WHY DID JESUS WALK ON WATER?

We all know the old joke about why the chicken crossed the road; it simply wanted to get to the other side. One could ask the same question about why Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee (Mt 14.22-33, Mk 6.45-52, Jn 6.16-21). Was it only because He needed to get to the other side? But seriously, why walk on water? Are we to actually believe that Jesus suddenly felt the urge to walk on water and therefore God miraculously enabled Him to do so? We all remember those vacation Bible school felt board presentations displaying Jesus in a ghostly white robe walking on that stormy sea. But have you ever wondered what the real point of the “story” is. If you think that it was only to teach Peter that he needed to keep his eyes on the Lord, then you are missing the main point because 2 of the 3 Gospel make no reference to Peter’s failure and rescue. Consequently, the importance of keeping our focus on Jesus is only a secondary lesson; it is not the main one. So if trusting the Lord in the midst of life’s storms isn’t the main point, then what is? Was it just another miracle demonstrating that God was on Jesus’ side? Could not Jesus have miraculously sprinted super-humanly fast like Elijah and arrived at Gennesaret a head of the disciples? Wouldn’t that have also been very miraculous? We know that God has performed several miracles involving water. There was Moses turning the Nile to blood; and Joshua’s leading Israel across the Jordan on dry ground; and don’t forget Elisha’s floating axe head; and of course the big one, the crossing of the Red Sea. Was walking on water just another aquatic miracle that God performed on Jesus’ behalf? The short answer of course is no—there was a more important point that the Lord was making.

Before answering this question, it’s necessary to address first an attitude that some have about Jesus’ life and ministry. It seems that some have the idea that Jesus was simply bumbling through life with God as His good luck charm; specifically, that God wildly blessed everything that Jesus did. Regrettably, some try to acquire this Jesus “magic” for themselves so that they can “live their best lives now.” However, Jesus explained how He went about deciding on what to do in this manner: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in the same way. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will be amazed” (Jn 5.19-20, NASB). In short, everything that Jesus did was directed by the Father. Jesus didn’t live independently of the Father and the Father wasn’t around just to cover Jesus backside. Consequently, as the incarnate God-man He is our consummate model of what it means to live in complete obedience to the Father’s will—whatever that cost may be.

That being said, Jesus also explained that the central theme of the Old Testament was to reveal precisely who He was. John 5.39 quotes Jesus asserting that “You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me . . . if you believed Moses, then you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (Jn 5.39, 46a). Additionally, He told the disciples that “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24.44).  But most importantly He explained that “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!” (Mt 5.17-18). Jesus embraced His identity as revealed in the Old Testament. Moreover, He either “fulfilled” during His first coming or will fulfill at His second coming whatever it communicates about the Lord God. As far as Jesus was concerned the entire Old Testament foretold of His coming, and it explains everything about Him, as well as what He promises to accomplish. Consequently, Christians that ignore the Old Testament because it contains uncomfortable things or because it’s hard to understand necessarily deprive themselves of fully comprehending Jesus. In other words, by ignoring the Old Testament we guarantee our own spiritual ignorance about the Lord because it is foundational to understanding Him. 

That being established, we now turn back to the original question, which is “why” did Jesus walk on water? What was the essential point that He was making? As previously referenced, the Old Testament contains 2 key events in which God performed miracles involving water. The first was His rescuing Israel from the Egyptian army, in which the entire nation safely “passed through” the Red Sea (Ex 14.13ff, Ps 78.13, Neh 9.11, 1 Cor 10.1). The second was crossing through the Jordon River on dry ground (Josh 3.1-17, Ps 66.6).  However, during these miracles the Israelites could only safely pass through those waters, they were not enabled to walk on the waters. Scripture reveals that only divinity possesses the capacity to walk on water. We are told this in Job 9.8, which states that God “alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea” (NIV). Of course, for a brief moment Peter walked on water, but only by the divine enabling of the Lord Jesus Christ, not from Peter’s own power. If left to his self, then he would have drowned. The Scriptures teach that only He who is divine can walk on water, those that are only human lack this ability.

But what did the Gospel authors think about that miracle? Unfortunately they provided little commentary about the event. John simply stated that Jesus got into the boat. Mark explained that the disciples were “terrified” and “astonished,” and by that point their hearts were “hardened” with respect to comprehending Jesus’ full identity (vs 52).  Matthew wrote that the disciples “worshiped” the Lord and actually declared that He was the “Son of God” (vs. 33). The rest of his Gospel, however, reveals that their momentary confession lacked an adequate appreciation of what they asserted. It is not until the end of his Gospel that Matthew revealed that they fully comprehended who Jesus is.

So once more, why did Jesus walk on the stormy Sea of Galilee? For the same reason that He had previously stilled it (Mt 8.23-27, Mk 4.35-39, Lk 8.22-25), because He was revealing that He is God incarnate, for only God can control the Earth’s elements so as to calm a stormy sea by just the power of His spoken word (Ps 65.7, 89.9, 107.29). And similarly, only God can walk on water (Jb 9.8). Therefore, if we think that it was just serendipitous that God the Father enabled Jesus to walk on water in order to teach Peter a valuable lesson, then we are missing Jesus’ purpose for that miracle. Jesus was making a Christological statement concerning Himself.[1] This self-revelation is why He walked on those waves. Consequently, if we ignore the Old Testament and read only the New Testament, then we will miss the riches of discovering exactly who Jesus is.  However, if we study the entire Bible with the purpose of discovering what it reveals about the Lord, then we have the opportunity to comprehend Jesus’ full identity. That means learning that He is the incarnate God; He is the one who was eternally before the beginning; He is the promised messianic Davidic King, and He is Lord of Heaven and Earth. And most importantly, He is Lord of all and the only savior of the world, for He is the One that even water serves and submits to His will.

---

[1] Simply defined, “Christology” is the study of the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ.

