, heal the wounded, resurrect the dead, and feed the hungry (4Q521 2 ii 5-13).

It must be observed that the Messianic Banquet in the Dead Sea Scrolls is limited only to the true remnant of Israel who align themselves with the Qumran community. All others will not survive the future vengeance of God against the enemies of the community. There is no universalism.

Also, the eschatological hopes of the community are highly terrestrial. They alone will enjoy the messianic age of great prosperity upon the land that they will inherit.

The Messianic Banquet in the Rabbinical Period

There is a range of beliefs surrounding the messianic banquet during the rabbinical period. What is clear is that the banquet is a future reward for the righteous based upon how the person currently lives. Even with later additional speculation about Leviathan, Behemoth, and the Ziz bird, the underlying point remains that the future feast is a reward for current obedience to the dietary laws of the Torah. It is a reward that is contrasted with the judgment that the oppressors of Israel deserve. Sometimes the banquet is used metaphorically to represent the entire future world to come. At other times, the banquet is a single eschatological event such as the literal eating of the flesh of Leviathan and Behemoth.

The Messianic Banquet is sometimes thought to include the righteous persons from other nations. The Emperor Antoninus will eat the flesh of Leviathan because he was kind to the Jews and was circumcised (y. Sanh. 10:5; y. Meg. 1:11; 3:2). At other times, the participation in the Messianic Banquet is limited to only Jews or even to only the higher ranks of Jewish rabbis (b. B. Bat. 75). The later speculation concerning Leviathan, Behemoth, and the Ziz bird highlights the view that Yahweh’s creation was intended for the Jews (Gen. Rab. 19:4; Lev. Rab. 22:10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:8). They have been deprived of the full enjoyment of this created world, but Yahweh has preserved the largest beasts of all of his creation for the future banquet. Thus, the rabbis over-exaggerated the size of the creatures to emphasize the concept of reversal that was inherent in the earlier tradition. The size of the beasts was more important than the duration of the feasting upon their meat. The limitation of the future banquet to only the most faithful or righteous of Jews seems to be the tendency over time in the rabbinical literature.

This is also true about the location of the future Messianic Banquet. The tendency over time is for the rabbis to emphasize the future feasting in the Garden of Eden (Paradise) rather than the terrestrial blessings of the messianic age (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:8). The exception is the earlier discussion about the future prosperity of the land of Israel as a sign of the coming of the Messiah (b. Sanh. 96-99). In that discussion, the older tradition of the terrestrial blessings of the messianic age in the literal land of Israel is stressed. The wars of the sea monsters and of Gog and Magog are also part of this terrestrial eschatological preparation for the coming of the Messiah (b. Sanh. 97b). Judgment thus falls upon the enemies of Israel and they will no longer be dominated by the Gentiles. They will enjoy and eat their fill in the future because the world was originally created for their Messiah. The later speculation about the wine preserved since the time of Creation highlights this earlier tradition that the Jews deserve to enjoy what Yahweh originally created for them (b. Sanh. 99a; Num. Rab. 13:2).

Conclusions about the Jewish Pre-Understanding of the Messianic Banquet

What becomes clear from the previous discussion is that there is no single set of beliefs surrounding the use of the Messianic Banquet theme in first century Judaism. Rather than make futile attempts to harmonize several different viewpoints or look for common denominators among them, it seems wiser to place into various categories the range of possible beliefs among Jews in the first century concerning their expectations of the eschatological Messianic Banquet. Two major aspects are consistently present in almost all of the literature surveyed: eschatological blessings for the righteous ones and a corresponding judgment upon their enemies. While the nature of these blessings and judgments vary greatly in the literature, there is a pervading interest in the reversal of fortunes. Israel suffers now, but God will judge her enemies and eventually bless the righteous remnant. The following are these various possibilities based upon the previous passages.

    A Metaphorical Universal Terrestrial Banquet.

It was argued from the OT that there are two distinct meals. One is the sacrificial meal of Yahweh’s enemies in which they become food for predators. The other is the feasting of the righteous remnant within Israel along with the righteous of other nations. The banquet of these righteous ones represents the promised future prosperity of the messianic reign after Yahweh defeats the enemies of Israel. This future time of prosperity is extended to the righteous follower of Yahweh from all the nations who is invited to participate alongside restored Israel in these blessings. There is no single event, but the banquet describes an entire age beginning with the judgment of Israel’s enemies, the coming of the Messiah, and the restoration of the righteous remnant back to their homeland. These hopes for future prosperity in the coming messianic age are terrestrial rather than heavenly. This view of the future Messianic Banquet is not limited to the OT, but is found in the Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinical literature as well. The literature from the Qumran differs in how it restricts the future participants in the blessings of the messianic age.

    A Metaphorical Restricted Terrestrial Banquet.

This view is well represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran community believed that the Messiahs would reverse their fortunes by judging their enemies and blessing them greatly in the future age. Their beliefs differ from those of the OT in that the blessings of the future age are restricted only to the righteous remnant of Israel who become members of the community. The viewpoint is not limited to Qumran, but can be found in other literature throughout the same period.

    The Banquet as a Single Event at the Inception of the Messianic Age.

It was argued that the mythological use of Leviathan and Behemoth as a source for the future Messianic Banquet limited the feast to a single event at the inception of the messianic age. This banquet then does not represent the general prosperity of the entire messianic age, but simply is one exemplary event of God’s judgment of evil and of the prosperity of his righteous ones. The literature that mentions the feasting upon the flesh of the monsters is not equivocal as to the identity of the participants or as to the location of the future banquet. At times the participants are limited to only the righteous remnant among Israel and at other times the feast is extended to the future righteous of other nations. At times the banquet upon the beasts is terrestrial and at other times it is heavenly.

    The Banquet as Metaphorical for Heavenly Bliss.

Mention of future blessings related to banqueting in the Garden of Eden, Paradise, or Heaven can be found early in Jewish apocalyptic literature. However, references to the Garden of Eden as the location for the future Messianic Banquet tend to increase and become the dominant view over time within the rabbinical period.

Matthew’s Use of the Messianic Banquet

Given that Matthew is primarily a first century Jewish book, the Gospel’s use of the Messianic Banquet theme would be expected to be along the same lines as previously discovered in other Jewish literature. Given the option that the Messianic Banquet is either metaphorical or an actual event, the evidence in Matthew favors the continuation of the Jewish belief that it is metaphorical for the entire Messianic kingdom. The evidence for this is found in the diverse ways in which the theme of the Messianic Banquet is used by Matthew. At Matt 8:12, the Gentiles sit at table with the Patriarchs in the future consummated kingdom. However, at the miraculous feedings (Matt 14:13-21; 15:32-38) the Messianic Banquet is actualized into the present aspect of the kingdom as proof that Jesus is the truly the Messiah. The inclusion of the Canaanite woman as a participant of the children’s table (Matt 15:21-28) also actualizes the Messianic Banquet with Gentile participation in the current age. We would also argue that the image of the Messianic Banquet in the Parable of the Marriage Feast (Matt 22:1-14) is best understood as the present kingdom age in which many are sitting down enjoying the Lord’s blessings in the Church awaiting a final entrance of the King for judgment. Thus Matthew uses the Jewish expectations of the Messianic Banquet to affirm that its kingdom blessings have already come and will extend into the future consummation of the kingdom after judgment. The Messianic Banquet becomes a metaphor for the reversal of fortunes and blessings of the entire kingdom age in both its present and future aspects.

Given the further option that the Messianic Banquet is either terrestrial or heavenly, the evidence in Matthew favors the Jewish belief that it is terrestrial. The true disciples of Jesus, which includes Gentiles at the time of the written Matthew, will inherit the earth (Matt 5:5). At that future time they will also rule over a future restored Israel and receive abundant physical blessings (houses, family, and farms) (Matt 19:27-29).

The following discussion is limited to the story of the Centurion’s servant in Matthew 8:5-13.

And when he had entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him, in order to entreat him and say, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, tormented greatly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, but just if you command it by a word,25 and my servant will be healed. For I, too, am a man under authority, and have soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled, and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith from anyone in Israel. And I say to you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go. Just as you believed, may it come to pass for you.” And his servant was healed at that hour.26

This is the most important passage in which Matthew uses the theme of the Messianic Banquet. In the story, there is a strong contrast between the faith of the centurion and “Israel” (Matt 8:10). Here “Israel” relates to an unbelieving entity (“the sons of the kingdom”) in contrast to those who will “recline” with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom (Matt 8:11, 12). The centurion is an example of a Gentile believer in Jesus who will partake in the Messianic Banquet.

Although several argue that Jesus heals the centurion’s “son,”27 it is best to take the word pai`~ as “servant.”28 “Son” would be the first option only in classical Greek.29 However, in the LXX, pai`~ very rarely translates nBe (“son”) (only at Prov 4:1; 20:7), but rather most often translates db,[, (“servant”). The word pai`~ was commonly used for slaves in the Koine period, which does not require a close familial relationship.30 Outside of christological titles, the NT is divided between the two options. The parallel passage in Matt 17:18 argues in favor of the meaning “son.” However, since it is likely that Luke was closer to the original Q and that Matthew abbreviates the Q story except for his direct quote (Matt 8:8-10 par. Luke 7:6-9), then it is more probable that Matthew picked up pai`~ from Luke 7:7 and understood it as dou`lo~ (“servant”) from the original Q context.

Thus, the centurion begs Jesus to heal his servant expressing faith in Jesus' power to control spiritual forces only by means of his words.31 Jesus marvels not just because the centurion believes but because the content of his faith included Jesus' power to divinely control all natural and spiritual forces.

Jesus speaks clearly about a future kingdom in which many that are not of Israel, like the centurion, will sit together with the patriarchs of Israel in the Messianic Banquet (Isa 25:6-9; 65:13-14); while many who presently consider themselves part of the present kingdom will be thrown into Hell. These “sons of the kingdom” (Matt 8:12) are Jews who think they are “sons of Abraham” (Matt 3:9, 10). They think that they will participate in the future kingdom because of their race. Not all those who participate in some way in the present kingdom will enter into the future consummated kingdom (Matt 7:13-23). Gentile Christians will not replace Israel but participate along with Israel in the future kingdom (Isa 2:2-3; 45:6; 59:19; 60:3-4; Mic 4:1-2; Zech 8:20-23; Mal 1:11). In Matthew, this co-participation of Jewish and Gentile Christians form the true remnant that will inherit the kingdom to come. The Church is thus this remnant that is made up of believing Israel and Gentile Christians united together as the true people of God. In the future kingdom, the Church will be further united with the OT saints forming the final eschatological people in the consummated kingdom. Matthew previews that time in two passages (Matt 16:28-17:13; 27:52, 53).32

Matthew’s insertion of the Messianic Banquet (Luke 13:28, 29) at Matt 8:11, 12 is highly unique. Very few argue that the Messianic Banquet originated within the Centurion story.33 Most argue that the insertion is a Matthean redaction.34 The Q saying about the Messianic Banquet is expanded universally by Luke to include all four directions. In Luke, the saying of Jesus is directed to the Jews who were following him to Jerusalem in response to a question about how many will be saved. Jesus answers with the parable about the narrow door. Once the door is shut, then there will be weeping in Hell while many will come from all directions to enjoy the Messianic Banquet with the OT patriarchs and prophets. Matthew previously used the parable about the narrow door in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:13-23), but preserves the saying about the Messianic Banquet until the miracle story of the healing of the Centurion’s servant. Thus, while Luke makes the Messianic Banquet universal through the addition of directions, Matthew makes it universal by use of the prophecy that Gentile believers in Jesus will come to participate in the Banquet with the OT patriarchs.

Davies and Allison challenge the popular view that the “many” who come from the east and the west refer to Gentiles. Rather, it is a reference to diaspora Jews.35 They are much more interested in the original saying of Jesus preserved in the Q tradition prior to Matthew, rather than Matthew’s use of the saying within the context of the great faith of the Gentile believer in Jesus. However, it is simply wrong to argue that the original Jewish understanding of the saying required the return of only diaspora Jews back to Israel. Given Isaiah’s universalism that is shared by the three synoptic authors and by the early church, it can hardly be argued that Q preserved a saying of Jesus about the eschatological kingdom restricted to only diaspora Jews. Given the prevalent use of Isaiah in the teachings attributed to Jesus, it is more likely that he historically affirmed the universal participation of the nations along with Israel in the future kingdom.

Carson argues that there are three distinct sets of OT passages that are possibly reflected in Matt 8:11 and 12.36 There are passages that describe the return of Israelite exiles back to the land (Ps 107:3; Isa 43:5, 6; 49:12). There is a distinct set of passages that describe the worship of God by Gentiles in all parts of the earth (Isa 45:6; 59:19; Mal 1:11). Thirdly, there are passages that predict that Gentiles will come to Jerusalem (Isa 2:2, 3; 60:3, 4; Mic 4:1, 2; Zech 8:20-23). He argues further that Matt 8:11 and 12 more closely parallel the first group.37 However, such distinctions ignore the wealth of Jewish literature concerning the Messianic Banquet and divides up the theology of Isaiah into distinctive theologies ignoring the most crucial passage in Isaiah 25. First century AD Jews read Isaiah as a unit. Therefore, as a background to first century Jewish thought, it is much better to read and understand Isaiah as a unit.38 In Isaiah, the Messianic Banquet is used metaphorically for the entire Messianic Age to come, rather than simply a single event at the beginning of that age.

Rather than direct the saying to the Jews, as in Luke, Jesus is speaking directly to the centurion. The saying is modified to fit the setting, however very few details are lost or added. Two details are significant. Jesus calls the Jews, who will be thrown into Hell, “the sons of the kingdom” (Matt 8:12). This is highly peculiar to call an adversary such a title, however it is suggested by the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:13-23) and the Parables of the Kingdom (Matt 13). In Matthew, it is possible to participate in the present kingdom of Jesus without entering into the final consummation of the kingdom. Only true disciples enter the final kingdom and those true disciples can be equally Jews or Gentiles. The false disciples (Matt 7:15-23; 10:33; 13:38-43, 47-50; 25:1-13), here called “sons of the kingdom” (also Matt 13:38 for true disciples), are Jews who think they are “sons of Abraham” (Matt 3:9, 10).

Matthew further adds the destination of the “sons of the kingdom” as the “outer darkness.” This is a common Jewish description of Hell (Jdt 16:17; 4 Ezra 7:93; 1 Enoch 63:10; 108:3; Pss. Sol. 14:9; 15:10; Wis 17:21)39 used by Matthew elsewhere (Matt 5:29; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). Thus Matthew uses extremely strong language to distinguish between the true remnant that will inherit the future kingdom, which is the Church made up of Gentile and Jewish believers in Jesus, and the false unbelieving Israel which will be thrown into Hell.

Matthew’s list of the participants in the Messianic Banquet as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is likely to be more original with Q than Luke’s additional phrase, “and all the prophets.”40 The Jewish expectations about the Messianic Banquet included a great deal about the OT patriarchs, but little about the participation of the prophets (b. Pesah. 119b).

