Thinking Christian

A dialogue:

“Do you mean to tell me you follow Jesus Christ?”

“Sure! Who else in history would you choose to follow?”

So begins my guest column in today’s Newport News Daily Press.

The link above will expire in a few weeks. Here is a permanently available pdf.

I do not write the headlines for my columns; the editor does.

Share This

Why did Jesus come? In his own words (Luke 12:49-53, cf. Matthew 10:34-35):

“I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

We have seen earlier in this series that Jesus came to free us, to give his life for us, to rescue us, to give us life. All of these are true, and on the surface they fit into the domesticated vision of Jesus that is so common today. One hears of multi-reigious gatherings “in the spirit of Jesus,” which typically seems to mean, in the spirit of love (and often, justice for the oppressed) that he taught and exemplified.

If I may quote myself from earlier in this series, though,

If, however, that’s all you think of when you think of Jesus, pause a moment and ask yourself this. If that one-dimensional view of him were true, would he have proved to be the single most significant figure in all of human history, as he has? We’ll continue to look at why Jesus came, and we’ll see that the picture is nowhere near that simple. Not even close.

It’s time to complicate that picture. He came to “cast fire,” not to give peace but rather division, to set families against each other. How does that fit with “the spirit of Jesus?” In his trial before Pontius Pilate he states his purpose for coming (John 18:33-38); and this may help us to understand the fire he casts:

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

This is the only place recorded where Jesus used the term, “for this purpose I have come;” and he emphasized it by stating it twice. He came to bear witness to the truth. As Del Tackett of the Truth Project observes, the reason he was bearing witness to the truth is because truth itself was on trial (cf. John 14:6). “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice,” said Jesus. Implied: those who are not of the truth do not listen. Pilate asked his poignant question in response, and then walked away. He did not listen; he was not of the truth.

There is a dividing line, and it is the line of truth. Peace, joy and love are of the Lord. Justice for the oppressed is certainly of the Lord. Mercy is certainly of the Lord. So are patience, hope, kindness, and faithfulness. But they are only of the Lord as they express his truth, his way, and his life; for not all expressions of religion, and not all apparent acts of righteousness, are true in God’s eyes.

Everyone who is of the truth listens to Jesus’ voice. He speaks to all who will listen, but some will not, though it is never too late for them to change their minds. I do not want to be misunderstood here. There is a dividing line, even within families, as Jesus so forcefully phrased it; but it is not between bad people and good people. It is between people who need freedom, forgiveness and rescue and have not accepted it as Jesus offers; and people who need freedom, forgiveness, and rescue and have embraced it. Those who refuse it embrace a lie instead.

Why did Jesus come? In this series I have only examined passages where he himself spoke to that question. This does not comprise the whole story. It is one focused look at his purposes. He came, he said, to free us, to bring forth righteousness, to give his life for us, to rescue us, to bring us true life, and for many most surprisingly, to bring division on the earth, which I believe revolves around his other purpose, his bearing witness to the truth.

There is another sense in which the dividing line is Jesus Christ himself. Men and women are separated in families and in nations over him; not because he separates them, but because we separate ourselves. We choose where we will stand in relation to him. It is a most momentous choice, for he is the most momentous of persons.

Share This

Why did Jesus come? In his own words (John 10:10),

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

This Easter morning we celebrate life—abundant life—once again. He came to give his life for us, but he came to become the victor over death, the firstborn from among the dead, the resurrected one who opens the way to life for all.

This is not the end of the series, Why Did Jesus Come, (there is more yet to write) but it is certainly the triumphant climax, as Easter is for all of history until he comes again.

To all who are following him into this abundant life, I wish you a very Happy Easter. To those who are wondering about him, questioning whether to follow him, I urge you to join him in his victory. It can be yours as well—and Happy Easter to you, too! For those who deny his life, I urge you to reconsider him with your own life in view. His resurrection was for you. Yours can be a Happy Easter, too, not just as a nice Sunday with bunnies and candies, but with the richest of all renewals, the entrance into new life.

Share This

Why did Jesus come? In his own words:

But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 10:26-28; cf. Mark 10:45).

Praying just before his trial, and the death he knew he would soon die, he said,

Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.

Today is Good Friday, commemorating Jesus’ death on the Cross. The question that used to bother me was, “What was good about Jesus dying?” But if he came for that purpose, there must have been something good in it, even though it troubled his soul to see it coming. Part of the answer is in 1 Peter 2:24:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

We deserve death for our sins. We live in a kind of death, a spiritual death or separation from God, even as we walk and talk and breathe; and physical death finalizes that separation. It is because of our rebellion toward God, expressed either in apathy or in acts of outright insurrection against his good and holy character. Jesus Christ paid the penalty of death on our behalf, carrying our sins on the cross (“the tree”) to the point of death. By his woulds we are healed—those who will look to Jesus and say, “I know I needed that. Thank you. I will accept your payment on my behalf.” That’s about all it takes.