Read Full Post »

The World according to Psalm 1

Recently my wife and I began watching the “Star Wars” episodes in their proper chronological order. The last episode we watched contained the showdown between Obi Wan and Anakin Skywalker (i.e., the future Darth Vader). Just before the climatic dual, Obi Wan informed Anakin that “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” In case you are unaware, Siths are committed to the “Dark Side.” In other words, only really bad guys believe in absolutes, which ironically is also an absolute. But hey, it’s Star Wars, so who is really paying attention anyway. Nevertheless, absolutes are an unavoidable part of life; we deal with them wherever we go (e.g., gravity, the need for oxygen and water, etc). Some are to our benefit, some are neutral, and some we generally chose to ignore, like the absolutes found in the Bible. A good example of just such an absolute is found in Psalm 1.

Psalm 1 is a startling psalm, which is a significant reason for why it’s the first one in the Book of Psalms. It’s startling because the psalmist observes that there are only 2 types of people in the world, there are the godly and the ungodly. Verse 1 appears to categorized the ungodly into 3 degrees, they are the “wicked,” the “sinners,” and the “scoffers” (NASB). Some suggest that these labels are synonyms that simply refer to the same type of person (i.e., the ungodly), but others see a progression from the lesser to the greater in the spectrum of ungodly people. I personally agree that the psalmist is describing a progression towards entrenched ungodliness.

On the other side there are the godly, which are marked by 2 passions. First, they “delight” in the “law of the Lord,” and second, they meditate on it constantly. As the psalmist put it, “And in His law he/she meditates day and night.” Thus, for the psalmist there are only 2 types of people in the world, those who love God’s word and those who reject it.

At this point some may object by asserting “That is a rather limited perspective; the world is much too diverse for such a prospect to be true”; and I’m sure there are countless other objections. But the problem with such objections is that the psalmist wasn’t too impressed with them. You either delight in God’s word, or you don’t. You either study it to seek Him and His will or you don’t. It’s just that simple.

Some have excuses for not ruminating over God’s word. Excuses such as “It’s not really relevant today’s world”; or “It’s was written so long ago and translated so many times, who knows what it originally said?” Other common excuses are that “It’s too hard to understand”; or “I don’t really have time for it.” The psalmist observed that such excuses do not deter those that love God; consequently, they are constantly availing themselves to the Scriptures. More importantly, it should be noted that the psalmist didn’t write that the godly simply “read” God’s word, but that they “meditate” upon it, and they do so “day and night.” Plainly stated, the Bible is not your personal daily greeting card from God. Understanding it requires appreciation, devotion, discipline, reason, and faith. It is not for the lazy and indifferent, it is for those that are serious about finding God and worshiping Him. And least we forget, in the psalmist’s day “the law of God” referred to just the Pentateuch and not the entire Bible that we now possess. It referred to only the first 5 books, which includes Numbers and Deuteronomy (which basically means the “second law” or “repetition of the law”; in other words, “now let’s go over this again”).

But some may suggest, “Well none of this actually affects me since I don’t really fall into either camp.” And there is the rub. Anyone making such a claim objectively places themselves outside of the camp of the godly, which means that for the psalmist they are being influenced by the wicked, or by sinners, or possibly by scoffers. Only the ungodly appease themselves with reasons for not studying the Bible. The godly, on the other hand, enjoy meditating on the Scriptures because in them they find God and His will for their lives. Only the ungodly “trust in confusion” (Is 59.4), and only they find excuses for neglecting God’s word. As the apostle Peter explained, while referring to specific New Testament letters, that “. . . the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet 3.16).

So if it’s been a while since you invested time in meditating upon God’s word, then it means you are on the wrong path. It means that you are being influenced by the wicked, or by sinners, or maybe even by scoffers. Those that walk in their “ways” inevitably begin to look like the wicked, and after a while they windup standing around with sinners. And in the end, they find themselves sitting among their fellow scoffers. In other words, they become the ungodly.

Only by delighting in the Bible, and being delighted in it in such a way that one is constantly thinking about what it says, trusting in what it means, and applying it to one’s daily life protects that one from the future of the ungodly. It protects them because it should inevitably lead to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thereby rescuing them from the fate of the ungodly. And there is a different destiny for the ungodly. The psalmist described their end in this manner: “The wicked are not so, but they are like chaff that the wind blows away. Therefore, the wicked will not stand in the judgment, or sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1.4-6).

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2021

Read Full Post »

CORRECTING MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THE “PARABLE” OF THE SHEEP AND GOATS

Several passages in the Gospels can be difficult to understand; as a result some are often misinterpreted. One such passage is the “Parable of the Sheep and Goats” (Matthew 25.31-46).  The problem concerning this passage is that some approach it as if it simply provides general instructions about how believers should behave, which is inaccurate because it is very imprecise. I hesitate to even refer to it as a “parable” because of this common misconception; nonetheless, it is regularly listed among the parables contained in the Gospels. Before continuing it may be helpful to explain a common purpose for many of Jesus’ parables. K. R. Snodgrass described the primary function of parables as follows: “Parables demand interpretation; they point to something else. They are not merely stories to enjoy. They hold up one reality to serve as a mirror of another . . . They are avenues to understanding, handles by which one can grasp the kingdom. Jesus told parables to confront people with the character of God’s kingdom and to invite them to participate in it and to live in accordance with it.” This explanation sufficiently explains the general purpose of many parables found in the Gospels; however, concerning the parable of the sheep and goats it provides an opportunity for significant misinterpretations, one to which many have fallen victim. Consequently, the following is a discussion of some of the more common misinterpretations of this passage.

1. The passage does not describe a “characteristic” of the Kingdom of God; instead it describes an actual future global event involving the physical governing presence of the Kingdom of God upon the Earth. The specific event is identified in the passage’s introduction, which is the coming of the “Son of Man” (i.e., the literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ to establish his geo-political messianic kingdom). Failing to observe that verse 31 foretells of an actual future event means that some will misunderstand this passage. Jesus often promised that he would return to earth (Matt 16.27, 24.30; Lk 21.27-28; Rev 3.11, 22.7, 12, and 20). Likewise, he also foretold of a great future judgment that will separate all unbelievers from the people of God (Matt 13.24-30, 47-50, 25.1-13). However, nowhere else than in this passage did he explain with such precision the timing and method of the judgment that will occur after his return and before the commencement of his Millennial Kingdom. Consequently, the rest of the passage describes this singular major event that will occur immediately after he returns and gains control of over the world’s population. The purpose of this event will be to determine who will inherit the benefits of his Millennial Kingdom, and who will be reserved in death for the final “White Throne” judgment.