Conclusions from The Messianic Banquet in the Centurion Story

Matthew’s insertion of the Messianic Banquet saying of Jesus into the Centurion story is highly significant. The saying reflects well the dual aspects present in the OT use of the Messianic Banquet theme. The Messianic Banquet is a future reward for the righteous and a judgment of the enemies of God. Jesus pronounced judgment upon those who considered themselves the rightful heirs of the future kingdom. They will be thrown into Hell because they have become enemies of the King and his true disciples. The fortune of the true remnant that is currently suffering persecution will be reversed. The true disciples of Jesus are a persecuted community of believers in his miraculous power. They are both Gentiles, like the centurion, and Jews. They will participate fully in the consummation of the kingdom along with the OT saints while their persecutors will be punished.

It is wrong to argue that this use of the Messianic Banquet excludes Israel categorically.41 At the very least, Israel is clearly represented by the Patriarchs.42 At the most, it is represented by believing Jews. Matthew’s list of Patriarchs is significant, although it is likely that the list is original with Q. The participation of the Patriarchs in the Messianic Banquet is very Jewish, but it also highlights the theological perspective of Matthew about the nature of the Church. As the true remnant, the Church will be united with the fathers of Israel while those who claim salvation due to their lineage will be separated. The true remnant will include those true Gentile disciples who have the faith of the centurion.

The participation of Gentiles in the Messianic Banquet does not require that Israel be replaced by the Church. This Gentile participation was prophesied by Isaiah and maintained in the Jewish literature for centuries after Christ. It is wrong to argue that the Messianic Banquet, prior to Matthew, was “strictly a Jewish affair.” 43 However, what is unique with the Church is that it becomes the true remnant. Israel is not replaced, but it participates fully alongside the Gentiles in the blessing of the future Messianic age. The equal participation in the same kingdom of believing Israel and believing Gentile forms one united Church participating fully together. Only by believing in Jesus and thus becoming a member of his Church, can Israelites lay claim to their natural heritage and be reunited with the fathers of their nation.

The saying of Jesus about the Messianic Banquet also implies the eternality of the Church. The Church cannot end with the consummation of the future kingdom, it must remain forever the true people of God, or the remnant that inherits the kingdom. It is only the Church that is promised that they will sit down at table with the OT saints rather than the unbelieving portion of the nation of Israel. If the Church had no future and believing Israel had a distinct future, there would be no united kingdom at which true believing disciples of Jesus participated together.


1 A paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, November 1999.

2 Günther Bornkamm, “End-Expectation and Church in Matthew,” in Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. Percy Scott (London: SCM, 1963) 15-24.

3 O. Lamar Cope, “‘To the Close of the Age’: The Role of Apocalyptic Thought in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. Louis Martyn, eds. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, JSNTSS, vol. 24 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 113-24; Donald A. Hagner, “Apocalyptic Motifs in the Gospel of Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity,” HBT 7 (1985) 53-82; D. Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l’vangile de Matthieu, Le Monde de la Bible (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981); David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1996); Robin Scroggs, “Eschatological Existence in Matthew and Paul: Coincidentia Oppositorum,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. Louis Martyn, eds. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, JSNTSS, vol. 24 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 125-46; Graham N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1992) 146-68; and Kathleen Weber, “The Events of the End of the Age in Matthew,” (Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1994).

4 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody, 1995) 125-29.

5 Some progressive dispensationalist still maintain that the consummated Kingdom requires an end to the unity of the people of God, i.e. that future saved ethnic Israel (Rom 11:26) will be distinct from the Church rather than be added to the Church. Progressive dispensationalist speak of a future “equality” in which both the Church and future saved Israel will share in the future Messianic millennial age, but not as one united people of God (J. Lanier Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” in Herbert W. Bateman, IV, ed. Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999) 290).

6 “Yahweh of Hosts” (twaob;x] hw:hy) is used 62 times in Isaiah. The description is likely an intensive abstract plural meaning “Yahweh the Almighty,” or “Yahweh, God Omnipotent” (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT, rev., Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, tr. M. E. J. Richardson (New York: Brill, 1994) 3.995-97).

7 “Nations” captures the idea that yMi[' implies a kinship among the members of distinct groups of people, rather than merely all people regardless of their national distinctions. The people are distinguished by national or kinship ties (HALOT 2.838).

8 “Banquet” (hT<v]mi) is a special festive ocassion with wine. It comes from the verb ht;v;, “to drink,” and thus it is an ocassion to drink (HALOT 2.653).

9 ynIm;v] is "fat" or "fatness." The banquet will serve the best fatty foods (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown – Driver – Briggs – Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Reprinted from the 1907 ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrikson Publishers, 1979) 1032).

10 It is unnecessary to translate fwLh'AynEP, as “the mask on the face,” as does Hans Wildberger (Isaiah 13-27: A Continental Commentary, tr. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997) 532). Nor does it necessarily mean “shroud,” as taken by John D. W. Watts (Isaiah 1-33, vol. 24, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 328). It simply means a covering over the head (HALOT 3.940).

11 “Entwine, plait, weave” (HALOT 2.703).

12 Because of the Hebrew parallelism, yIwG is equivalent to yMi[ in this context.

13 Translation is the author’s.

14 Bernard Wodecki argues that it is a sacrificial banquet (“The Religious Universalism of the Pericope Is 25:6-9,” in Golden pfel in silbernen Schalen: Collected Communications to the XIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leuven 1989, ed. Klaus-Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin, Beitrge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, ed. Matthias Augustin and Michael Mach, vol. 20 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992) 42).

15 This position is against such comments as the following: “As Zion here is to be taken in a figurative sense, referring to the Church of God, so also is the banquet to be understood figuratively, as signifying the spiritual blessings that God brings to mankind through His kingdom” (Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, NICOT, ed. R. K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 2.192). Such a comment reads back into the text a certain NT interpretation much too late for the author or his audience to have ever understood.

16 Paul’s use of Moses’ veil (2 Cor 3:12-18; Exod 34:33-35) should not influence the interpretation of this text as a veil of ignorance or shame. There are several who argue for an end of spiritual ignorance (Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, tr. James Martin, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, 4th series, vol. 14 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 1.439, 440; and Wodecki, “The Religious Universalism of the Pericope Is 25:6-9,” 42).

17 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, NICOT, ed. R. K. Harrison (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 457; and Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 24.328. Meredith G. Kline states that the shroud is figurative for the grave itself opened at the resurrection of the previously dead body (“Death, Leviathan, and the Martyrs: Isaiah 24:1 – 27:1,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, ed. Walter C. Kaiser and Ronald F. Youngblood (Chicago, Moody Press, 1986) 230, 231).

18 George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 1-27, ICC, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 1. 430; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary, tr. R. A. Wilson, OTL, ed. G. Ernest Wright, John Bright, James Barr, and Peter Ackroyd (Philadelphia: PA: Westminster Press, 1974) 200, 201; Wildberger, Isaiah 13-27, 532; and Young, The Book of Isaiah, 2.194.

19 Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 24.331.

20 The argument that there is no resurrection comes from a comparison with Isa 2:1-4. Thus, the end of death is not life eternal or a resurrection of those who have already died, but is an end of death as the effect of war. The ceasing of war during the future messianic age will remove only the suffering of death. This belief that the messianic age will be void of the death that comes from war, is later expanded into a belief in eternal life and resurrection (Dan 12:2; 1 Cor 15:54). Isa 25:19 is a praise for the future restoration of the people of Israel as a corporate unity in a future generation rather than the resurrection of individual departed members (Wildberger, Isaiah 13-27, 532-34, 567-70). However, the argument that the Hebrew root twm can have a semantic range broader than the English word death cannot be substantiated. Wildberger argues that the prophecy declares that Yahweh will remove all disasters that may possibly limit his subjects’ ability to live life to its fullest, rather than simply to remove the actual occurrence of physical death. Thus, there is still death, but without mourning (Isaiah 13-27, 533). The semantic argument cannot be substantiated since the Hebrew uses for tWm all refer in some way to an actual physical death (H. -J. Fabry and K. -J. Illman, “tWm,” in TDOT, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, tr. Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 8.185-209). Thus, contrary to Wildberger, the English word “death” has a broader semantic range than the Hebrew word tWm.

21 Many argue that Isaiah describes a literal resurrection of those previously in Sheol (Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 6.160; Kline, “Death, Leviathan, and the Martyrs: Isaiah 24:1 – 27:1,” 229-49; Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 464; Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 24.342; and Young, The Book of Isaiah, 2.195-98). Kaiser argues that a later redactor included the idea of resurrection (Isaiah 13-39, 201). Wodecki argues that all of Isa 24-27 was a post-exilic insertion added to first Isaiah (“The Religious Universalism of the Pericope Is 25:6-9,” 36).

22 There are a great many studies on Leviathan (Ronald Barclay Allen, “The Leviathan – Rahab – Dragon motif in the Old Testament” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968); A. Caquot, “Le Lviathan de Job 40, 25-41, 26,” RB 99 (1992) 40-69; J. A. Emerton, “Leviathan and LTN: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon,” VT 32 (1982) 327-31; Michael Fishbane, “Rabbinic Mythmaking and Tradition: The Great Dragon Drama in b. Baba Batra 74b-75a,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 273-83; John C. L. Gibson, “On Evil in the Book of Job,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor, JSOTSup, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, vol. 67 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 399-419; idem, “A New Look at Job 41.1-4 (English 41.9-12),” in Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson, ed. Robert P. Carroll, JSOTSup, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, vol. 138 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 129-39; Cyrus H. Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. Alexander Altmann, Studies and Texts, ed. Alexander Altmann, vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966) 1-9; Otto Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in gypten, Ugarit und Israel, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, ed. Georg Fohrer, vol. 78 (Berlin: Alfred Tpelmann, 1962); Henry Rowold, “!awh yl ?xwh ym Leviathan and Job in Job 41:2-3,” JBL 105 (1986) 104-9; Kenneth William Whitney, Jr., “Two Strange Beasts: A Study of Traditions concerning Leviathan and Behemoth in Second Temple and Early Rabbinic Judaism” (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1992); J. V. Kinnier Wilson, “A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan,” VT 25 (1975) 1-14; and David Wolfers, “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job,” VT 40 (1990) 474-99).

23 Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 24.349.

24 Oswalt attributes Leviathan to all moral evil (The Book of Isaiah, 491).

25 The imperative is conditional and the dative is instrumental (compare Matt 8:16) (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 162, 490).

26 Translation is the author’s.

27 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glen W. Barker, vol. 33a (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 204; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCBC, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 158; and Ralph P. Martin, “The Pericope of the Healing of the ‘Centurion,s’ Servant/Son (Matt 8:5-13 par. Luke 7:1-10): Some Exegetical Notes,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, ed. Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 15.

28 W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, AB, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 93; Frederick Dale Bruner, The Christbook: Matthew 1-12, vol. 1 of Matthew (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1987) 303; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 8.200, 201; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, ICC, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 2.21; R. T. France, “Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 256; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 142; Craig S. Keener, Matthew, The Inter Varsity Press New Testament Commentary Series, eds. Grant R. Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997) 172; and J. Andrew Overman, Church and Community in Crisis, (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) 114.

29 Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones and Robert McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 1289.

30 James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (n.p., 1930; reprint Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 475.

31 See the instrumental dative of movnon eijpe; lovgw/ (Matt 8:8).

32 Raymond E. Brown, “Eschatological Events Accompanying the Death of Jesus, Especially the Raising of the Holy Ones from Their Tombs (Matt 27:51-53),” Faith and the Future: Studies in Christian Eschatology, ed. John P. Galvin (New York: Paulist Press, 1994) 43-73.

33 Carson, “Matthew,” 8.202; and Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, tr. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975) 213.

34 Hagner states: “The story is thus primarily a miracle narrative but is transformed by Matthew into a pronouncement story, where the main point becomes the teaching of vv 10-12” (Matthew 1-13, 33a.202). See also Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.25; and S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelistein (Zurich: Theologischer, 1972) 243.

35 Dale C. Allison, “Who will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8:11-12 – Luke 13:28-29,” IBS 11 (1989) 158-70; and Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.27-29. See also Werner Grimm, “Zum Hintergrund von Mt 8, 11f / Lk 13, 28f,” BZ 16 (1972) 255-56; and Dieter Zeller, “Das Logion Mt 8, 11f / Lk 13, 28 f und das Motiv der ‘Vlkerwallfart,’” BZ 15 (1971) 222-37 and 16 (1972): 84-93.

36 Carson, “Matthew,” 8.203.

37 Following Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope, NovTSup, ed. W. C. van Unnik, vol. 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1967) 76.

38 So Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 338.

39 1 Enoch 108:3 is an example: “. . . for the names of (the sinners) shall be blotted out from the Book of Life and the books of the Holy One; their seeds shall be destroyed forever and their spirits shall perish and die; they shall cry and lament in a place that is an invisible wilderness and burn in the fire -- for there exists ground there (as upon the earth).” Translated by E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch: A New Translation and Introduction,” in OTP, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 1.88.

40 Gundry argues that Matthew inserts the patriarchs and omits the original “and all the prophets” (Matthew, 145).

41 So Schweizer, The Good News, 213, 215; and Wolfgang Trilling, Das Wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthusevangeliums, Erfurter Theologische Studien, ed. Erich Kleineidam and Heinz Schürmann, vol. 7 (Leipzig: St. Benno – Verlag, 1962).

42 R. T. France states correctly that the Messianic Banquet continues to be Israel’s Banquet (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 233).

43 Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 33a.205. Also see France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 261; and Zeller, “Das Logion Mt 8, 11f / Lk 13, 28.”

Related Topics: Christology, Eschatology (Things to Come)

The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives

Related Media

Chapter 1:
Introduction

The Need for the Study

The four canonical Gospels have enjoyed a long, diverse and rich heritage of investigation and interpretation. Up until the time period of the Enlightenment (Aufklarung) they were generally considered to be accurate representations of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Major shifts in both scientific and philosophical thinking during the Enlightenment1 resulted in similar shifts in theological thinking—thinking that began to seriously question the consensus surrounding the Gospels.2

A relatively short time later, "in the middle and late nineteenth century in Europe, as one of the final effects of the Enlightenment, historical-critical scholarship began to be applied in earnest to the Gospel narratives."3 The use of historical-critical methodologies on the Gospels led to questions surrounding the historical accuracy of the Gospels and cast doubt on the veracity of the information they offered about the earthly life of Jesus. There have been continuing attempts on the part of certain scholars, since the efforts of Hermann Samuel Reimarus4 and especially since the work of David Friedrich Strauss (Das Leben Jesu),5 to reconstruct a historically satisfying picture of the Jesus of history from the canonical Gospels, as well as other available documents.6 The "Quest" for the historical Jesus has gone through at least 2 phases in the past and is currently experiencing a third phase (since the early 1980s). For all their efforts though, scholars have not arrived at much of a consensus—indeed very different pictures of the historical Jesus have emerged.7 On the other hand, there has been at least one similarity throughout the various quests which appears to owe its origin to the Enlightenment. The "thing" that binds most scholars together is not the picture of Jesus they get, but rather the presupposition of a thoroughgoing rationalism which they share in their pursuit. Such a rationalism precludes the supernatural and the miraculous.8 As Pierre Benoit has so clearly said,

Behind all these relatively new methods, new at least in their technical application, we discover one fundamental thesis which it not itself new at all. This is the denial of the supernatural which we are so accustomed to meeting in the works of modern rationalist criticism. It is a thesis which, once stripped of its various masks, literary, historical or sociological analysis, reveals its true identity—it is a philosophical one.9

Since the rise of the Jesus quest, and the development of form and redaction criticism in the early and middle parts of this century,10 scholars have developed criteria by which they endeavor to determine which words and deeds Jesus actually said and did. But these criteria are routinely applied from a naturalistic worldview.