Share This

Why did Jesus come? We saw yesterday that he came to help the poor and needy. This is the Jesus everyone seems to accept and to like, Christian or not.

Jesus came also for righteousness. He came in obedience to the Father (John 8:42), and he came to preach (Mark 1:38). In numerous New Testament locations it says that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, meaning quite literally that God is to be followed as King, and how his full kingship will be manifest some day. He said (Matthew 5:17-20),

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

His mercy and love toward the needy are expressions of righteousness according to the character of God. He did not come to do nice things. He came to restore a kingdom of righteousness.

Share This

We’re in the season of expectancy, preparing to celebrate the birth of Christ. There was a season of expectancy before his actual birth 2,000 years ago–expectancy both on earth, where prophecies of a coming Messiah were passionately studied and only partly understood, and also in heaven, where the eternal God was preparing to break in to time and space and human life. It has been said that Jesus was the only person who chose to be born.

Matthew and Luke tell the story of Jesus’ birth “from the ground up,” through the eyes and ears of Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, and the Magi. John (John 1:1-14) gives us the view from the sky, as it were:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist]. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word became flesh on that first Christmas. We use words to express meaning and to connect with one another. From the beginning there was meaning and there was relationship among the three Persons of the Godhead. From the creation of man, God’s intent has been that we would live with full understanding of meaning, and in close relationship with him, with one another, and with all of his creation. No one needs to be convinced that we have not lived out that ideal. The Word became flesh to restore us to it. Merry Christmas indeed!

He was and he is both life and light. By coming to live as a human among humans, he opened to us the door to true life in true light. John says his own people did not receive him, and tragically some still will not see his bright light. But those who do receive him are born into new life through him. It’s a life of grace and truth: truth to guide us, to show us what is real and what is right, and grace so that we can recover from our failures in living by what is real and right.

The message of Christmas is not just about a stable and a star, not just a mother and a child. It’s about the glory of God shining on earth, through one who became flesh to show us his great glory.

This is what heaven was looking forward to during that first advent season. Merry Christmas indeed!

Share This

I continue my survey of historical evidences for Jesus’ resurrection with an outline of evidences for the empty tomb. This is part of a continuing set of cumulative evidences, not intended to be complete in itself but to be read as part of the series on Evidences for the Resurrection. I am using William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith as my source again.

Craig lists six “lines of evidence” supporting the historicity of the empty tomb:

1. The historical reliability of the story of Jesus’ burial
2. Multiple, early, independent attestation of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb
3. The use of the phrase “the first day of the week” in a way that reflects ancient tradition
4. The simplicity of the way Mark presents the story: it lacks legendary or theological development
5. The account of the tomb’s being discovered by women
6. The earliest Jewish polemic, which suggests the empty tomb

I can’t (and shouldn’t!) re-write all of Craig’s support for each of these. I will just summarize a few significant points, beginning with this overall observation: the manner in which Craig and other current apologists approach these issues is historical, not faith-driven. There are historical reasons to consider each of these lines of evidence to be valid.

Concerning the multiple, early independent attestation of the stories of the burial of Christ, and of the empty tomb being discovered, we have already discussed the most contentious issue: the independence of the sources. In Craig there is much more by way of demonstration of the probable independence of the accounts, specifically on this issue. Whether one views the various Gospel accounts as having come from oral tradition, from other prior sources, or from the authors’ own experiences and recollections, the woven pattern of varying details indicates they did not draw all of their information from a single source, and they did not collude with each other to craft a single narrative of deceit.

The point regarding the “first day of the week” requires knowledge of the original languages. Craig points out that it is awkward Greek, but if the Greek is back-translated into Aramaic, the language used in Jerusalem at the time, the resulting phrase is perfectly natural and reflective of Jewish tradition (the term “Sabbath” is used). This suggests that the phrase was first used in Aramaic, which implies that it was used early.

Mark’s simple account of the resurrection is not what one would expect of a fable developing long after the events.

The discovery of the tomb by women is quite remarkable. The social status of women in both Judaic and Greco-Roman culture at the time was lower than most of us could even conceive (more here, mp3 file). They had the social status of children at every age. They were not allowed to give testimony in court; they had no credibility as witnesses. If the early church had been trying to create a believable story at some later date, it is highly unlikely they would have made women the discoverers of the empty tomb, or the first witnesses of the risen Jesus. The most credible explanation for their being recorded as the first witnesses is that it was true.

The Jews who wanted to deny the resurrection spread a tale that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:11-15, especially the latter part of verse 15). How did they try to put an end to claims of the resurrection? It would have been simple to say, “These followers of Jesus are nut-cases.” If Jesus’ body were still in the tomb their rebuttals would have been easier still! Obviously there was a reason they did not use that answer: anyone could have checked and seen whether it was true or not.

******

We’re on a continuing path here. The fact of Jesus’ empty tomb does not prove the fact of his resurrection, but it contributes to a historical case that I will keep adding to as I continue this series.

Share This