2. The separation of the sheep from the goats in verses 32-33 is the definitive judgment concerning survival and entrance into Jesus’ kingdom. This judgment involves a great division, and this bi-polar separation is determined according to one’s spiritual state of being; specifically, whether or not they have been united with Christ through spiritual rebirth. One should note that this division occurs before there is any discussion concerning an individual’s works, deeds, or transgressions. Jesus’ use of animals is why the passage is often categorized as a parable, because within it he used an agricultural practice of his day as an analogy describing this great separation of humanity. However, the rest of the passage does not discuss general “characteristics” of godliness, but of a real individual accounting of every person that survives the Great Tribulation. Everyone from around the entire world that survives the dreadful seven-year Tribulation period will have a moment of personal evaluation before the Lord Jesus Christ as described in verses 32-33. This judgment will identify whether one truly has been born again through the spiritual rebirth that is found only in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3.16, 36, 14.6; Acts 4.12), or if they are an unbeliever and thus unregenerate (John 3.36; Heb 2.3). Simply put, in order for anyone to be recognized as a “sheep” that one must have been born a sheep. In other words, a goat can’t become a sheep by behaving like a sheep. Sheep are sheep through their birth not their behavior. An animal’s behavior does not determine its nature, its nature is determined by its birth.

3. Verses 34-45 do not explain what is required for one to “become” a sheep. This is by far the greatest misunderstanding of this passage. Many have been taught that if they do what Jesus commended his sheep for doing in verses 35-40, then those “good deeds” will turn them into sheep. In other words, if they do these specific good works, then they will earn entrance into Jesus’ Millennial Kingdom. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is important to remember that the decisive identification and separation of the goats from the sheep has already occurred at the initial judgment. The decisive nature of this judgment is also observable by the type of evaluation that occurs afterwards in verses 34-45. In order to comprehend the significance of this initial judgment, one must recognize who the sheep and goats represent. The sheep are obviously those who entrusted themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the goats are those that rejected him. And it is this clear identification that is the determinative factor with respect to the types of evaluations the two species receive. For the sheep, there is only commendation for what they did to benefit the cause of Christ (35-40). Conversely, the goats are punished for their apathetic rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ (41-45). A critical observation concerning Jesus’ evaluation is that he only commends the sheep while making no mention of any of their iniquities, while the goats are only punished for their iniquities with no reference to any of their good deeds. This clear judicial differential should be extremely enlightening. Christians commit the same exact sins that the goats are condemned for every day, and every day unbelievers conduct sacrificial acts of mercy and compassion toward others. Nevertheless, none of the good deeds performed by goats will have any impact upon why they are prevented from entering the Millennial Kingdom. Moreover, all sheep will be allowed to enter the kingdom in spite of their sins precisely because they were all paid for by the Lord Jesus Christ. Similarly, all the goats will be rejected despite their acts of compassion precisely because they rejected the gift of salvation that God graciously offers all through the cross of Jesus Christ. There will be no goats that are so good that they enter the Millennial Kingdom, and not one sheep will be relegated to the fate of the goats (Jn 10.25-30). As previously stated, their different destinies will be determined by their birth, not their behavior. Sheep will be only commended for their faith and loyalty to Christ, and goats will suffer because of their rejection and apathy towards Christ.

4. Lastly, the acts that Jesus commends or condemns throughout the passage are not simply general acts of compassion, but specific acts that come with great risk, which is the danger that those who perform them may be associated with the Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone using this particular passage to teach that Jesus has called his followers to engage in general acts of compassion do not fully comprehend the world’s spiritual climate just before his return, which will be an atmosphere that is globally anti-Christian and Anti-Semitic. Consequently, when Jesus commends his sheep for supporting, harboring, or advocating for his impoverished or imprisoned “brothers,” he is referring to believing Jews and Gentiles that are committed to spreading the gospel throughout the world (Mk 3.35; Jn 6.29; Matt 24.14). In case you are unaware, the final years leading up to Jesus’ return will be one in which the universal distribution and management of the world’s diminishing resources will be controlled by a universal centralized government, one in which the Anti-Christ will inevitably ascend to power (Rev 13.15-17). This global government will progressively and incrementally classify the prophetic identification of sin as hate speech that promotes sedition and encourage anarchy. In short, any religion that does not promote diversity and inclusivism, but claims exclusivity with respect to God, heaven, or salvation will be systematically repressed, condemned, and inevitably outlawed. Consequently, anyone publicly proclaiming the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ during that time will be viewed by the global community as “the least of these.” This is understood by Jesus’ repetitive use of first person pronouns in verses 42-43, in which he identifies the great sin of the goats as their rejection of him and his gospel. For centuries many people have interpreted verses 42-45 as Jesus’ identification with the poor, oppressed, and needy, but this is not what this passage teaches. To be sure, Jesus instructed his followers to care for the poor, oppressed, and needy whenever possible. However, during the final few years leading up to his return, anyone that proclaims that salvation is found only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be socially rejected and legally persecuted. Failing to recognize this observation demonstrates that one has little understanding of the global climate of the “last days” before Jesus’ return, which is a critical element to properly interpreting this passage.