Therefore this study is needed to show that such a rationalistic worldview is indefensible and should be abandoned in favor of a worldview that allows for the supernatural. In keeping with this, the study is needed to demonstrate that the resurrection is an integral part of any reconstruction of the life of the historical Jesus. Concerning one of the two vital issues facing the Third Quest (there is also the issue involving continuity and discontinuity between Jesus and Judaism, and Jesus and the church), Neill and Wright frankly say that "the major question here is, of course, that of the resurrection, which as yet has hardly been addressed within the Third Quest, although the tools for this next phase of study are now surely to hand."11 So there is a need to evaluate the accounts of the resurrection. In this sense the study is partly a response to the critics who, while closed off to the possibility of the resurrection (due in large measure to their antisupernaturalistic worldview), nonetheless, attempt to refit the Gospel data into some scheme which they assert reflects a genuine picture of the historical Jesus. Finally, one might add that the discussion of this issue is not for academicians only, but also for the general public, as both the popularization of the materials of the Jesus Seminar and recent articles in Time Magazine and Newsweek make clear.12

The Purpose and Scope of the Study

The first goal of this study is to show that a worldview which allows for the miraculous is more reasonable and therefore more defensible philosophically and historically than a worldview which a priori rules out the supernatural. On the other hand, just because we permit a supernaturalistic worldview does not mean de facto that the Gospels are historically trustworthy. The Gospels claim to be written in a genuine historical setting and therefore can be subjected to certain criteria to determine the reasonableness of their historical assertions. This leads to the primary purpose of the study.

This study ultimately attempts to demonstrate, based on a worldview that permits the supernatural, that the resurrection accounts in the gospels fair extremely well and stand as reliable historical witnesses to such an event when examined on the basis of the criteria of authenticity—the same criteria that are descriminately used by scholars to authenticate certain sayings of Jesus and discount others.

Indirectly, then, insofar as the study achieves its primary purpose, it attempts to make a contribution to the Third Quest as a whole by asserting that any reconstruction of the life of Jesus must include in it, his resurrection from the dead.

Overview of the Study

The study will proceed first by arguing for a worldview that at least permits the supernatural. A brief history of the discussion regarding antisupernaturalism in biblical studies will be offered, followed by a critique of this position which has for so long dominated biblical studies. The defense of the supernaturalistic worldview will rest primarily on historical and philosophical considerations. To wrap up the first section, a statement will be offered as to the best worldview a historian can possess in doing historiography.

Second, based upon the worldview argued for in the first part of the paper, the study will apply the criteria of authenticity to the resurrection narratives to see if they indeed are historically credible. We will see that the resurrection accounts fair very well and should be considered historically trustworthy and an integral part of any reconstruction of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Chapter 2:
Historiography and the Supernatural

Introduction

The Third Quest has produced several different pictures of the historical Jesus which at times seem to involve special pleading and a conscripting of certain evidence to the passing over (including dismissing) of other data vital to the task.13 There is indeed a selectively that is readily apparent in the reductionism,14 yet the rationale escapes reason at times. Nonetheless, there is one sine qua non that for most Third Questers remains the anvil on which they manage the evidence as they forge a particular mold into which, they affirm, we ought to pour our understanding of Jesus. As I indicated in the introduction to the paper, this steel thread joining many scholars together, all the while producing different pictures of the historical Jesus, appears to be one aspect of their worldview. They are antisupernaturalists for the most part, grounded in the rationalistic naturalism arising out of the Enlightenment, followers at this point, of people like Rene Descartes (1596-1650), David Hume (1711-1776) and the later historicist, Troeltsch (1865-1923) who was influenced in particular by Dilthey.15 According to Ladd, "The 'historical Jesus' is a hypothesis reconstructed from the Gospels by the use of the historical-critical method on the basis of naturalistic presuppositions. Such a Jesus must be altogether and only human—a Jesus without transcendence."16

This particular worldview is not only devastating to Scriptural testimony,17 it is also fallacious historiographically speaking and indefensible philosophically. The aim of this section on the one hand, is to demonstrate that such is the case, and on the other, to state and defend the reasonableness of a worldview that allows for the supernatural. This discussion is necessary, before the resurrection accounts are tested historiographically in chapter 3 (i.e. via the criteria of authenticity), since the possibility of denying the resurrection a priori still remains.

A Modern Critical Presupposition:
The Wedge between History and Theology18

    Pre-Enlightenment Understanding of History and Theology

From the inception of the church to the present day there have been discussions, debates, councils, etc., in the attempt to articulate what the Scripture means by what it says. Marcion, in the second century, provided the church with no little stir as he attempted to jettison the Old Testament and much of the New that was not written by Paul or perhaps Luke. Measures were taken to deal with Marcion and his aberrant views.19 Several councils convened over the history of the church. The error of Arius and his followers was dealt with at the Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325) and along with the error of Apollinarius, it was further dealt with at the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381). The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) dealt with such things as Nestorianism and the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) dealt with Eutychianism and the hypostatic union.20 Thus the early church, from the fathers through the period of the apologists, to the theologians, debated the things written and what they meant.

The period leading up to the Reformation and including the Reformation, saw battles waged within the church over the nature and means of salvation and the relationship of the church to the Scriptures—the whole question of religious authority was being asked and answered.21

In all these discussions, for the most part, the miraculous was a given. There was no widespread commitment to, and buttressing of, the belief that "there is not such a thing as a miracle" or the miraculous. In general, people accepted that God could and did do things, i.e. God "acted" in and through history. But such was to change after the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. As Geisler says, "There is no question that people believed in the supernatural in ancient and medieval times and on through the Reformation. But following the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, it became increasingly difficult for the thinking person to maintain this belief."22

    Post-Enlightenment Understanding of History and Theology

Cicero, a first century B. C. E. Roman philosopher and writer, says in his work De Divinatione II. 28: "That which could not have happened never did happen; and that which could have happened is no portent; therefore, in any view, there is no such thing as a portent."23 E. P. Sanders in his recent book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, quotes the previous passage from Cicero and maintains his total agreement with the ancient author. He says,

The view expressed by Cicero has become dominant in the modern world, and I fully share it. Some reports of 'miracles' are fanciful or exaggerated; the 'miracles' that actually happen are things that we cannot yet explain, because of ignorance of the range of natural causes. In Cicero's own day, however, very few accepted this stringent rationalism. The vast majority of people believed in spiritual forces . . . (italics mine).24

Where did the modern, scholarly commitment to antisupernaturalism come from? In agreement with Geisler, Sanders correctly observes that it was not widespread in the ancient world, certainly not in Jesus' day or within the Judaism of the first century.25 How does such a view reflect on the possibility of miracles? How does it work itself out in terms of doing historiography? For answers to the first question we will briefly examine the arguments of Benedict de Spinoza and David Hume, both of whom worked within the limits of Voltaire's Deism26 and a Newtonian worldview.27 Hume, in particular, continues to exert an influence over modern scholars.28 As concerns the second question, we will look at Troeltsch's principles, still widely acknowledged today,29 to see how the study of history has been affected by antisupernaturalism.30 We will attempt to show the errors in their arguments and in so doing demonstrate the reasonableness of a worldview which allows for the supernatural. In the end, by dealing with Spinoza, Hume and Troeltsch we hope to lay the groundwork for doing good historiography and prepare ourselves to utilize the criteria of authenticity to examine the resurrection accounts. This is the focus of chapter three.

      A Critique of the Arguments of Benedict de Spinoza

Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677) in his work Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), argued on the basis of the inviolable laws of nature which proceed from the necessity and perfection of the divine nature, that miracles, as violations of God's nature, are absurd, and as such, point one towards atheism, not belief. According to Spinoza, since miracles are contrary to nature and therefore contrary ultimately to God, one creates doubt by arguing for them. Therefore, Spinoza argued for the impossibility of the occurrence of a miracle.31 He says,

Nothing, then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, nay, everything agrees with them and follows from them, for whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass by the will and eternal decree of God; that is, as we have just pointed out, whatever comes to pass, comes to pass according to laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth; nature, therefore . . . keeps a fixed and immutable order.32

Geisler points out that Spinoza's arguments rest on three foundations:

1) Euclidian or deductive rationalism; 2) a Newtonian view of natural law and 3) a certain understanding of the nature of God—pantheistic.33 The first critique of such a view is straightforward. Insofar as Spinoza's arguments rest on deductive reasoning he is begging the question. He has assumed in the premises what he hopes to defend as the conclusion. He never proved through evidential means that natural laws are immutable nor that miracles are necessarily violations of natural laws—two of his key premises. The argument is formally true, but not valid.34 The Newtonian worldview is seriously questioned today as well. The universe appears to be expanding and getting older which destroys his argument. In other words the laws of nature are not inviolable, but rather caused and therefore contingent—not eternal and absolute, but mutable.35 And if it is true that the universe and natural laws came into existence at a point in time, then we ipso facto have a miracle—i.e. the creation ex nihilo of the universe.

      A Critique of the Arguments of David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher, produced some of the most powerful arguments against miracles. Geisler says that "most modern thinkers who reject miracles would trace their reasons to those of the famous Scottish skeptic, David Hume. The reason for this is simple: he has provided what many believe to be the most formidable of all the challenges to a supernaturalistic perspective."36 Apparently Strauss felt that Hume's arguments settled the issue once and for all.37

In his essay "Of Miracles" in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argues against the identification of miracles. He actually develops his argument in two phases. In the first section he argues in principle and the second section he argues from experience or practice. There is not enough space to elaborate on all the details of his arguments, but the kernel of his argument is as follows38: 1) A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; 2) Firm and unalterable (i.e. uniform) experience has established these laws; 3) A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence and 4) Therefore the proof against miracles is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Hume's argument can be interpreted so as to preclude miracles a priori. We will follow the interpretation of the argument which understands him to say that the wise man will never believe in a miracle because he will never have enough evidence to substantiate such a belief.

In premise #2 Hume assumes a uniform experience against miracles which of course he must postulate in advance of any evidence lest the experience or evidence contradict uniform experience. C. S. Lewis has well said,

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely "uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know experience against them to be false. And we all know the experience against them to be uniform if we know that all reports of them are false. And we can know all reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.39

Since Hume's second premise is incorrect, his whole argument is weakened and as far as its ultimate intention, destroyed. But, what can be said of Hume's argument from the laws of nature and personal experience is that miracles are rare and therefore witnesses must be questioned to establish the probability of the event having happened.40

A final critique of Hume's method concerns the vantage point in his argument. The so-called laws of nature seem to operate almost absolutely without interruption. To this most would agree and indeed, Hume makes much of it. But to argue from within the laws, as he does with the appeal to universal experience, presupposes certain truths about the laws, namely, eternality and immutability. This he could never prove as one subject to the laws.41 These presuppositions, however, as demonstrated in the case of Spinoza, cannot be defended today on scientific grounds, much less personal experience. Hume's argument, contrary to what he so proudly thought, has not stood for all time as an "everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion. . . ."42

    Summary

The preceding discussion has shown that miracles, or "God acting in history" was an idea accepted by all before the Enlightenment. After the Enlightenment, however, such was not the case. Indeed, antisupernaturalism became the signpost around which a great deal of scientific, philosophical and theological inquiry proceeded. The origin of this shift is complex, but two particular writers have wielded significant influence, namely, Spinoza and Hume. Their arguments, though accepted widely in their day, are philosophically indefensible and insofar as they represent the foundation of the post-Enlightenment view of miracles, such a view must be abandoned. It cannot be maintained even as many biblical scholars attempt today.43

The result is that miracles are not logically absurd, nor historically impossible and therefore the wedge between history and theology (i.e. the supernatural) is unfounded. This does not mean that every report of a miracle is as probable as the next. One must critically examine the historical evidence. As concerns the Gospels this is a welcome study. Many principles have been enumerated for doing historiography and critically examining the miracles recorded in the Gospels. In the next section we will briefly state some accepted, sound guidelines for doing historiography before we directly examine the "criteria of authenticity" in chapter 3.

An Evaluation of Troeltsch's Principle of 'Analogy'
and the Possibility of Worthwhile Historical Inquiry

    The Principle of Analogy

It is not true today to say that all historians are enslaved to the principles of historiography as outlined by Ernst Troeltsch in "On Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology" (1898). Most would agree, however, with his ideas insofar as he demonstrated that historical knowledge is only probable (i.e. the principle of methodological doubt and criticism)44 and that the principle of correlation makes sense out of past events, causes, effects, internal probabilities, etc. But, the second of his oft quoted principles, i.e. the principle of analogy, is not so often agreed upon—at least as Troeltsch practiced it from an antisupernaturalistic perspective.45

The principle of analogy, according to Troeltsch, states that all events in present experience are similar to those in the past, otherwise the study of history would be impossible, since it proceeds by way of comparison of the present with the evidence from the past.46 To this principle all would agree except when uniformity is exalted as an absolute. To this few would subscribe. This leads to an a priori ruling out of certain kinds of evidence.

The point of view that applies Troeltsch's principles to the historical evidence allowing only for natural causation is known as historicism. As Krentz says, "The historicist view, modeled on the laws of natural science, expresses itself in the exclusion of God as a causative factor and in the denial of the possibility of a miracle."47 Now, we have already argued above that such an a priori stance against the supernatural is dogmatic in nature, indefensible and indeed an illusion.48

There remains then, the objection which claims that allowance for the supernatural may be unavoidable, but it will destroy historical inquiry since it undermines the principle of analogy.49 This is only true if miracles occur all the time and have no rational explanation. C. S. Lewis has responded admirably to the historian's problem. The following quotation is lengthy, but important. He says,

But if we admit God, must we admit a miracle? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain. Theology says to you in effect, 'Admit God and with him the risk of a few miracles, and I in turn will ratify your faith in uniformity as regards the overwhelming majority of events.' The philosophy which forbids you to make uniformity absolute is also the philosophy which offers you solid grounds for believing it to be general, to be almost absolute. The Being who threatens nature's claim to omnipotence confirms her in her lawful occasions. Give us this ha' porth of tar and we will save the ship. The alternative is really much worse. Try to make nature absolute and you find that her uniformity is not even probable. . . You get the deadlock as in Hume. Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers (italics mine, except in the case of the term "almost").50

The point that Lewis was trying to make for the historian is that one must allow for miracles but, since they are rare, one's historiography is not in jeopardy. We can still make sense out of the present by examining the past and the present can give us insight into the past. This is true because miracles are rare and uniformitarianism is "almost absolute" in our experience.