The parable of the Sheep and Goats is in many ways not a typical parable. Consequently, it may be better to describe it simply as an “illustration,” one in which Jesus used an agricultural analogy to describe a literal future event. Therefore, this parable’s primary purpose is not to teach about a general “characteristic” of the Kingdom of God. Instead, it foretells and explains a real and great future judgment and division that will determine who enters Jesus’ Millennial Kingdom. The primary purpose of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats is to foretell of a wonderful future for believers and a terrible end for all unbelievers. This assured future is why the church must be fiercely dedicated to proclaiming the gospel and the ministry of discipleship. If she loses this essential and central focus, then Jesus’ premonition about his impending arrival will become reality, which was “However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18.8).

1. K. R. Snodgrass, “Parables,” in Dictionary of the Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 596-97.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2019

 

Read Full Post »

WHY DID JESUS GET BAPTIZED?

Many Christian reading the Gospels find it confusing that Jesus came to John the Baptist for baptism.  Specifically, they find it odd because if Jesus was in fact sinless, then why would he need to present himself to John since John’s baptism was for “repentance” and the “forgiveness of sins” (cf., Mk 1.3-4, Lk 3.3). John called for the Jews to repent of their sins and be baptized in preparation for the arrival of their promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 3.1-11).  John himself hesitated when Jesus came to him for baptism, stating that “I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” (Mt 3.14). Before attempting to answer this question we should first understand that there is a difference between John’s baptism and Christian baptism.  We should not think of John’s baptism as we do Christian baptism. John’s baptism was a moment of personal repentance and confession in preparation for the Messiah’s arrival. Whereas Christian baptism is performed after one has already come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and trusted him for their personal sin debt; consequently, Christians are baptized in order to publicly identify with the Lord and to proclaim that salvation is received only through faith in his name alone (cf., Mt 28.18; Jn 14.6; Acts 4.12, 8.12).  Even the apostle Paul made it clear that John’s baptism was insufficient for being identified with the Lord (cf., Acts 19.1-5).  So both baptisms were and are public identifications with the Jesus.  John’s baptism was a unique Jewish rite in preparation for the Messiah’s first advent; whereas Christian baptism is the public declaration of a repentant sinner that he or she has trusted the Lord Jesus Christ and received his gracious gift of eternal life. Nevertheless, the question still remains, since Jesus had no need of repentance, then why did he allow John to baptism him?

 

The question is an interesting one, and even John the Baptist was trouble by this very paradox, which is obvious by his statement that “I need to be baptized by You.”  Jesus assuaged John’s hesitation by saying “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus’ reply makes it clear that whatever his reasons were for being, they were “necessary” to “fulfill all righteousness.” Everyone seeking to answer this question wishes that Jesus would have been more precise, but he wasn’t.  Therefore, we are left to wonder why or how does Jesus’ baptism fulfill “all righteousness.”  Jesus’ answer does provide a clue, which is that his baptism fulfilled a spectrum of concerns with respect to righteousness.  This is obvious by his use of the adjective “all.” While the words “all” and “righteousness” are both singular, Jesus’ answer implies that his baptism is not understood with a single justification, but by a multiplicity of explanations. Consequently, below is a list of some common suggestions with a brief evaluation of each.

 

• Some think that Jesus was baptized because it was the “Christian” thing to do. However, Christianity as a unique faith and movement did not commence until after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Furthermore, at the moment of Jesus’ baptism there was no such thing as “Christianity.” As previously explained, John’s baptism was a unique Jewish ritual in preparation for the Messiah’s arrival; consequently, John’s baptism was not a “Christian” initiation ritual in the sense that we understanding it today.

 

• Some suggest that Jesus submitted to baptism in order to identify with sinners. This is not acceptable at all. Why would the sinless Messiah need to identify with sinners?  It was sinners that needed to identify with the Messiah, not the other way around.  Moreover, this ideal of the Messiah identifying with sinners didn’t even work for John, which is obviously why he balked at the very idea that Jesus needed to be baptized. Furthermore, John was convinced that Jesus was the one that should perform John’s own baptism.  Consequently, Jesus’ baptism was not a way for him to identify with sinners.

 

• A similar theory is that Jesus was in agreement with John’s message, which was a call to Israel to repent. This theory is at times put another way, which is that Jesus’ baptism was an affirmation of John’s message. Certainly Jesus would have agreed with John that the nation of Israel needed to repent, such agreement would not require Jesus to be baptized. Instead, it would again mean that John and all Jews should have presented themselves to Jesus for baptism for the same reasons as previously explained.

 

• Some have suggested that Jesus’ baptism was a way for him to identify with the new era of God’s kingdom plan for salvation. This view has some merit, but it fails under further inspection. God was fulfilling his promises to Israel concerning their hope for the Messiah through Jesus’ very arrival, as well as God’s promise to Abraham to provide the ultimate provision for universal blessings to all the earth (Gen 12.1-3; Gal 3.6-9). Therefore, the Jews needed to cleanse themselves in preparation for their Messiah—as proclaimed by John.  Thus, the problem with this theory is that the commencement of the “kingdom of God” on earth came with Jesus’ incarnation and not his baptism.  Therefore, Jesus’ didn’t need a baptism in order to prepare for his own arrival.  Consequently, Jesus was not baptized to “identify” with God’s kingdom.  Moreover, as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus was always in harmony with God and participating in his kingdom; therefore, he didn’t need baptism in order to initiate or achieve any greater harmony with God.

 

• Jesus presented himself for baptism so that John could publicly identify that Jesus was the promised Messiah. John himself explained that this was one of the primary reasons why God sent him to baptize (Jn 1.29-34). This assertion has by far the most biblical support (Jn 1.6-8). Consequently, Jesus did not participate in John’s baptism so that he would identify with sinners, but so that he would be identified to John stated that God told him precisely how he would know who the Messiah was, which was that he would see the Holy Spirit lighting upon him in the form of a dove. When John saw this “sign,” he then fulfilled an essential element of his mission, which was to publicly identify that Jesus was the “son of God.”