One final note. Another premise in this argument is the notion that miracles are so contradictory to human experience so as to be absurd. This is false and remains the premise among many who deny miracles. If miracles were contradictory or absurd, we would not be able to identify them or talk about them at all. A better idea is that they are contrary to normal human experience, but not contradictory or absurd, logically speaking.51

    A Better Approach

The principles that Troeltsch outlined, when practiced from a worldview that allows for the supernatural, are extremely helpful in evaluating the evidence in order to reconstruct the past. His first principle includes the idea that one must apply methodical doubt to the historical evidence. To a certain extent this must be true, lest we simply believe everything we read. Our present experience concerning human nature tells us that such a course—believing everything we read—is not the best direction to in which to head. Historical materials must be tested for their truth value by criteria that expose the internal and external probabilities for the occurrence of certain events, in the ways described by the evidence. This is not the same, however, as the council of despair so often seen among the Third Questers or others who have attempted to reconstruct a picture of the historical Jesus. They approach the issue, in my judgment, with undue skepticism—a hermeneutic of suspicion that clouds their judgment.52 That such an a priori perspective is damaging to historical inquiry is evident in the fact that one who always doubts the authenticity of the saying or event in question, is scarcely free to examine its meaning. For example, Blomberg has demonstrated that certain miracles become much more reasonable and historically probable if one seeks to understand both their meaning (i.e. how it coheres with Jesus' accepted teaching, on parables for example) and evidential value first, before dismissing them outright.53 Blomberg's work presents secondary, corroboratory arguments which ought to caution scholars when they decide to dismiss one of Jesus' miracles on the basis of its supposed lack of coherence with his teaching elsewhere.

Troeltsch's principle of analogy has been dealt with above. His third principle of correlation is valid as well—when practiced from a perspective that allows for the supernatural. In our case, since the events found in the Gospels repeatedly claim to occur in genuine historical contexts (cf. Luke 3:1), we should look for historical, natural causes and effects without ruling out divine intervention. Let the evidence speak so that it may be weighed.

Summary

The point of this chapter has been to show that a supernatural worldview is reasonable and cannot be ruled out a priori. The arguments of Spinoza and Hume were briefly evaluated and shown to be inadequate. Insofar as other modern scholars rest their attack on miracles (or a denial of supernaturalism) on similar grounds, they run into the same historical and philosophical problems. Although antisupernaturalism found its way into the principles enumerated by Troeltsch, with some modifications, one is able to utilize his three principles as a backdrop for understanding the criteria of authenticity. In other words, the very presence of the criteria presuppose methodological doubt, analogy and correlation. In the next chapter we will look at a selection of the criteria and apply them to the resurrection narratives.

Chapter 3:
The Criteria of Authenticity and the Resurrection

Introduction

This study began by describing the origin of the rationalism that, while indefensible philosophically and prejudiced historically, still remains as a tenet among many New Testament and biblical scholars. The founders of the Jesus Seminar have denied that miracles are even possible and have therefore prejudiced their historical inquiry by determining at the outset what did and did not happen in history. They argue that,

The contemporary religious controversy, epitomized in the Scopes trial and the continuing clamor of creationism as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution, turns on whether the worldview reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. Jesus figures prominently in this debate. The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope. The old demons are swept form the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens.54

Setting aside this unfounded bias, however, does not automatically render the biblical account of Jesus' resurrection historically credible. It simply allows for the supernatural, and in that sense, does not a priori rule out certain biblical evidence. As Hagner says, "a historical-critical method open to the possibility of the supernatural must nevertheless retain its critical acumen."55 The biblical accounts can, therefore, be tested to see if they are indeed reasonable, historically speaking. Does the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ have the greatest explanatory power and scope so as to best encompass all the facts? This is the burden of this chapter, but before attempting to demonstrate the reasonableness of the resurrection historically, we first need to argue that Jesus' resurrection was a literal, bodily resurrection and not a spiritual resurrection or a vision, subjective or objective.

Naturalistic Theories to Account for the Resurrection

There have been many views advanced to spell out the nature of Christ's resurrection body. They include the 1) political theory, 2) swoon theory, 3) mythical theory, 4) subjective vision theory, 5) objective vision theory and 6) corporeal theory. Since the political and swoon theory have so little to commend themselves, we will pass them over and commence our discussion with the mythical theory first.

The mythical view asserts that Jesus' resurrection was a myth created by the early church to maintain and grow the significance of Jesus' teaching and death. The major problem with this view is that Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3 demonstrates that this so-called "myth" began early in the church. If it began early in the church, and had no real basis in history whatsoever, it is difficult to see how it could have been propagated for any length of time—let alone become the foundation of the church. The presence of eyewitnesses mitigates against such an interpretation. Besides, Jesus was not popular or well-known and the disciples, as portrayed in the Gospel records, appear to be less than able to spawn a movement based upon a myth.56

Others have proposed a subjective vision theory in which they claim Jesus appeared to the disciples in dreams. From this, it is thought, the resurrection narratives developed. The problem with this view is that the disciples do not ever understand anything Jesus is supposed to have said about the resurrection during his ministry. It is unlikely, given the disciples lack of spiritual understanding during Jesus' life, that they would all of a sudden postulate a resurrection. Besides, their condition was one of defeat and discouragement and it is therefore difficult to think that they would have, or could have, become such great preachers of the faith on the basis of dreams. Besides there is no evidence that they had any dreams along these lines. And, it is difficult to believe that they would have dreamed of Jesus' personal resurrection when all they really had to go on was the general resurrection at the time of judgment spoken of in Daniel 12:2 (cf. John 5:28, 29). Based upon the criterion of Palestinian environment and their religious knowledge and heritage, it seems unlikely that they would have dreamed such things.57

There is also an objective vision thesis. This proposal claims that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were simply visions given by God to authenticate Jesus' spiritual resurrection. Some attempt to base this interpretation upon the use of ؾ in 1 Corinthians 15:5 to refer to a vision, not a historical, bodily person.58 This appears unlikely, given the context and argument of the passage. First, in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 it is the same Jesus who died (i.e. the literal man), who is said to have been buried and then risen. Second, the hope of the believer's resurrection body is the resurrection of Jesus' body. This is clearly the argument of the passage (cf. vv. 12, 15, 20 and esp. v. 21) and rests upon the presupposition of a literal, bodily resurrection, not just a spiritual resurrection (12-22).59

The final view in our brief survey is the corporeal view. There are at least two strands of evidence that support this view in spite of the fact that it is vigorously debated. First, the New Testament assumes a bodily resurrection (e.g. the Gospel accounts) and argues for it when there is a need to respond to erroneous ideas (cf. Paul's preaching in Acts 17:32).60 Second, the empty tomb would tend to support the idea that Jesus was physically resurrected. 61 The fact that Jesus was apparently able to do some amazing things does not negate this, but only affirms that his resurrected body was not simply human, but supra-human.62

From this brief discussion we contend that Jesus' resurrection, spoken of in the Gospels (and indeed the entire New Testament) is a bodily resurrection. The question we turn to now is "Are the traditions in the Gospels historically reliable? "Sure," one might concede, "they speak of a bodily resurrection, but are they historically trustworthy?"

An Evaluation of Certain 'Criteria of Authenticity'

One of the ways scholars have chosen to test the historical veracity of the sayings and deeds of Jesus is to subject them to certain criteria, i.e. the so-called "criteria of authenticity." Numerous criteria have been suggested including the ways in which one ought to understand and apply them. In particular two things should be noted. First, the application of the criteria does not result in a proof of anything. The intent of the criteria is to judge the probability of the authenticity of a certain saying or deed in the life of Jesus. Second, the criteria are to be used together63 and from a perspective that maintains that the accounts are trustworthy until the contrary has been reasonably demonstrated. The "burden of proof" rests upon those who would argue otherwise. Several factors tend to support this standpoint: 1) the presence of eyewitnesses; 2) the existence of a church center in Jerusalem to oversee the guarding and disseminating of the traditions; 3) the generally high view the church had for its traditions (cf. Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 7: 10, 12); 4) the faithfulness of the church in transmitting some of Jesus' more difficult sayings (Mark 9:2, 10:18, 13:32, etc.); 5) the problems of the early church as seen in the epistles are not specifically found in the Gospels, which indicates that the Gospels are not wholesale inventions of the early church in its attempt to deal with its questions, needs, and problems.64 With this in mind, let us now turn to an evaluation of the criteria of authenticity.

    The Criterion of Dissimilarity

The criterion of dissimilarity affirms that a saying or deed may be regarded as authentic if it cannot be shown to go back to similar phenomena in ancient Judaism or the church. It must be different than the characteristic emphases of Judaism or early Christianity. If it can be shown to agree with or be located in Judaism or the early church then Jesus did not say or do it.

This criterion has some strength in that it can validate a tradition, but it cannot invalidate a saying necessarily. That is, if a saying cannot be located in Judaism or the early church then it is reasonable to conclude that it goes back to the creative mind of Jesus. However, Jesus was a man who lived in the Jewish culture and therefore, it is unfair to rule as inauthentic a saying simply because it can be found in Judaism. There appears to be abundant evidence that Jesus used similar phraseology and thought modes as his contemporaries.65 Similarly, it seems reasonable to me that the early church wanted to preserve many of his actual words (1 Cor. 11:23, 24), so just because a saying can be found on the lips of the early church is no automatic guarantee that Jesus did not say it.66

The Jesus Seminar inconsistently applies this principle, especially as regards Christologically significant texts, i.e. the "Son of Man" sayings.67 The principle itself, as McKnight says, may rest upon the belief in the adequacy of our knowledge of ancient Judaism and the early church. This may prove to be wanting in some cases. It seems therefore, given the complexities of the life situation of Jesus, that the burden of proof rests upon those who want to deny a saying or deed as authentic. This criterion is helpful for determining what is unique to Jesus not what is characteristic of him.

    The Criterion of Multiple Attestation

According to the principle of multiple attestation, any motif may be regarded as authentic if the words upon which it rests are found in all, or most, of the sources (e.g. in Matt, Mark, Luke and Q) which stand behind the synoptic Gospels. According to McKnight it is to be used after the criteria of multiple attestation and coherence have been applied.68 Bock says, "multiple attestation occurs when a saying appears in multiple sources or in multiple forms (italics mine)."69 It is used to establish motifs in the teaching of the historical Jesus.

This particular criterion presupposes a solution to the synoptic problem and to the degree that that is tentative, so is this dictum. Ladd writing in 1969 was convinced that Markan priority was an "established fact"70 but Stein writing just over a decade later says that such has been "refuted" according to some scholars.71 We must remember that all our conclusions are tentative given this problem. Also, there is nothing that necessitates a tradition being inauthentic simply because it is found in only one source. Other principles such as internal improbability and contradiction with other traditions must take greater precedent in determining this.72

    The Criterion of Semitisms

Since Jesus spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic, any presence of Aramaic linguistic phenomena argues for the primitiveness of the tradition and the more primitive a tradition is the more likely that it actually came from Jesus himself. (Mk 15:34).

The principle assumes, at least at some level, that the early Christians did not write or speak Aramaic and did not add such activity to the gospel traditions. But isn't this the whole reason for the "criteria"—to determine which sayings and deeds are really of Jesus? Indeed, the implication involved in the whole process is that the early church did add their own material to their presentation of Jesus. The principle has therefore limited usefulness, but when combined with other criteria may help to determine the actual words of Jesus.

This criterion must also take into account: 1) the influence of the LXX upon the writers of the New Testament; 2) that there remains some question as to whether the Greek of the Gospels can be accurately translated back into Aramaic; and 3) the probability that Jesus himself spoke Greek on occasion.73

    The Criterion of Divergent Traditions

The principle of divergent traditions suggests that when a particular tradition differs somewhat from what appears to be the author's general perspective it may be regarded as authentic. Others have applied this criterion to differing traditions within (Matt. 10 and 28 [evangelism]) or between gospel accounts (Mark 10 and Matt 5 and 19 [divorce]).

This criterion does help to establish difficult sayings such as Mark 13:32, the theology of which does not seem to agree with Mark 1:1, wherein Mark seems to portray a fairly high Christology. But, the principle may require of us knowledge of the early church which we do not really possess and can tend to individualize the NT writers too much. As regards this last point, we must exercise caution before we set about to say that two traditions are in contradiction. Our knowledge of the situation in the early church may really not be adequate to the task.

    The Criterion of Primitive Eschatology

If a particular saying evinces a primitive/imminent eschatological outlook, it may be regarded as authentic (so Bultmann). Part of the problem with this criterion is that it understands Jesus to be monolithic in his approach to eschatology. However, there seems to be no a priori reason to reject the fact that Jesus shifted his eschatological focus during his ministry, especially in the light of the growing rejection of his person by the Jews. Perhaps this is the case in Matthew.74

    The Criterion of Palestinian Environment75

This criterion affirms that if a saying or deed appears to have a Hellenistic origin, it cannot be from Jesus, but is a later creation of the church. On the other hand, any saying or deed, be it religious, political, social or otherwise, must reflect Palestinian provenance to be considered authentic. The point of this criterion is that a Palestinian origin would lend support to the idea of an early tradition and therefore the greater the likelihood of its historicity. Some have argued against the authenticity of Mark 10:11-12 on this basis, since a wife divorcing her husband is unheard of in Judaism. Yet, as Stein points out, there is a realistic Sitz im Leben in Jesus' ministry for just such a saying, namely, the case of Herod and Herodias (Matt. 14:3, 4).76 This criterion might play a greater role in the case of customs, religious practices, social phenomena, etc. in the Gospels that are explicitly or implicitly communicating something about Jewish life. We can then compare that with other data we have about such things.

    The Criterion of Coherence

There is a lot of material from the earliest strata of Gospel tradition which cannot be verified as authentic using the criterion of dissimilarity, but as it coheres (i.e. substantially agrees with) with material deemed authentic by the criterion of dissimilarity, it may be regarded as authentic.

Insofar as this criterion rests upon the conclusions of the principle of dissimilarity it inherently acquires the strengths and weaknesses of it. It also has the methodological problem of determining what coheres with what, and why.

    The Criterion of Cause-Effect or Correlation

This criterion simply affirms a sound principle of historiography, namely, that causes postulated to account for the established effects one sees in one's sources must in fact be adequate to account for those effects.

    The Criterion of the Tendency of the Developing Tradition

The time period between the events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and the writing of the Gospels, is anywhere from 15-25 years or more in some cases. Thus the traditions about Jesus were passed orally among believers for at least a generation. When those traditions were picked up by the evangelists in their compositions, they altered them slightly in accordance with the truth and their own particular emphases and theology. The criterion of the tendency of the developing tradition seeks to discern what the evangelist as theologian/redactor has added or deleted from the tradition as he received it. This, of course, is in an attempt to "get back" to the original words or deeds of Jesus by understanding the "laws" of transmission of the tradition. When I use this criterion in the paper and suggest that a particular tradition meets this, I mean that the tradition in question has not been altered by the later church in the light of its theological interests and that the "laws" operative in this case are ones of memorization due to the essential nature of the material.

    The Criterion of Embarrassment

The criterion of embarrassment brings to light sayings or actions that are in the traditions, but at the same time constitute a possible embarrassment to the church. The baptism of Jesus and Peter's denial of Christ would fall into such a category. Therefore, if a tradition is found, which in all likelihood caused the church a certain degree of embarrassment, it is most likely authentic, since there would have been a tendency to omit it.77

    Summary

There are several criteria that aid us in reconstructing, from the Gospel materials as well as other early sources, the teachings and deeds of Jesus. We turn now to an application of those criteria to the resurrection narratives, including the material on the death of Jesus, his burial, the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and the disciples' belief in the resurrection.

The Historical Probability of the Resurrection

No one saw the resurrection of Jesus. All that was seen was the resurrected Jesus. If, then, a resurrection took place, it must be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty, historiographically speaking, that Jesus actually died and then was seen at some later time alive and in bodily form.78 A brief sketch of the Gospel testimony runs something like this: 1) Jesus died; 2) was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb; 3) the tomb was found empty three days later and 4) Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection. From this outline we may test the various incidents according to how well the testimony survives under the criteria of authenticity. This section seeks to analyze these various ideas according to the details of the Gospels and the criteria of authenticity.