 

• Additionally, my personal opinion is that Jesus viewed his baptism as an opportunity to participate in an initiation rite of dedication into the ministry, similar to that which was performed upon the High Priest as commanded by God (e.g., Lev 8.1-30). Thus, the water used in John’s baptism was symbolic of Jesus leaving behind (i.e., washing away) all other secular endeavors so that he would be dedicated solely to the ministry to which God had called him. If one reviews the sacrifices required in Leviticus 8, they will note that a blood sacrifice was mandated as a covering for the High Priest’s sins. However, since Jesus was sinless, then no such sacrifice was necessary.  Therefore, Jesus was publicly dedicating himself before man and his heavenly Father to the ministry that God had called him to—i.e., preaching the message concerning repentance and the kingdom of God. Since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, then it was not necessary for him to meet all the initiation rituals required for the High Priest as prescribed in the Mosaic Law.  Nevertheless, Jesus used John’s baptism as an opportunity to go through a washing of renewal to that which God the Father had called him since he was starting a new chapter in his life, one that required him to completely dedicate himself to the ministry of preaching and teaching that the kingdom of God had arrived. It was not as if Jesus’ previous secular endeavors were “sinful,” but only that they were no longer part of his life. The Gospel accounts make clear that neither John nor anyone else realized precisely why Jesus chose to be baptized.  Jesus explained, however, that it was necessary for him to fulfill “all righteousness.” Consequently, Jesus used John’s baptism for a purpose that was beyond John’s and everyone else’s immediate comprehension.

 

I’m sure there are other theories that attempt to answer this question; nevertheless, this blog addresses only a few of the more common ones.  The short answer is that it was God’s will for Jesus to be baptized.  Certainly God the Father’s purposes for Jesus’ baptism were not the same as those of repentant sinners.  In closing, I hope that you found this discussion helpful. Additionally, if you have trusted Jesus as your savior and Lord but have yet to be baptized as the result of your own personal decision, then please consider asking your church leadership to schedule a time for you to be baptized so that you may personally obey Lord’s commandment concerning baptism (Mt 28.19-20). Moreover, at your baptism take a moment to affirm to those present that you have already received eternal life by trusting solely in Jesus’ gracious sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, and that you are being baptized so that you may publicly declare your devotion, loyalty, and submission to his lordship over your life.

_{Copyright, © Monte Shanks 2018}

Read Full Post »

DID ELIJAH ARRIVE AS JOHN THE BAPTIST?

Many people like riddles and puzzles and the harder the better, but there may be none harder than the question of was John the Baptist (hereafter simply “John”) the fulfillment of the return of Elijah the prophet.  In order to answer this riddle, it is first necessary to understand Malachi 4.5-6, which is follows as:

“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

This passage raises two important questions for anyone seeking to understand it. The first is who was Malachi talking about to when he referred to “Elijah”?  In other words, did Malachi literally mean that that the prophet Elijah would return to the earth before the “coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD”?  Notice that he did not say “some one like Elijah,” instead he clearly stated that God would return the prophet Elijah to this world.  Consequently, Malachi was referring to a real historical figure, and that person was Elijah. Some may wonder how can it be possible for someone that lived during the Old Testament era to return in the future. This question is truly a riddle. Elijah’s return is possible because he has not yet died.  Elijah’s departure from earth is found in 2 Kings 2.1-11, which does not record his death, but a departure in which no corpse was left behind. Simply put, the scriptures do not record Elijah’s death; consequently, if Elijah has not died, then he is capable of rejoining humanity in the future. Where is Elijah now? No one can say with precision, and knowing where he currently resides apparently is not really that important. Therefore, Elijah is not dead, and Malachi literally meant that the Lord would send him back to earth before the execution of his righteous judgment. Having answered the first question we now come to the second more important question, which is this: do you believe that God always keeps his promises? If your answer is “no,” then reading the rest of this blog is pretty much a waste of your time. But if you answered “yes” or “I’m not really sure,” then continue reading because you may find some helpful answers.

So, if God actually keeps his promises and Elijah will literally return to our world, then the answer to the riddle is “no,” John is not Elijah, which is precisely what John said about himself in John 1.12 when asked if he was Elijah. The passage reads as follows: “They asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ And he said, ‘I am not.’” Therefore, John is not Elijah and that is all there is to this riddle.

Some may ask that if the answer to this riddle is so obvious, then why is there any confusion in the first place? The confusion arises because of other passages in the Bible closely associate John with Elijah. The first passage deals with Gabriel’s announcement of John’s birth in Luke 1.11-17, in which he stated that part of John’s ministry would be “to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children” (vs 17). The underlined portion of verse 17 is a quote from a clause found in Malachi 4.6; thus, Gabriel stated that one element of John’s ministry would be the same as Elijah’s future ministry. Because of this similarity some assert that John is the complete fulfillment Malachi’s prophecy concerning Elijah. It should be noted, however, that just because John’s past ministry had commonalities with Elijah’s future ministry does not demand that John was Elijah. Moreover, Gabriel made it clear that John was not literally Elijah, but only that he would be very similar to Elijah, stating that “It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, . . .” (Luke 1.17).  Consequently, Gabriel made it clear that John would only be like Elijah in his approach and attitude towards ministry. Consequently, however one looks at it, John was only a “type” of Elijah instead of the real Elijah. The only question left, therefore, is whether there is still a future return for the real Elijah. On that question Gabriel never stated that John was the complete fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Elijah as foretold by Malachi. Even John, when directly asked precisely who he was, did not quote Malachi 4.5, instead he quoted Isaiah 40.3, stating that “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” Consequently, if one wants to know which Old Testament prophecy John fulfilled, he stated that it was Isaiah 40.3, not Malachi 4.5.

Some assert that Jesus said that John was Elijah, pointing to passages such as Matthew 11.14, and to be fair there are passages in which Jesus likens John to Elijah. But even in Matthew 11:14 Jesus qualified his reference to John being Elijah, saying that “And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.” Jesus’ qualification is hardly an objective declaration that John fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy concerning Elijah. Jesus’ point was that if you are willing to understand John’s ministry and purpose, then yes, John was a type of Elijah, not that he was in fact literally Elijah. Nevertheless, the most definitive passage concerning what Jesus said about John and Elijah is found in Matthew 17.10-12, which states as follows:

“And the disciples questioned him, saying ‘Why then do the scribes say it is necessary for Elijah to come first?’ And answering he said, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.’”