    The Death of Jesus79

Before a resurrection can even be entertained, the death of the individual in question must be reasonably demonstrated—lest we get another "swoon theory." That Jesus did indeed die is unanimously attested by all four gospels (Matt. 27:50, 58, 59; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30). They all agree that he died by crucifixion, which itself was ordered by Pilate at the request of the people (Matt. 27:20, 26; Mark 15:1, 10, 15; Luke 23:20-25; John 19:13-16) and all the Synoptics converge on the timing of the death (Matthew 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34 and esp. 45; Luke 23:44-46). The early traditions coming out of the church clearly affirm that Jesus died. Peter's preaching in Acts 2:23 and 3:15 clearly affirm that Jesus died by crucifixion.80 Paul affirms Jesus' death in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4; Romans 1:3, 4 and Philippians 2:5-11. Thus the criterion of multiple attestation, coherence, and multiple forms demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion. That crucifixion was indeed practiced by the Romans, as indicated in the New Testament, is confirmed by Josephus (BJ 4.449). This satisfies the criterion of Palestinian Environment.81 Concerning the death of Jesus by crucifixion most scholars would agree.82

    Jesus' Burial in a Sealed and Guarded Tomb

The earliest tradition we have concerning the actual burial of Jesus Christ is found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4. The expression μti . . . μ . . . μ. . . μ . . . in verse 3, 4 and 5 indicates the emphatic nature of each part of the tradition.83 The tradition that Paul received indicated that Jesus had indeed been buried ().84 The gospels also confirm this testimony. All three Synoptics, as well as John, indicate that Jesus died and was wrapped in linen and then buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. All three agree that this took place on the day before the Sabbath, i.e. the day of Preparation. Matthew and Mark state that a large rock was rolled in front of the tomb and both Luke and John state that no one had been interred in the tomb before (Matt.27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42).

The information supplied by Paul, which appears to be an early tradition in the church, along with the Gospel records, unanimously affirms that Jesus was buried in a tomb after he had died. One may also consult Acts 13:28, 29. Therefore the criterion of multiple attestation argues for the authenticity of the event. That the tradition is early (30-36 A.D.)85 negates the possibility of the development of a legend concerning his death and burial—there were still eyewitnesses living. Some of those eyewitnesses were indeed women (Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47 and Luke 23:55) who played a role in the early church in which the traditions developed (Acts 1:14; cf. with Luke 8:2, 3; 23:49 and 23:55-24:10).86

That the tradition is secure and accurate is further confirmed by the fact that all the Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea and Luke tells us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50).87 Given the fact that all the writers implicate the religious leaders in Jesus' death,88 it seems rather odd that a member of the Sanhedrin should offer to bury Jesus, unless it really happened. Such a unanimously spoken of tradition would probably not survive due the presence of eyewitnesses, unless, of course, it were true.

The tradition of his burial is not surrounded by adornment and embellishing which satisfies the "criterion of the developing tradition or dissimilarity." The writers do not develop the burial of Christ into an apologetic or into a theological treatise of some kind in an attempt to encourage faith on the part of their churches. The later church cannot be read back into the description of Jesus' burial.

The "criterion of Palestinian environment" is satisfied in that the tomb in which Jesus was laid meets with archaeological discoveries, and the fact that Jesus, accused as a criminal, was buried in a new tomb coheres with the Jews not wanting to pollute other family members interred there.89 Also, it was Preparation day (Mark 15:42), the day before Passover, and Jesus' body would not have been allowed to remain on the cross until the next day, lest the corpse defile the land (cf. Numbers 9:6-10). Therefore, the fact that Joseph was allowed to bury him is reasonable.90 And since he died around the sixth hour (Mark 15:33-37), Joseph probably had time to accomplish the burial before nightfall and the beginning of the Sabbath.91

There has never been another conflicting tradition about the fact of Jesus' burial. Therefore, it seems reasonable, based upon this and the foregoing discussion, to assert that the burial of Jesus Christ, as outlined in the New Testament, is a true and accurate account of what actually happened. Crossan argues that it was the custom for the guards who crucified Jesus to bury the deceased. They stayed at the site to protect it from people who would try and help release the crucified (cf. Josephus, Life 421) and therefore to ensure the victim did indeed suffer a slow and agonizing death. He says that the people would have fled, thus "nobody knew what happened to the body of Jesus."92 This, he asserts, "presented early Christianity with an intolerable problem, one that is very clear across the texts of 70 Burial of Jesus [1/2]."93 Crossan maintains that an analysis of the Synoptics, John, and the so-called Cross-Gospel (from the Gospel of Peter) reveals a developing, fabricated tradition, as an attempt on the part of the early church to bring the tradition from a burial by an enemy (i.e. Joseph) to a regal embalming in John's Gospel.

Crossan's analysis is doubtful for several reasons. First, he totally disregards the fact that the tradition has women as witnesses to the burial, women who were later, a part of the early church. Second, his reconstruction based upon a so-called Cross-Gospel is wanting for it is doubtful that the Cross-Gospel represents another distinct tradition—as Crossan would affirm. It is simply not a tenet upon which to build a convincing argument.94 Third, his dismissal of Joseph as historical is probably not accurate for reasons suggested above. Fourth, the extreme skepticism with which he treats the sources, combined with the freedom he exerts to recreate the situation is irresponsible and unwarranted. The tradition does appear to develop, but not in the fanciful ways he suggests.95

    The Tomb Found Empty

According to the overwhelming evidence in the Gospels and other early traditions (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3, 4), Jesus of Nazareth did die by crucifixion and was buried in a guarded and sealed tomb. On the third day after all that took place, the tomb was found empty—according to the Gospels. Some have contended, however, that

the account of the empty tomb is a late tradition created by the early Church to help explain the resurrection appearances. . . The account of the empty tomb is therefore seen as completely secondary, an apologetic legend, unknown to Paul and of no significance in the apostolic preaching.96

We turn now to see if indeed the criticism are just or whether the account of the empty tomb is reasonable.

That the tomb was indeed found empty is secured by several facts. First, it is clear that the apostle Paul believed that the tomb was empty. The fact of the empty tomb stands behind the third element of the tradition he had received, according to 1 Corinthians 15:4. The statement, "he was raised," implies that the tomb was found empty, just as the fact that "he was buried" implies the burial traditions included in the Gospels. Since this was a tradition Paul received, perhaps from Ananias (Acts 9:9, 10), from other disciples in Damascus (9:19b) or from Peter (Galatians 1:18),97 it is likely a very early tradition—and Paul believed it. It would be incomprehensible for Paul to so boldly preach the bodily resurrection of Jesus, if he did not believe in the empty tomb.98

Second, the same criteria that were used to substantiate the burial of Jesus, figure in confirming the historical reliability of the empty tomb. The empty tomb tradition is found in Mark (16:1-8), Matthew (28:1-10), Luke (24:1-6) and John (20:1-2). Thus there is multiple attestation for the tradition of the empty tomb. And the tradition is found in three of the Gospel strata (i.e. Mark, "M" and John).

Third, the empty tomb narrative in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is not overlaid with theology for apologetic purposes.99 This makes it dissimilar to the preaching of the early church and therefore unlikely that the early church invented it.

Fourth, the Synoptics all maintain that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were there. John only mentions Mary Magdalene, Mark adds the mention of Salome (16:1) and Luke mentions "Joanna and the others with them" as well (24:10). There is no contradiction in the tradition and no need to postulate a conflict as to who saw the empty tomb. Each writer included the women he wanted and knew of, but no writer explicitly denies the assertions of another. The fact that women were witnesses to the empty tomb while the disciples were hiding in fear speaks volumes for its authenticity. If such a tradition were false, it would be difficult to conceive how it would be propagated for any length of time (cf. the criterion of embarrassment).

Matthew records the presence of one angel outside the tomb sitting on the rock (28:2). Mark mentions a young man dressed in a white robe in the tomb and John mentions no angels at all. The fact that Luke speaks of two men (24:4) dressed in clothes that shone like lightening references the fact they are angels (also cf. v. 23) and links us up with the transfiguration in 9:28ff. But, there may be a basic apologetic here for the resurrection in the light of Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15 and the fact that Luke describes them as "men." It is, however, not developed. The fact that there are two angels in Luke and only one in Mark and Matthew, is not a contradiction for it is not entirely out of character for an evangelist to focus on only one individual when others were present—as in the case of the blind man at Jericho (Mark 10:46, Luke 18:35 and Matt. 20:30). Since there is no basic contradiction in the accounts there is no need to postulate other competing traditions.100

Fifth, all the Gospel writers use the expression "first day of the week." This is significant for early preaching referred to his resurrection as being on the "third day" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). This indicates that the tradition goes back very early in the church and is therefore to be regarded as authentic. This, of course lends support to the whole tradition of the empty tomb. There are also other Semitic influences on the tradition including Matthew mentioning the "angel of the Lord" (28:2), the phrase . . . (Matt. 28:5) and Luke's "bowed their faces to the ground" (24:5).101

Sixth, Craig also adds that the investigation of the tomb by Peter and John is probably historical.102 This is true because both John's own testimony (20:3) and tradition independent of John (Luke 24:12, 24) indicate as much. The fact that the Gospels do not record the disciples fleeing to Galilee (cf. Jesus command to meet the disciples in Galilee implying that they were still in Jerusalem; Mark 16:7) suggests that they probably visited the tomb site due to the testimony of the women (Luke 24:9-12). It is reasonable they would have wanted to see what was going on with the body of Jesus, though they were not anticipating a resurrection as both Peter's puzzlement (Luke 24:12) and the explicit statement of John (20:9) make clear.

Seventh, there is also the consideration by some that if Jesus' body were really left in a tomb, he should have been venerated by his followers and his tomb enshrined. But there is no evidence that a tomb exists and that he was worshipped as such. Personally, I do not find this thesis probable. It is at best a corroboratory argument for the empty tomb, and may be difficult to support since Jesus was not really considered by Israel as a whole to be a prophet or man of God (an underlying premise in the argument). He had very few followers at the time of his death which makes this unlikely.103

Eighth, from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, in the development of their attack on the apostles, they did not deny that the tomb was empty (Matt. 28:15). Besides, the religious leaders could have put an end to the whole mess, if they could have produced a body. No such evidence was ever presented according to our sources.

From the preceding evidence it is clear that the tradition of the empty tomb passes the historiographical tests of: 1) multiple attestation; 2) dissimilarity; 3) tendencies of the developing tradition; 4) semitisms and 5) embarrassment. Therefore, a belief in the empty tomb is reasonable historically speaking. It bears all the marks of being early, and not a later creation of the church. It is to be regarded as authentic.

    Jesus' Appearances and the Disciples' Belief in His Resurrection

Sanders is incorrect to affirm that "the resurrection is not, strictly speaking, part of the story of the historical Jesus, but rather belongs to the aftermath of his life."104 Such a statement goes back to an unfounded wedge between history and theology. The Gospels record actual physical appearances of Jesus and therefore the sources in which those affirmations are found can be tested historiographically. According to Craig there are essentially four lines of evidence one can adduce in support of the historical reliability of the resurrection appearances: 1) The apostle Paul's testimony; 2) the genuine character of particular resurrection appearances, 3) the evidence for the general trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and 4) the fact that the appearances were of Jesus' resurrected body. Since we have already discussed #3 and #4 (see the preliminary discussion to the criteria of authenticity for #3), we will concentrate on the #1 and #2. We will discuss #1 under the heading of "Paul's Testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8" and #2 under the heading "The Historical Veracity of Certain Resurrection Appearances, and Other Phenomena."

    Paul's Testimony in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8

It is generally believed that the earlier a tradition is, the more likely it is to be authentic. This, of course, is a major idea behind the criteria of authenticity and form criticism. It is already been argued that the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 developed very early in the church. We maintain that the "witnesses" of 15: 5-8 are a part of that early tradition.105 There was not enough time to develop a legend in this regard, for the tradition here can probably be dated before A. D. 40 and some argue before A. D. 37.106 Since Jesus appeared then, to Peter, the Twelve, to 500 brothers, to James, other apostles and finally to Paul himself this is unlikely to be a fabrication. Peter, the Twelve and James were original leaders in the church (cf. Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council) and had early contact with Paul (perhaps A. D. 36-39; Gal. 1:18). He also appeared to over 500 other Christian men whom Paul says were still living. The Corinthians could have checked it out, and yet there is no reference in our sources to the Corinthians, after Paul sent his letter, denying the resurrection.

      The Historical Veracity of Certain
      Resurrection Appearances, and Other Phenomena

The fact James was doubtful of Jesus' identity during his life (Mark 3:21; John 7:1-5) and that he later became a pillar and apostle in the church (Acts 15; Gal. 1:19) requires a sufficient cause. A myth about a resurrection, or dreams about such a thing for that matter, cannot honestly lead to such a change of heart. The last James saw of his brother, was his death on a cross. The only reasonable explanation is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead and appear to him, just as tradition says (1 Cor. 15:7).

If it is difficult to see how James came to faith in his own brother as Messiah, it is even harder to account for Saul, the Pharisee and as Luke says, the one who was going about trying to destroy the church of God and wipe out for ever the name of Jesus from under heaven (cf. Acts 8:1; 9:1). Did Paul suddenly feel remorse for his actions? Probably not. This might lead him to desist from his attacks on the church, but it cannot account for his faith in Jesus as Messiah (Rom. 10:9, 10). Did he just realize from his background that Jesus fits the Messianic bill, so to speak? This is unlikely, since the bodily resurrection of an isolated individual is not found in the Judaism of Paul's day. There was only the general resurrection of all people at the end (criterion of Palestinian environment [context and expectation]).107 And, the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was probably foreign to Paul. There is simply no natural cause adequate to explain how a Pharisee of Paul's standing and zeal (cf. Phil. 3:2-6) could so reverse his direction in life, abandon his understanding of the Law, and proclaim Jesus, not only as Israel's resurrected Messiah, but also the Savior of all men, Jew and Gentile alike (Phil. 3:20; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21). He even goes so far as to teach Jewish/Gentile equality in God's plan (Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6). Not only this, but Paul suffered greatly as a result of his faith in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23-29) and as tradition would have it, ended up dying for that conviction.108 This is only reasonably accounted for on the basis of his seeing the resurrected Jesus as outlined in Acts 9. All natural explanations crumble under the weight of the evidence.

Both Matthew and Mark, as well as John, affirm that Jesus' first appearance was to the women, including Mary Magdalene out of whom Mark says, Jesus cast several demons (Matt. 28:8-10; Mark 16:9-14; John 20:18). In first century Judaism, since the claim of women witnesses would not carry much weight, it is likely, given the criterion of embarrassment that this tradition is true. It does nothing to help their cause in promoting Jesus as risen from the dead. The fact that Paul leaves the women out in his list of witnesses confirms this interpretation (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

The emergence and growth of the church in Jerusalem and around the known world at that time is difficult to explain on the basis of naturalistic causes. Fear of the religious and political authorities (cf. Acts 4:3, 21; 5:33, 40) would have squelched the movement, as in the case of the Theudas and "the Galilean" (Acts 5:36, 37).

One must consider how the early church treated sin as well. They did not tolerate it, as can be seen in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). This is not exactly the way a movement goes about the process of attracting followers. There was belief in Jesus' resurrection and only such a belief would cause sane people to become a part of the church. In this connection, as a corroboratory piece of evidence, we ought to consider Paul's ethics which he enjoined on the churches in the name of the risen Lord. It is an incredibly demanding ethic and not very easy to live out (Rom. 6:12, 13; 2 Cor. 10:5; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 3:5; 4:29). It is difficult to believe that people would submit to this without a sufficient reason. The resurrection of Christ provides the a priori reason to move toward a lifestyle like Paul outlines in his letters and also offers the hope required to fulfill that ethic. This must not be diminished given what we know about human nature and its propensity to all kinds of social evil.

For these reasons it is difficult to accept Sanders' view that the resurrection of Jesus is simply something Jesus' followers believed to be true (though it was not), due to some experience (but not Jesus' bodily resurrection) they had. He says that they believed it, lived for it and died for it.109 This kind of rationale simply denies the early nature of the tradition, the testimony of manifold witnesses (including women), and suggests a cause that according to the principles of correlation one finds to be inept as far as producing the results affirmed by the book of Acts. Behind this reconstruction lies the commitment he so clearly enumerated on page 143 of his book. He completely denies the miraculous.

Crossan says that the resurrection was "the continuing presence in a continuing community of the past Jesus in a radically new and transcendental [sic] mode of present and future existence. But, how to express that phenomena?"110 Crossan argues that the first Christians picked up the language of resurrection in order to accommodate their idea of Jesus' continuing presence, but they knew that it was not literally true. This interpretation fails for a number of reasons. First, the earliest tradition (i.e. 1 Cor. 15:3, 4) links up the resurrection of Christ with the resurrection of believers. This cannot be interpreted as "continuing presence." Second, as stated above, there is no real antecedent in Judaism to give the apostles the idea of a resurrection of a single individual and then claim that as such he is the Messiah. This would not have been believed by so many Jews (cf. Acts 2:41) unless it actually did happen. They did not expect such a Messiah. It is very difficult to believe that they could have invented the whole story—while eyewitnesses were still living. Third, if Crossan is correct, Paul's discussion about the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:35) is a total fabrication, misleading and therefore essentially a lie. Fourth, it is very difficult to explain the early, widespread belief in Jesus' resurrection, if indeed it were not true. Fifth, such a reconstruction is simply inadequate to account for James' and Paul's conversion and the emergence of the church.111

Summary

This chapter began with a statement and brief description of the criteria of authenticity. Then, from a worldview that allows for the supernatural, we tested the various traditions in the Gospels to see if they qualify as historically reliable witnesses to the resurrection. We demonstrated that Jesus did in fact die by crucifixion and then was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb. Then we showed that the tradition surrounding the empty tomb was reliable. Finally, we demonstrated that the resurrection narratives and early traditions are credible witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. The result is that the tomb was found empty because Jesus did indeed rise bodily from the grave. Although Sanders and Crossan suggest alternative theories, this is the best answer to account for the traditions and the subsequent history of the church.

Chapter 4:
Conclusion

The study noted that many scholars recognize that there have been two previous quests for the historical Jesus and that we are presently in the third. The one common commitment among many scholars presently engaged in the pursuit of the historical Jesus, a presupposition about history that goes back to the Enlightenment and thinkers like David Hume and Benedict de Spinoza, is an a priori denial of the supernatural. This they bring wholeheartedly to the study of the Gospel materials. We pointed out in the second chapter that such a commitment is unfounded and in reality, an illusion. In so doing we opened the door for an analysis of the Gospel materials relating to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus from a worldview which allows for the supernatural.

We looked at the narrative material surrounding the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and found that after analysis on the basis of several of the criteria of authenticity, the traditions should be regarded as accurate accounts of what actually happened in history. The traditions are indeed very old and attested in all the Gospels and different layers of the Gospel strata. The presence of eyewitnesses, the radical changes in people's lives (e.g. James and Paul) and the emergence of the church in Jerusalem despite opposition, are only accounted for the on the basis of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Any other cause, like those suggested by Sanders and Crossan, cannot cohere with the data of the Gospels and lacks sufficient power to account for the effects outlined in Scripture.

Selected Bibliography

Books

Adler, Mortimer J. Ten Philosophical Mistakes. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1985.

Anderson, Charles C. The Historical Jesus: A Continuing Quest. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

Anderson, Sir Norman. Jesus Christ: The Witness of History. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.

Beckwith, Francis J. David Hume's Argument against Miracles. New York: University Press of America, 1989.

Benoit, Pierre. Jesus and the Gospel. Translated by Benet Weatherhead. Bristol: Herder and Herder, 1973.

Bloch, Marc. The Historian's Craft. Translated by Peter Putnam. New York: Vintage Books, 1953.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1987.

Brown, Colin. Miracles and the Critical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Toronto: Doubleday Publishers, 1969.

Bultmann, Rudolph. Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolph Bultmann. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960.

________. New Testament Theology. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 Volumes in One. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951-55.

Cantor, Norman F. and Richard I. Schneider. How to Study History. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1967.

Chilton, Bruce. Beginning New Testament Study. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Commager, Henry Steele. The Study of History. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966.

Craig, William Lane. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy. Texts and Studies in Religion, no. 23. Queenston, Ontario: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1985.

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

Feine, Paul and Johannes Behm. Introduction to the New Testament. 14th Rev. ed. Edited by Werner Georg Kummel. Translated by A. J. Mattill, Jr. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1993.

Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and Modern Thought. Christian Free University Curriculum. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Geisler, Norman L. and William D. Watkins. Worlds Apart: A Handbook on Worldviews. 2 ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Geisler, Norman L. and Winfried Corduan. Philosophy of Religion. 2 ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Green, Joel B. and Michael C. MacKeever. Luke-Acts & New Testament Historiography. IBR Bibliographies, no. 8. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

Habermas, Gary R. The Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

________. The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life of Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Harvey, Van E. The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Hasel, Gerhard. New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Hexter, J. H. Doing History. Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press, 1971.

Hume, David. Of Miracles. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishers, 1985.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971.

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, ed. Dan O. Via. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Kummel, Werner Georg. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Translated by S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.

Ladd, George Eldon. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967.

________. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Leith, John H., ed. Creeds of the Churches. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1982.

Lewis, C. S. Fern-seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity. Great Britain: Collins, 1975.

________. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishing, 1947.

Longenecker, Richard N. Acts. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, no. 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

MacQuarrie, John. Twentieth-Century Religious Thought. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1988.

Mare, W. Harold. 1 Corinthians. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, no. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Maritain, Jacques. An Introduction to Philosophy. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1930.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker, no. 5. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980.

Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.

McKnight, Edgar V. What Is Form Criticism. Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, ed. Dan O. Via. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

McKnight, Scot, ed. Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. Guides to New Testament Exegesis, no. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Miethe, Terry L., ed. Did Jesus Rise From the Dead: The Resurrection Debate. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Sather Classical Series, no. 54. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990.

Neill, Stephen and Tom Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Netland, Harold A. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.

Niebuhr, Richard H. Resurrection and Historical Reason. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957.

Osborne, Grant. The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967.

________. What Is Redaction Criticism. Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, ed. Dan O. Via. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Ross, Hugh N. Creation and Time. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: The Penguin Press, 1993.

Schussler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. Miriam's Child, Sophia's Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. New York: Continuum Publishers, 1994.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1968.

Spinoza, Benedict de. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. New York: George Routledge and Sons, n.d.

Stanford, Michael. The Nature of Historical Knowledge. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Staudinger, Hugo. The Trustworthiness of the Gospels. Translated by Robin T. Hammond. Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1981.

Strauss, David Friedrich. In Defense of My 'Life of Jesus' Against the Hegelians. Translated by Marilyn Chapin Massey. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1983.

________. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Lives of Jesus Series, ed. Leander E. Keck and Peter C. Hodgson. Translated by George Eliot. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

Yandell, Keith E. Christianity and Philosophy. Studies in a Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

Essays

Barclay, John M. G. "Jesus and Paul." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 492-503. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Blomberg, Craig. "New Testament Miracles and Higher Criticism: Climbing Up the Slippery Slope," December 1989 [A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Chicago, IL.].

________. "Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?" In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 17-50. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Bock, Darrell L. "Form Criticism." In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 175-96. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

________. "The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex." In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 73-99. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Bruce, F. F. "The History of New Testament Study." In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall, 21-59. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977.

Bultmann, Rudolph. "New Testament and Mythology." In Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, Translated by. Reginald H. Fuller, 1-44. London: SPCK, 1954.

Craig, William Lane. "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 141-76. , 1995.

________. "The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective." In Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, 9-48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

Dockery, David S. "New Testament Interpretation: A Historical Survey." In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 41-69. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. "Demythologizing-The Problem of Myth in the New Testament." In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall, 285-307. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977.

Evans, Craig A. "What Did Jesus Do?" In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 101-15. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Garland, David E. "Background Studies and New Testament Interpretation." In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 349-76. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

Gary R. Habermas. "Did Jesus Perform Miracles." In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 117-40. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Geivett, R. Douglas. "Is Jesus the Only Way?" In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 177-205. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Guelich, Robert A. "The 'Christ' of the Gospel: A Lesson From Mark's Christology." In Perspectives on Christology: Essays in Honor of Paul K. Jewett, ed. Marguerite Shuster and Richard Muller, 3-17. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1991.

Hagner, D. A. "The New Testament, History, and the Historical-Critical Method." In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 73-96. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

Harris, Murray J. "'The Dead Are Restored to Life': Miracles or Revivification in the Gospels." In Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, 295-326. Vol. 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

Joel B. Green. "Burial of Jesus." In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, 88-92. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992.

Kim, Seyoon. "Jesus, Sayings Of." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid and Gerald F. Hawthorne, 474-92. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Livingstone, David N. "Farewell to Arms: Reflections on the Encounter Between Science and Faith." In Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World, ed. Mark A. Noll and David F. Wells, 239-62. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

McKnight, Scot. "Who Is Jesus? An Introduction to Jesus Studies." In Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 51-72. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Osborne, Grant O. "Redaction Criticism." In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 199-224. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

Payne, J. Barton. "Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy." In Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler, 85-113. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.

Pierard, R. V. "Troeltsch, Ernst," In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter L. Elwell. 1113. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Stanton, Graham N. "Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism." In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall, 60-71. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977.

Wilkens, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland. "Introduction: The Furor Surrounding Jesus." In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkens and J. P. Moreland, 1-15. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Wilkins, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland. "What Does All This Mean?" In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 231-32. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?" In Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 207-29. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Periodical Articles

Calvert, D. G. A. "An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus," New Testament Studies 18 (1971-72): 209-18.

Evans, Craig A. "Life-of-Jesus Research and Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993): 3-36.

Stein, Robert H. "Was The Tomb Really Empty?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (March 1977): 23-9.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7," Catholic Biblical Quarterly (October 1981): 582-89.

Webber, Randall C. "A Note on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (September 1983): 265-9.

Magazines

Van Biema, David. "The Gospel Truth?" Time, 8 April 1996, 52-9.

Woodward, Kenneth L. "Rethinking the Resurrection." Newsweek, 8 April 1996, 60-70.

Edwards, James R. "Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?" Christianity Today, 4 April 1996, 15-20.

Unpublished Materials

Phillips, Gary. "A Critique of the Criteria for Determining the Authentic Sayings of Jesus." Th. M. Masters thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975.


1 The Renaissance was marked by a "return to the sources." Johannes Reuchlin initiated the study of Hebrew and eventually the humanist renaissance contributed philological tools for biblical interpretation. Erasmus studied the Scripture as he did any other ancient text, making critical, historical judgments about the text and its meaning. The scientific revolution, promoted by the work of N. Copernicus, J. Kepler and Galileo Galilei resulted in a new locus for the authority of understanding Scripture, namely, reason. Galileo's claim to the heliocentricity of our universe created a tension for the current understanding of Scripture. Isaac de La Peyrere's Prae Adamiten is an example of how history grounded in rationalism began to shape what the Bible taught and uncover the tension between historical sources and the Bible's chronology. And, the work of Ren Descartes (Discours de la Mthode) helped establish the criteria of doubt as a universally valid principle, impacting science, philosophy and historiography. The end result was that reason was "made the norm over religion" and a radical literary criticism of the Bible was undertaken, including a concomitant denial of the miraculous in the interpretation of Scripture (e.g. Spinoza; J. B. Witter; J. Astruc; J. J. Griesbach; G. E. Lessing and J. G. Eichhorn). Cf. Gerhard Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 18-28 and Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, vol. 2 (SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 185, who says that rationalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was "characterized by its interest in the world and by its confidence in the powers of reason."

2 Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 3, 4. See also F. F. Bruce, "The History of New Testament Study," in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 21-59, for a nice discussion of the history of New Testament interpretation and the rise of the historical-critical method.

3 Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995), 9.

4 Cf. Charles H. Talbert, ed. "Reimarus: Fragments," in Lives of Jesus Series, trans. Ralph S. Fraser (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970). Cf. also Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Remairus to Wrede (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1968), 13, who says that "before Reimarus no one had attempted to form a historical conception of the life of Jesus."

5 David Friedrich Strauss, "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined," in Lives of Jesus Series, ed. Peter C. Hodgson, trans. George Eliot (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972). idem., In Defense of My Life of Jesus against the Hegelians, ed. and trans. Marilyn Chapin Massey (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1983).

6 The Jesus Seminar and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, rely heavily upon Thomas and in Fiorenza's case, the book of Judith as well. One scholar, John Dominic Crossan, makes much of an Apocryphal book, namely, the Gospel of Peter. Mention will be made of Crossan's approach later in the paper. For information on these points see the appropriate sections in Ben Witherington, III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995).

7 See Witherington, Jesus Quest. Consult the entire work for recent examples; Colin Brown, "Historical Jesus, Quest of," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 326-341. Cf. also Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 182-205; Stephen Neill, Jesus through Many Eyes: Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 164-95.

8 Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds. "Introduction: The Furor Surrounding Jesus," in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1995), 4, 5.

9 Pierre Benoit, Jesus and the Gospel, trans. Benet Weatherhead (Bristol: Herder and Herder, 1973), 39. Benoit is referring to the development of tradition criticism (e.g. form criticism), but these constitute in part, methods that are used to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus and so his comment equally applies to the quest—even today in the nineties.

10 On form criticism see, Edgar V. McKnight, What is Form Criticism, Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, ed. Dan O. Via (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 1-3. On redaction criticism see, Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism, Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, ed. Dan O. Via (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 1-24.

11 Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 400. The situation described concerning the lack of comment by Third Questers on Jesus' resurrection, as late as 1986, does not appear to have changed substantially since then.

12 Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover, eds. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1993). See also David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" Time 8 April 1996, 52-59; Kenneth L. Woodward, "Rethinking the Resurrection," Newsweek 8 April 1996, 60-70. For a criticism of these popular ideas about Jesus, see James R. Edwards, "Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?" Christianity Today 4 March 1996, 15-20. Edwards rightly recognizes and questions the tremendous bias against the possibility of the supernatural among certain scholars engaged in the third quest.

13 Cf. Darrell L. Bock, "The Words of Jesus: Live, Jive, or Memorex" in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 91, 92. See also Donald A. Hagner, "The New Testament, History, and the Historical-Critical Method," in New Testament Criticism & Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 82, who says that "it is clear that especially where the study of the historical Jesus is concerned, scholars—far more than they are generally prone to admit—let their presuppositions largely govern the conclusions to which they come."