The literal translation of Jesus first statement is “Absolutely, Elijah comes (in Greek this word is commonly translated as a “future present,” and given the context this is its proper interpretation) and will restore all things.” In order to understand the important of what Jesus said, it is first essential to know when he said it. Jesus statement that Elijah will come is found in Matthew 17, whereas Matthew reported John’s death in chapter 14. Meaning, if Jesus thought that John was either Elijah or the promised type of Elijah as foretold of in Malachi 4, then he would have only described John or Elijah using the past tense. But Jesus emphatically described Elijah’s ministry as in the future (i.e., that he “will” restore all things). Therefore, because John was dead it would have been improper, if not impossible, to describe his ministry using the future tense.  Consequently, Jesus clearly stated that Elijah’s return was still a future event—period, full stop!  In other words, John’s ministry was not the literal fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy concerning Elijah.

So what precisely did John’s ministry do and fulfill? John was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of a herald that would announce the Lord’s first arrival, and because his ministry was similar to Elijah, then he also dressed and ministered like Elijah (Mark 1.1-7). John announced Jesus’ first coming in a fashion that mirrored how Elijah will prepare people for Jesus’ second coming. Consequently, Jesus was not unjustified in describing John as Elijah, stating that “but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands” (Matt 17.12). And here is the most significant difference between the ministries of these prophets, John announced Jesus first coming, which ended with Jesus’ death on the cross. Elijah will prepare people for Jesus second coming, which will end with Jesus’ glorious victory over a rebellious and depraved world.

So who was John? John was the last Old Testament prophet, whose ministry was to be the forerunner of Jesus’ first advent. In order for Jesus to be properly recognized as the Messiah, God chose to send a prophet in the “spirit and power” of Elijah.  Isaiah prophesied about John’s ministry, which was to prepare the Jews for the Messiah by announcing his arrival and calling them to repent and prepare to live with him. John was not Elijah, as John himself freely admitted. John has died, while Elijah has yet to die; consequently, Elijah is able to return to earth. And he will return to this world to forewarn it of the Lord’s approaching universal judgment. Elijah’s future ministry was foretold by the prophet Malachi and reaffirmed by Jesus, and God literally keeps all of his promises, no matter how fantastic they may sound. He can do so precisely because he is God, and there is no promise too great for him to literally fulfill. If you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ literally died on the cross for the sins of the world, and physically rose from the grave to secure eternal life for all who believe, and that he will literally return to earth, then there is no reasonable objection against also accepting that the prophet Elijah will physically return to earth to forewarn the world of the Lord’s impending second coming.

Monte Shanks Copyright, © 2018

Read Full Post »

THE HOAX THAT IS “MEDICAL” MARIJUANA

Americans love myths and hoaxes.  Unicorns are very popular with small children; and even though most know that they are not real, they still love to play with them just the same. And then there are adults who believe in alien abductions. Some believe that America didn’t really put men on the moon, arguing that it was all just an elaborate hoax filmed in Hollywood using special effects.  Others think that “Piltdown Man” is real and still a link of the human evolutionary chain. And of course some believe that our own government was behind the 911 attack.  All of these are hoaxes and myths.  However, the greatest hoax promoted today is the concept of “medical marijuana.”

Now before continuing, I would first like to make an important qualification. I have no doubt that within the differing types of marijuana plants around the world that there may be chemical compounds that have legitimate medical benefits, and with thorough research they can be harnessed and standardized for productive medical usages.  But that is not what is being promoted today by the term “medical marijuana.”  This term is used as a propaganda tool in order to promote the idea throughout America that marijuana can be a good thing; consequently, recreational marijuana is not all that bad.

First, there are a few facts one should know about marijuana.  Marijuana is addictive just like morphine and cocaine.  The CDC states that 1 out of 10 adults that regularly use marijuana become addicted to it, and among teenagers that percentage rises to 1 out of 6.  Furthermore, one side effect of marijuana is that it changes a person’s personality and motivation, especially if used while a teenager.  It turns many who are transitioning from youth to adulthood from potentially functional and productive citizens, to apathetic and directionless addicts—this I have seen with my own eyes.  Secondly, marijuana is a carcinogenic, which means it can cause cancer.  In case you have never learned how one smokes marijuana, then you should know that the key to getting a high is to inhale the smoke into your lungs as deeply as possible and then hold it there for as long as possible (I know this because even though I never used marijuana, I grew up with a lot of kids that grew it for themselves).  This practice of holding smoke in one’s lungs enables THC to get into the blood stream sooner and more thoroughly, thereby receiving a greater “high.”  The problem with this practice it also embeds carcinogenic compounds more systemically throughout one’s lungs.  This issue is exacerbated when you realize after a while users begin to experience highs that are both shorter and less intense. Consequently, they begin searching for more potent strands of marijuana, and in their constant search for higher highs they not only inhale it more deeply, but they also inhale it in greater amounts as well. Consequently, marijuana is a danger to one’s emotional, physical, and psychological stability, and threatens one’s ability to think and behave in a mature and productive manner. Lastly and regrettably, for many others marijuana has been a gateway drug to more harmful and addictive drugs—the evidence for which is undisputable.

Now just a few facts about how pharmaceuticals are approved in the United States. The FDA mandates that not only must potential medications go through a strenuous multistage research process involving years or even decades, but also that the entire research methodology must meet their exacting standards.  So, the FDA not only has oversight with respect to which drugs may be approved for development, but it also demands that the research method for potential medications must produce a standardized and reproducible result, and this is done so that the results of the research can be verified through duplication. This entire process is how the FDA ensures a drug’s health benefit.  While some may criticize what the FDA requires and what it allows with respect to pharmaceutical research, the fact is that this process has produced some of the most effective and beneficial medications used throughout the world today. I know this because my father worked for several pharmaceutical companies and has even represented some of them at the FDA’s headquarters in Maryland.