14 By reductionism I mean the tendency to see Jesus as either this kind of person or that, either a cynic, or a sage, either a man of the spirit or a Jewish peasant. See Ben Witherington, III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995), 185.

15 R. V. Pierard, "Troeltsch, Ernst" in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 1113.

16 George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 175, 76.

17 Cf. John MacQuarrie, Twentieth Century Religious Thought (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1988), 143, as an advocate of the relativistic stance arising out of the "comparative religions" position, says with approval that Troeltsch's principles, when grounded in rationalism, deprive Christianity of certainty in its historical basis, leaves it shorn it of its supernatural element and denies it any final or absolute character. This, he claims, renders Christianity a "great service" (154). Such a view is according to philosophical naturalism and as Wilkins and Moreland argue, it a priori excludes "large portions of the gospel material" and has other implications as well. The point is, how can it help Christianity if it virtually rewrites the sources? Is it Christianity anymore? See Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds. "Introduction," in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholars Reinvent the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 4.

18 No clearer affirmation of this situation can be found than that which comes from the pen of Norman Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 78, who says that, "none of the gospel writers is concerned to give us what we call historical information; they are evangelists, not historians."

19 Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, "Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church," in The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 451 and V. L. Walter, "Arianism" in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 74, 75.

20 Cf. John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches, 3rd ed. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1982), 27f, 31-37. On the Council of Chalcedon see, Harold A. Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), 236-40.

21 See Roland H. Bainton, "The Bible in the Reformation," in The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S. L. Greenslade , vol. 3 ((Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 1-37.

22 Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and Modern Thought, Christian Free University Curriculum: Philosophy Series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 12, 13.

23 Cicero, De Divinatione II xxviii. Loab Classic Library, vol. 20 trans. W. A. Falconer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).

24 E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: The Penguin Press, 1993), 143. See also William Lane Craig, "The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective," in Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, vol. 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 43 who flat-out denies the premises upon which these conclusions rest and who also says that many other scholars are coming to recognize the illegitimacy of such a stance.

25 Though it appears that the Sadducees denied the resurrection, rewards after death, possibly the immortality of the soul and angels (cf. Josephus, Wars 2. 164-66; Ant. 18. 16, 17; Matt 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke. 20:27 and Acts 23:8), it is difficult since they believed in the Pentateuch, to ascribe such rationalism to them. Most of what we have in terms of evidence for their beliefs is set in contrast to the Pharisees. As such, it appears that we possess no positive statement of Sadduceean doctrine. Cf. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Toronto: Doubleday, 1969), 74-76. Cf. also B. D. Chilton, "Judaism," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 403, who says "they are typically portrayed in a negative light as not teaching the resurrection of the dead, but the issue may have been one of emphasis. . . ."

26 Hume eventually attacked Deism in his literary works. See R. P. Raush, "Hume, David" in Dictionary of Evangelical Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 536.

27 It is anachronistic to say that Spinoza worked within Newton's worldview because Newton wrote his most influential piece concerning the nature of the world, the Principia, in 1687. The point is though, their mechanistic view of the world was similar and certainly the thought of Newton has some of its antecedents in those who came before him.

28 Francis J. Beckwith, David Hume's Argument against Miracles: A Critical Analysis (New York: University Press of America, 1989), 23. Cf. also, Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 29, f. n. 18.

29 Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 55, 57. Krentz says that Troeltsch's principles still "haunt" theology and that all historians acknowledge his second principle of analogy.

30 Since the Gospels purport to be historical, that is, relating events that happened in certain time periods etc. (e. g. cf. Luke 3:1), such a question is valid and necessary.

31 Cf. William Lane Craig, "The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective," in Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, vol. 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 16, 17. For further understanding of the context of the whole debate over miracles and the battles between orthodox and deistic theologies see, idem, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (Queenston, Ontario: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1985), 176-316.

32 Benedict de Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, trans. R. H. M. Elwes (New York: George Routledge and Sons, n. d.), 83.

33 Geisler, Miracles, 17.

34 Spinoza's argument is deductive and since the conclusion is present in the premises, the argument is formally valid. The problem is that the premises can be challenged as inaccurate. They are, of course, false and therefore his argument is invalid. The strength of deductive reasoning rests on the degree of knowledge one possesses of the classes, etc. about which one is talking. It is better to proceed by way of inference or induction when talking about the laws of nature or history. The whole foundation of assigning to natural phenomena certain laws, is descriptive, not prescriptive. We simply do not have all the facts.

35 Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1994), 126-28. See also Geisler, Miracles, 18.

36 Geisler, Miracles, 23. Cf. also, Habermas, Resurrection, 28, f. n. 15 and 17, who says that Strauss, Schleiermacher, Paulus, Bruno, Baur, Renan, Pfleiderer, von Harnack, Tillich, Bultmann and J. A. T. Robinson all rejected miracles due to Hume's arguments.

37 Cf. Habermas, Resurrection, 29, who cites David Freidrich Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, no translator given (Second edition; two volumes; London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), vol. I: 199. Cf. Lane, Problem of Miracles, 14, 15 and f. n. 17. Strauss carved out a middle path between Reimarus's idea of conspiracy and Paulus's striving against all odds to manufacture naturalistic explanations no matter how silly they sounded. As Lane makes clear, Strauss (Das Leben Jesu) is guided totally by Hume's antisupernaturalism and his influence can be seen, for example, in Bultmann in modern scholarship.

38 There have been many who have responded to Hume in the early years including Thomas Sherlock, The Tryal [sic] of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus (1729), Gottfried Less, Wahrheit der christlichen Religion (1758) and William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794). See Lane, Problem of Miracles, 22-27. A current response to Hume is Beckwith, David Hume's Argument against Miracles: A Critical Analysis, 23, who quotes Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 79, as saying that no work on miracles penned in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century receives greater attention than Hume's slim essay."

39 C. S. Lewis, Miracles (London: Fount/HarperCollins Publishers, 1947), 106.

40 One of the definitional aspects of a miracle is that it be rare or at least distinctive from the normal order of things. If it were not, it would not be discernible as a miracle, but only regarded as a natural event with natural causes. Following this analysis it would be subject to study and reduced to a law of nature. Given that a miracle is rare then, but historical, the event insofar as there are witnesses, can be tested for its veracity by examining both internal and external probabilities.

41 See Habermas, Resurrection, 28, f. n. 13. He says, "Hume ignores the possibility that God exists and that He may have set these laws aside temporarily in order to perform a miracle. But no amount of arguing from naturalistic premises inside a system can ever disprove the possibility that God has performed an event in nature from outside of it." I would add that the nature miracles in the Gospels are local in scope and in reality God does not seem to set aside natural laws, he simply overcomes them by His power and according to some intelligible purpose.

42 David Hume, Of Miracles (La Salle: Open Court, 1985), 25.

43 Cf. Geisler, Miracles, 35-46. Lane, Problem of Miracles, 39f. In our times scholars such as Antony Flew and George Chryssides argue against miracles on the basis that they are not repeatable in the present. The arguments have their origin in Hume and rest on the inviolable laws of nature. In short, the best their arguments can muster is the idea that miracles are probably rare. Most would agree.

44 See Michael Stanford, The Nature of Historical Knowledge (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 27; Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 32-33. The issue of the relation of faith to historical inquiry is extremely complex. What appears on the surface to be fairly straightforward is quite another matter upon exploration as Harvey makes clear. It will not do to make a distinction and drive a wedge between historical knowledge and faith to the point that Bultmann did. In his conception, faith was entirely independent of historical reconstruction by its very nature. Yet this is untenable, for faith has an object, namely, God, which requires knowledge of him (not just striving after authentic human existence). This knowledge is mediated through historical events and writings explaining those events. See George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. Donald A. Hagner (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 177, 78 and Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft, trans. Peter Putnam (New York: Vintage Books, 1953), 124-26; Norman F. Cantor and Richard I. Schneider, How to Study History (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1967), 178.

45 Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 55, says that the principle of correlation is the most devastating for Christianity. This is only true on the a priori grounds of a refusal to allow for supernatural intervention. Most other writers I surveyed clearly believed that the principle of analogy is the criteria by which most do away with the notion of miracles. One can observe Troeltsch's principle of analogy anticipated by Hume in his doctrine of "uniform experience." Again, this is a powerful argument, but when all is said and done, the best it can achieve is to demonstrate that miracles are rare and perhaps not a modern phenomena. There is no way, without an unwarranted leap, that such an argument from experience can be universal, or preclude the possibility of a miracle. Such a conclusion is a non-sequitur.

46 Harvey, The Historian and the Believer, 98.

47 Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 58.

48 C. S. Lewis, Fern-Seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Fount/HarperCollins Publishers, 1975), 46. Lewis says that "historicism is an illusion and . . . historicists are, at the very best, wasting their time." Cf. also J. H. Hexter, Doing History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 140, who says that "intelligent criticism has reduced both positivism and the substantive philosophy of history to methodological absurdity, equally futile and preposterous modes of dealing with the data available to historians, chimeras to which no historian need pay heed, except insofar as he happens to be interested in the history of systematic intellectual error of a sort similar to astrology, heptascopy and phrenology."

49 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, "Historical Criticism," in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 129.

50 Lewis, Miracles, 110.

51 Cf. Mortimer J. Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987), 77-82.

52 Witherington, The Jesus Quest, 166.

53 Craig L. Blomberg, "The Miracles as Parables," in Gospel Perspectives: The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, vol. 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 327-360. Blomberg's argument is helpful for those who argue that Jesus' miracles do not cohere with his teaching and are therefore inauthentic. In many cases, according to Blomberg, such scholars reflect a lack of understanding or appreciation for the literary context of Jesus' miracles in the Gospels and as such misinterpret them.

54 Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover, eds. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1993), 2. Bultmann said the same thing approximately 40 years earlier. See Rudolph Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology" in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1954), 4.

55 Donald A. Hagner, "The New Testament, History, and the Historical-Critical Method," in New Testament Criticism & Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 88.

56 The disciples scattered while he was alive, it is therefore unreasonable to think that they could mount a movement once he were dead. For the demise of the whole mythological approach to the new Testament see, Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993), 3-36.

57 Cf. William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead," in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 162.

58 Cf. Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 223-30, who discusses the various uses of the term in technical, non-technical and religious and secular ways.

59 Cf. W. Harold Mare, I Corinthians, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Geabelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 282-84. Paul refers to the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:44 as a sw`ma pneumatikovn, not just a pneu`ma.

60 Jewish belief in the resurrection, especially among Pharisees (e.g. Paul) was a belief in bodily resurrection. Most Greeks and certain Jews argued against such an idea. This is probably due to the influence of Hellenization on some Jews. But cf. Baruch, 49-51, and Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 53.

61 For more detailed argumentation on these issues see, William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 153-59.

62 George Eldon Ladd, A New Testament Theology, rev. ed., ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 358-63. Several facts contribute to the thesis that Jesus’ resurrection body was (and still is) a genuine human body, but also possessed powers beyond a normal human body. First, he ate food after the resurrection (Luke24:42f). Second, the disciples do not seem to question his humanity and indeed he responds to them and is accepted by them as he was before the resurrection (Matt 28:9; John 20:16, 17, 27). Third, Jesus explicitly affirmed himself as having a material body (Luke 24:39). From passages in Luke and John, Ladd develops the idea that Jesus’ resurrected body, while it was certainly human, also possessed powers beyond the normal human capabilities, including the power to appear and disappear at will (Luke 24:31, John 20:19, 26). In Acts 1:3 it says that Jesus appeared to the disciples over a period of forty days. The implication seems to be that he appeared and disappeared repeatedly over that time period. The ascension also indicates supernatural powers on the part of Jesus’ resurrected body (Acts 1:11) as well as Jesus’ appearance to the apostle Paul on the Damascus road (Acts 9).

63 This of course is presupposed in D. G. A. Calvert's work wherein he understands some to be negative and some to be positive. See D. G. A. Calvert, "An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Words of Jesus," New Testament Studies 18 (1971, 72): 209-18. An example of this would include the "criterion of Dissimilarity" and the "criterion of Divergent Patterns from the Redaction." See Robert H. Stein, "The 'Criteria' for Authenticity," in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 247.

64 For a more thorough discussion of these facts see, Stein, "Criteria," 225-27. Stein, conscious of the skeptical attitude that many scholars bring to the Gospels on this issue, says that "to assume the inauthenticity of the Gospel materials, unless proven otherwise, appears to be an extreme skepticism unwarranted both in the light of the various arguments listed above [i.e. the arguments of eyewitnesses, faithfulness to traditions, etc.] and a violation of a common courtesy every witness deserves. A witness should be presumed innocent until proven guilty" (227).

65 For example: Abot 2:1G says that a person, in order to remain free of the clutches of transgression should persist in three things, one of them being "an ear to hear." A similar expression can be found in the teaching of Jesus on several occasions. For example, in Mark 4:9, after (cf. 4:3 also) He had spoken the parable of the sower, he said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Both expressions have obvious spiritual connotations. In Luke 16 Jesus tells a parable about the shrewd manager in order to illustrate that "whoever can be trusted with very little, can be trusted with much." The rabbis held to a similar idea. Abot 2:1B says that one ought to be meticulous in a small religious duty as in a large one. Notice that both Jesus and the rabbis set this idea in the context of rewards.

66 Darrell L. Bock, "The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?" in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 90-92.

67 Ibid., 91, 92.

68 Scot McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, Guides to New Testament Exegesis, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 60, 61.

69 Bock, "Words of Jesus," 92. See also, Stein, "'Criteria' for Authenticity," 233 who applies it to Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God.

70 George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 127.

71 Stein, "Criteria," 231.

72 Ibid., 232, f. n. 19.

73 Ibid., 235. Stein says that if a saying can be located in the Aramaic speaking church perhaps it then supports the contention that it goes back to Jesus.

74 This would seem to involve the idea of contingency in the offer of the kingdom. So Stanley D. Toussaint, "The Contingency of the Coming Kingdom," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell, eds. Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 222-237.

75 One might also refer to aspects of this as the criterion of context and expectation. See Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and Mythology," 26-29.

76 Stein, "Criteria," 237.

77 Evans, "Life-of Jesus Research and Mythology," 24-26. This criterion focuses on what one would expect from a Jewish context, both theologically and culturally.

78 There has been great debate over the nature of the resurrection body. It is not my contention here to argue for a precise view, but simply to state that his body was fully material and human, but that it also possessed supra-human powers.

79 There have been many suggestions put forward to try and account for the reason Christ suffered capital punishment. We are not concerned here to demonstrate the reason for his death, but only that he did indeed die.

80 There is not space to enter into a discussion of the problem of Luke's speech material and its authenticity. My opinion is that Luke composed his material by abridging the original sermons, etc. so that what is in the text accurately represents what was said and what was meant by it. See Richard N. Longenecker, Acts, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 9, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 221-31. I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 5. ed. R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980), 35; idem., Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970).

81 Cf. the Testimonium Flavinium (Ant. 18. 63-64). It is a much disputed text, but while I do not feel that all of the text is genuine, it appears that reference to Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate, as having no theological ax to grind necessarily, is probably authentic. See Steven Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 173. See also A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 34, who says, "Pilate sentenced Christ and carried out the sentence Roman fashion, by crucifixion."