So what is really happening with the concept of “medical marijuana?”  First of all, the concept of “medical marijuana” is a complete farce. FDA approved “medicines” must meet controlled standards that ensure that the proper amount of the active ingredient is actually dispensed per dosage. Receiving a safe dosage is not possible when smoking a joint purchased from a legal medical cannabis dealer (which is now legal in 32 states), or was grown in his or her backyard. And while our country is plagued with an opioid crisis, a minority of Americans is fighting for the right to use marijuana at will. Even ex-House Speaker John Boehner has become an informal spokesman for the marijuana industry.  The growing attitude towards recreational cannabis seems to be that people have a right to smoke marijuana as a part of their “pursuit of happiness.” That clause in our nation’s Declaration of Independence is not a suicide pact between the individual and America’s greater culture.  If an individual’s pursuit of happiness guarantees harm to 1000s of others, then that individual is ethically bound to find a new pursuit. For example, if the president of Ford asserts that he is happiest by producing vehicles that explode into pieces when involved in a minor fender bender, then it doesn’t matter that his happiness may be suppressed, the American government is justified in protecting the American people by not allowing Mr Ford to produce cars that are known to be dangerous.  It doesn’t matter if Mr Ford never experiences a fender bender where his car own blows up, the fact is that others will be harmed badly by his cars; consequently, he is ethically and legally prohibited from his “pursuit of happiness.” Nevertheless, while the American population is being deceived into thinking marijuana is really a good thing, our state governments are no longer interested in fighting to protect our communities from this dangerous hoax. Instead, they see commercialized marijuana as just another tax revenue stream. And there is one last consideration with respect to medical marijuana, if you think medical malpractice is a problem for the American healthcare system, how many lawyers can you imagine are waiting in the wings for the chance to file suits on behalf of patients that were either injured in accidents while under the influence of cannabis, or contracted cancer or other debilitating diseases because it was prescribed to them? If you think you are tired of class action lawsuit commercials now, then you haven’t seen anything yet.

So what is the point of this blog?  The point is that as marijuana usage increasingly becomes normalized (whether illegal, recreational, or even medical usage), then churches will need to develop a biblical position that addresses what will be acceptable behavior from their leaders, as well as what will be tolerated within their official ministries, on their properties, and at their facilities.  And if you think this is just a big to do about nothing, I actually know of an Evangelical minister that has tolerated marijuana usage in his own the home; and to my knowledge he has yet to be fired.  Regrettably, one thing I know from personal experience about marijuana users is this, they are evangelistic about marijuana!  While the church may not be concerned with promoting the benefits of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, marijuana users are never shy about what great “fun” you can have by getting stoned with them. Even though marijuana is never mentioned in the Bible, we are told that we should never be adversely influenced or controlled by any mood or mind altering substances, but instead we are to be under the constant guidance and influence of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5.15-18; Luke 21.34-36; 2 Tim 2.2). It is not well-defended suggestion to assert that although Paul and Jesus condemned drunkenness, they would have been okay with smoking an occasional joint in order to enhance one’s creativity and relaxation.  Moreover, churches need to come to grips with the fact that they will lose attendees because they take a stand on the dangers involving marijuana usage.  And don’t be surprised if they don’t leave quietly, the scriptures clearly state that they will also attempt to smear your church’s reputation before others (1 Peter 4.1-4). Do addicts and drug users need the Lord, they surely do.  Do some believers become addicts, regrettably this is also true.  Nevertheless, while Jesus may have turned water into wine, he certainly would not have rolled a joint or fired up a bong.  Consequently, the church needs to prepare itself with a well-grounded biblical perspective concerning drug abuse; as well as a compassionate and effective ministry that receives those seeking refuge from its life draining side effects. One of today’s greatest hoaxes is the concept of “medical marijuana,” and believing that drug use is not really a concern for the church is as helpful as playing with unicorns.

Copyright @ 2018 Monte Shanks

Read Full Post »

DID PAUL AND JAMES DISAGREE ON THE ISSUE OF FAITH AND WORKS?

DOES FAITH PLUS WORKS SECURE SALVATION?

One observation that is often raised when reading the Epistle of James is that James’s teaching about the relationship between works and faith seems to “contradict” what Paul taught on the subject.  One thing we should remember with respect to the Epistle of James is that in all probably it is earlier than any of Paul’s letters.  Some seemed to think that James is disagreeing with Paul.  However, with respect to chronology, if anyone is disagreeing with someone, it would have been Paul disagreeing with James, and not vice versa.  However, contrary to what some may assert, there is no real conflict between these two early church leaders, a fact which is objectively documented in Acts 15.13-29 and Galatians 2.7-9.

Nevertheless, some perceive a conflict when they attempt to understand James’s use of the word “justify” through Paul’s use of the very same word.  Before turning my attention to James’s use, an important observation should be made concerning his theology on salvation.  James never taught that a person is saved through works alone.  James mentions the word “faith” just as many times as he mentions the word “works” (actually more if one includes relative pronouns and synonyms).  For James, faith and works were different sides of the same coin rather than two separate actions or entities.  His problem, however, was with those claiming belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and yet showed little objective evidence of it in their lives.  So let’s be clear, James was not concerned with performing religious works for the sake of securing justification before God, but rather with certain types of works that reveal genuine saving faith.

Now as to James’s and Paul’s use of the word “justify.”  When Paul used the word “justify” he almost exclusively used it in the forensic sense.  In other words, he used in the context of God’s declaration of a new completed reality.  More specifically, he used it to describe what God declares as an accomplished status for sinners through their faith in Christ (Rom 5.1, 8-9; 1 Cor 6.9-11; Titus 3.5-7).  And just for the record, when God declares something accomplished, it is then a reality—it no longer should be thought of as belonging to the realm of the potential.  Generally speaking, therefore, when Paul used the word “justify,” he was predominantly describing what God has accomplished for a sinner in spite of his/her guilt.  In God’s courtroom, he declares the repentant sinner justified and thus righteous in His eyes because of Christ’s payment for his or her sin debt.