82 Cf. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: The Penguin Press, 1993), 274, who agrees with the Gospel witness that Jesus died by crucifixion.

83 Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7," Catholic Biblical Quarterly (October 1981), 589. See also Randall C. Webber, "A Note on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5," JETS (September 1983), 265-9, on the Formgeschichte, Traditiongeschichte, origin and Sitz im Leben, of the passage.

84 Apart from this passage, the term qavptw occurs 10 times. Three in Matthew, three in Luke, and four times in Acts 5. It always refers to the physical burial of a dead person.

85 Cf. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 485-89. Lane recognizes the primitive character of Marks' passion narrative and also argues that the tradition developed out of the same tradition found in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

86 Longenecker, Acts, 260, 61.

87 Luke uses the term bouleuth" which Marshall understands to refer to a member of the Sanhedrin; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 879.

88 Cf. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 273, 74, argues that Pilate is portrayed as a weakling so that the blame is to be laid totally at the feet of the Jewish religious leaders. Thus we have in the Gospels traces of anti-Semitism in the Christians' attempt to separate themselves from the Jews and bolster goodwill between themselves and Rome. This argument tends to pass over the fact that Pilate was not a weak person, either in Josephus (BJ 2.174, 177) or in the Gospels (cf. Luke 13:1). Also, it appears to be doubtful that portraying one of Rome's leaders as weak would indeed grant one the friendship one desires. The crowd was stirred up by the chief priests and Pilate was threatened by a possible riot (Mark 15:11, 13, 14). He could have everyone killed as insubordinate but it was politically expedient to have Jesus killed and maintain the peace. Thus he was not weak in the sense Sanders says. Cf. Lane, Mark, 556, f. n. 34.

89 Joel B. Green, "Burial of Jesus," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 89.

90 D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 584, says that Pilate gave Jesus' body to Joseph because Pilate thought he was not really guilty of high treason (27:58).

91 Cf. Lane, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead, 148.

92 John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 394.

93 Ibid., 393.

94 See R. J. Bauckham, "Gospels (Apocryphal)," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 287-88.

95 For a more restrained view of the development of the burial tradition in early Christianity see, Green, Burial of Jesus, 90, 91. Cf. also Richard N. Osterling, "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple," Time 10 January 1994, 32-33, for Crossan's wild speculation that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and the body later eaten by dogs. Ben Witherington, III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995), 75, says that "once again Crossan insists on subscribing to opinions that only a distinct minority of scholars would agree with . . . ."

96 Robert H. Stein, "Was the Tomb Really Empty?" JETS 20 (March 1977), 24, 25.

97 The pre-Markan passion story, perhaps foundational to the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, contains the account of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8) and therefore it is most reasonably historical since the passion story can be dated during the High Priesthood of Caiaphas (A. D. 18-36). See Craig, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead, 150. But, cf. also Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection (Toronto: Paulist Press, 1973), 117, who suggests that the empty tomb tradition may have grown up apart from the burial story.

98 We have argued above for the bodily resurrection of Jesus as opposed to a spiritual resurrection.

99 Cf. Carson, Matthew, 588, who says "what is stunningly clear is the restrained sobriety of these accounts as compared with the later apocryphal Gospels (e.g. the Gospel of Peter, 9:35-11:44).

100 So Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 279.

101 Cf. Stein, "Was the Tomb Really Empty?" 25.

102 Craig, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead, 151.

103 Cf. Craig, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead, 152.

104 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 276.

105 Cf. the use of kaiV o{ti in 1 Corinthians 15:5 thus linking the account of Jesus' resurrection with the witnesses who saw him. The entire tradition then, including the resurrection and the witnesses, is that which Paul received and passed on to the Corinthians.

106 See Stein, "Was the Tomb Really Empty?" 27.

107 Craig, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead," 162.

108 Cf. F. F. Bruce, "Paul in Acts and Letters," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 687.

109 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 276-81. Sanders is to be commended for many things in his reconstruction of the life of Jesus including his focus on the Gospel materials and his placing of Jesus in a Palestinian milieu. But, he nonetheless stops short of really reconstructing a satisfactory cause to the historical effect of the belief of the disciples in Jesus' resurrection and the beginning of the church.

110 Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 404.

111 Cf. Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead," 174, f. n. 46.

Related Topics: History, Apologetics, Resurrection

Preface to Proverbs

Over the years I have come to greatly appreciate the Book of Proverbs, and have yet to meet a Christian who has found the Book of Proverbs to be boring or unprofitable. Many have found it to be the most useful study of their Christian experience.

My goal is not to teach through Proverbs as I have other books of the Bible, beginning at chapter 1 and ending with chapter 31. That would be nearly impossible to accomplish. Instead, I want to expose you to a sampling of the wisdom of Proverbs, hoping that you will make this book a life-long study. In this series of lessons I intend to provide you with a model for study by doing various character studies of the simple, the fool, the scoffer, the sluggard, and the wise.

When this series is finished, we will have only scratched the surface of the riches to be found in this book. From then on, the challenge will be yours.

False Theories Against the Resurrection of Christ

Related Media

Introduction

Philip Schaff, the great historian wrote, “the purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.” Concerning the various theories of men who try to explain away the resurrection, Josh McDowell, who has done a tremendous amount of investigation on the resurrection and the uniqueness of the Bible, writes:

Many theories have been advanced, attempting to show that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a fraud. I believe that many of the people who came up with these theories must have had two brains--one lost, and the other one out looking for it. Historians have to become anti-historical to invent some of their ideas (The Resurrection Factor, p. 76).

When considering the evidence and evaluating what happened that first Easter, we must be conscious to two principles:

    1. The theories or alternate explanations must take into account all the acts surrounding the resurrection of Christ.

    2. One must not force the evidence into a preconceived conclusion, but let the evidence speak for itself. (See McDowell, p. 76).

This study will cover only a few of the most popular theoretical explanations that have been set forth, generally by unbelievers or liberal theologians who very often operate out of a moral twist to explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They reject the evidence not because it is insufficient, but because of its moral implications on their lives. An excellent work on the whole subject of the resurrection is The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell.

The Swoon Theory
or Resuscitation Theory

The Theory Defined

Jesus did not really die, He only swooned, therefore the disciples saw only a revived or resuscitated Christ. Christ was nailed to a cross and suffered from shock, pain and loss of blood. But instead of actually dying, He only fainted (swooned) from exhaustion. When He was placed in the tomb, He was still alive and the disciples, mistaking Him for dead, buried Him alive. After several hours, He revived in the coolness of the tomb, arose, and departed.

The Refutation

This theory completely ignores the evidences of His death and would require a greater miracle than the resurrection. According to this theory:

The cool damp air of the tomb, instead of killing Him, healed Him. He split out of His garments, pushed the stone away, fought off the guards and shortly thereafter appeared to His disciples as the Lord of life (McDowell, p. 98).

    The Linen Wrappings

Matthew 28:6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

Mark 16:6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.

Luke 24:12 (But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at that which had happened.)

John 20:5-8 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed.

The swoon theory cannot answer the problem of the linen wrappings lying undisturbed, exactly as they had been when around the body of Christ. Christ would have had to perform a miracle of wiggling out of the wrappings which were wound tightly about the body with over a hundred pounds of spices in the wrappings without someone to help unwrap Him, as in the case of Lazarus in John 11.

    The Circumstances of the Cross

John 19:31-35 The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath for that Sabbath was a high day, asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; 34 but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. 35 And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.

Mark 15:43-45 Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. 45 And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.

These circumstances proved Christ died. He was dead in the judgment of the soldiers, in the judgment of Pilate, in the judgment of the Jews who requested the guard for the tomb, and in the judgment of the women who went to the tomb to further prepare the body by heaping spices over the body.

    The Physical Condition of Christ After Crucifixion

If Christ had only swooned, He still would have still been half dead. A great deal of time would have been needed for recuperation. In His weakened condition He could not have walked the seven miles on the Emmaus road. It would have been impossible for someone (who had only resuscitated from the agonies the Lord endured with the beatings and crucifixion) to so quickly give the impression that He was the Conqueror of death and the grave, the Prince of Life. In fact it was this belief which turned the disciples around and became the foundation of the rest of their ministries.

In addition to the three things mentioned above, there are other circumstances that need to be explained like the removal of the stone and the guard over the tomb.

The Hallucination Theory

The Theory Defined

This theory says all of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances were really only supposed appearances because actually the people only had hallucinations. In this way, all the post-resurrection appearances can be dismissed.

The Refutation

How could so many people have hallucinations--especially 500 at one time? Furthermore, the appearances happened under different conditions and were spread out over different times. And, don’t forget, the disciples were reluctant to believe in the resurrection in the first place! This involves a miracle of blindness to reason away the resurrection.

Mark 16:11-16 And when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country. 13 And they went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Luke 24:11-12 And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. 12 (But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at that which had happened.)

John 20:24-30 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

The hallucination theory is simply not plausible because it contradicts laws and principles which psychiatrists say are essential to hallucinations. Psychiatrists claim:

  • Only certain kinds of people have hallucinations. These are usually high-strung, highly imaginative, and very nervous people. In fact, usually only paranoid or schizophrenic individuals have hallucinations. But Christ appeared to many different types of people. His appearances were not restricted to people of any particular psychological make up.
  • Hallucinations are linked in an individual’s subconscious--to his particular past experiences and this was certainly not a part of any past experience.
  • Hallucinations are usually restricted to when and where they occur. They usually occur in a nostalgic atmosphere or in a place of familiar surroundings which places the person to a reminiscing mood.
  • They occur in people when there is a spirit of anticipation or hopeful expectation. The historical record shows no such anticipation existed. They were prone to disbelieve even after they were told of the resurrection.

For further study see, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 257f, and The Resurrection Factor, p. 82f.

The Impersonation Theory

The Theory Defined

This is the view that the appearances were not really Christ at all, but someone impersonating Him. This, the opponents say, is evident because in some cases they did not recognize Him at first (or at all).

The Refutation

    1. The disciples were reluctant to believe in the resurrection, were doubtful and would have been hard to convince unless it was really Him, as was the case with Thomas.

    2. It would have been impossible to impersonate Christ’s wounds. This was Christ’s proof to Thomas that it was really Him (cf. John 20:24f).

    3. At times their inability to recognize Him was a phenomenon of His glorified body brought about by His own purposes as in Luke 24:16, “But their eyes were restricted that they should not recognize Him.”

    4. These men had traveled with the Lord for three years and it is incredible that anyone could have gotten away with an impersonation particularly due to their reluctance to believe.

    5. They were meeting in locked chambers in some instances, and He suddenly appeared in His glorified body. No one could impersonate such a miraculous act other than the resurrected Christ.

The Spiritual Resurrection Theory

The Theory Defined

This is the view that Christ’s resurrection was not a real physical resurrection. Proponents of this theory assert that Christ’s body remained in the grave and His real resurrection was spiritual in nature. It was only told this way to illustrate the truth of spiritual resurrection.

The Refutation

Note what William Craig says in his book entitled, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, Our Response to the Empty Tomb:

“We need to see clearly that there can be positive theological implications of the resurrection only insofar as its historical reality is affirmed. While many theologians may find such a conviction hopelessly antiquated, the man in the street knows better. His common sense tells him that there is no reason why a dead man should be decisive for his existence today, and I agree with him. Once doctrinal teachings are detached from their historical realities, we have entered the arena of myth. And there is simply no good reason to prefer Christian myths over other myths or, for that matter, secular philosophies. The resurrection is only real for our lives today if it is a real event of history.” (Introduction, p. xiii)

A physical body did disappear from the tomb. If it was only a spiritual resurrection, then what happened to the body? History shows there was a body there and it disappeared. The enemies of Christ were never able to produce the body nor disprove the resurrection.

The resurrection accounts are not presented in parabolic or symbolic language, but as hard fact. John 20 is full of what Greek grammarians call vivid historical present tenses to stress the historical reality of the Gospel message.

The record states He was touched and handled, that He had a body, and that He even ate with the disciples (Luke 24:30, 41f; John 21:12f).

First Corinthians 15 teaches us that Christ not only arose, but that He arose bodily. He possessed a glorified body which had unique capacities. First Corinthians 15:44 calls it a spiritual body, but it was nevertheless a physical body as well. Note the following facts about the body of Christ:

  • He could appear in different forms (Mark16:12).
  • He could eat though it was not needed for sustenance (Luke 24:30).
  • He could appear and disappear and could pass through solid objects (John 20:19, 26).
  • He could pass in a moment from one place to another (Luke 24:31).

Philippians 3:21 shows that His body was glorious and unique, but nevertheless, still a body according to which our bodies will one day be fashioned. So, it was spiritual, glorified, and yet a physical body of flesh and bone.

The Theft Theory

The Theory Defined

The disciples stole the body and claimed that He rose from the dead.

Matthew 28:11-15 Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 “And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” 15 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.

The Refutation

    The Linen Wrappings and Empty Tomb

Again, such a theory ignores the evidence of the linen wrappings and the empty tomb. If someone had stolen the body, they would have either taken the body and left the wrappings scattered or piled in a heap, but only resurrection could account for the position of the linen wrappings with the body absent.

    Probabilities

Further, there is the question of the probability of who COULD and WOULD steal the body under the circumstances.

    1. The Romans would not; they were there to guard it with their lives by Roman law. They had sealed the tomb and were there to protect it against theft. The religious leaders had provided their own refutation against such a theory.

    2. The women could not for they could not have removed the stone and were wondering who would remove it for them when they went early Sunday morning to finish burial preparations (cf. Mark16:3-4).

    3. The disciples would not because they were perplexed and scattered, huddled together in hidden rooms. Two had even left town and were on their way to Emmaus.

    4. The Jewish crowd would not and had actually requested a Roman guard to protect the tomb against theft (Mat. 27:63-66). This last point is very significant because the presence of the Roman soldiers and the Roman seal over the door made the possibility of the religious leaders claims of theft a thousand times more difficult if not impossible.

The likelihood of these timid, scared Galilean disciples stealing the body of Jesus out from under the noses of a guard of highly disciplined and skilled Roman soldiers while they all slept (an offense punishable by death) is ridiculous.

The Unknown Tomb Theory

The Theory Defined

One of the earliest theories present to explain everything away is that the disciples did not know where the tomb was located and could not have found the empty grave. This theory depends on the belief that those who were crucified were tossed into a common pit and were not allowed to be buried.

The Refutation

This theory also disregards totally the straightforward historical narrative about the events surrounding Christ’s burial and the post-resurrection scene. The Gospel record indicates that Joseph of Arimathea took the body to his own private tomb--not a public mass burial ground. According to Scripture, the body of Christ was prepared for burial according to the burial customs of the Jews; the women sat opposite the tomb and watched. Not only did Joseph of Arimathea and the women know where the tomb was, so did the Romans--they placed a guard there. (McDowell, pp. 77-78).

Conclusion

None of these natural theories adequately deals with the evidence of the known facts that surrounded the resurrection of our Lord. The evidence says He arose and this resurrection marks Him out as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), as the Savior of the world and the means of justification and peace with God through personal faith in Christ (Rom. 4:25-5:1), or if one rejects the Risen Savior, as their judge at the day of judgment (Acts 17:30-31).

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

John 3:16-18 “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. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Related Topics: Easter, Apologetics, Resurrection

Pages