This is not what James meant as he used the word “justify.”  If this word had only one nuance or one specific meaning in which it always meant the exact same thing in every context, then unquestionably Paul and James would be in conflict.  However, it does not have the same exact meaning in every context, and even Paul and Jesus also used this very word with a very different nuance.  And what is this different meaning?  It is the meaning or sense of “vindication.”  As previously explained, Paul predominantly used the word with the meaning of God declaring a guilty but repentant sinner as “justified” through his or her acceptance of Christ as their savior, and thus he has confirmed upon them a new status.  However, in a different context, the proper understanding of this word is “to vindicate or acknowledge that the righteous were already in fact what they claimed to be, which is ‘righteous.’”  In other words, it is not a declaration of a new state of being, but a declaration that what was previously claimed was in fact true. Following are examples of where Paul and Jesus used this word with this very meaning.   The first is Romans 3.4 with respect to God’s judgments.  The question we should ask ourselves is this, are God’s declarations ever wrong or incorrect?  No, they are not.  In this passage, therefore, God’s judgments are not being declared right in spite of the fact that they were not, but rather they are being “proved right” (NIV) or vindicated as being right.   Again, in 1 Timothy 3.16 Paul stated that Jesus was “vindicated” (NASB) by the Holy Spirit during his earthly ministry.  In other words, the Holy Spirit did not declare Jesus as right in spite of himself, rather the Spirit revealed or vindicated Jesus to be what he already was, which was the righteous one sent by God.  And lastly, Jesus stated in Matthew 11:19 that “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” (NABS).  Did Jesus mean that wisdom needs to be declared right in spite of itself, or that wisdom is vindicated to be exactly what it is (i.e., wisdom) by her deeds?  Clearly what Jesus meant was that wisdom is always wisdom, and her deeds reveal this to be obvious, because through them the integrity of authentic wisdom is inevitably demonstrated.

And this is exactly James’s point, which is that authentic faith is vindicated as genuine saving faith because it results in a changed life that is habitually faithful, compassionate, and loving.  A mere confession of faith without any works that are the natural result of authentic faith is useless, and therefore dead.  In other words, simply saying that you “believe” in Jesus is not a “hall pass” that excuses your unbelief.  God is not fooled by anyone’s hypocrisy with respect to their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at what James actually taught about the relationship of faith and works, as well as his examples of genuine faith. If we look at James’s quote of Genesis 15.6, we see that he states that Abraham’s attempted offering of Isaac “fulfilled” what God had already declared to be true concerning Abraham.  More specifically, Abraham’s actions revealed that he had already sincerely trusted God with for his life and what God had promised him concerning his descendants.  And for the record, James fully understood that God had already declared Abraham righteous well before he placed Isaac upon that alter, which is obvious by James’s quote of Genesis 15.3 (the account of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac is found in Genesis 22).  Again, Rahab’s faith was vindicated as genuine faith by her decision to hide the Israelite spies.  Consequently, her deed proved that she had already truly believed in the God of Israel.  There is something very intriguing about the specific actions of these two OT believers.  Think about them, one attempted sacrifice of a child, and the other was the treasonous act of a harlot.  In other words, they are not the types of compassionate deeds that immediately come to mind when we think of what constitutes “good works.”  When we think of “good works” we think of compassionate acts that show how good we really are, such as feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.  That is not what Abraham’s and Rahab’s actions demonstrated, their “good deeds” revealed that they had fully trusted God instead of their own capacity to benefit themselves. Consequently, their actions revealed that they already trusted in God and that their faith in him was genuine.  More specifically, they revealed their total abandonment of all that they held dear for nothing more than a belief that God would provide for them. Such dependence is the hallmark of authentic saving faith.

And finally, Jesus as well as all of the other NT writers—including Paul—clearly taught that genuine faith produces “good works” in the lives of those who are saved (Matt 7.16-20; Eph 2.8-9; Titus 2.14; 1 Pet. 2.9-12; 1 Jn 3.13-18).  So, without question the old proverb is soundly biblical, which is as follows: “While works do not save, saving faith works.”  Consequently, James did not teach that salvation is the “reward” for those that believe and perform good works, but that good works are a birthmark of those who how have been already born again.  Our attitude, therefore, should not be that we have to believe in Jesus and do good works in order to earn or secure our salvation, but that because Jesus has already saved us, then we get to do good works that magnify the name of our wonderful savior and glorify God.

Doc

Copyright @ 2013 Monte Shanks

 

 

Read Full Post »

LITERACY, PAGAN RELIGIONS, AND JUDAISM

Occasionally while researching the historicity of the Old Testament you will come across scholars who argue that “Judaism” did not arise until the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. The opinion of some liberal scholars is that the Jews did not really have their “religion” in literary form during the earliest periods in Hebrew history; instead the Hebrews relied almost exclusively in oral “forms” or stories to preserve their faith. Consequently, Judaism’s appreciation and obedience to its literature is a rather late development in Jewish spirituality and culture, a development that occurred when the Jews returned to the Southern Kingdom (i.e., Judea) from exile after the fall of the Babylonian empire at the hands of the Persians; thus the term “Judaism.”

Extremely radical and secular scholars would additionally assert that it was at this point that Judaism began to become distinctly different from pagan religions. Therefore, I wish to address this issue of orality (also aurality in some technical works) with respect to the pagan religions of the Roman world, as well as the true origin and basis of authentic Judaism, which always found its roots in its historical Hebrew faith and writings. For the remainder of the blog please understand that I am using the terms “the Hebrew faith” and “Judaism” as synonyms; consequently, understand that in this blog these concepts refer to the same belief system.

Judaism was very different compared to pagan religions because it was primarily a text-based faith—even in the very beginning during the time of Moses. Pagan religions, however, were all based on myths that were almost exclusively passed on via oral traditions and dissemination.  Pagan religions were different because unlike Judaism they were not based upon actual historical events (e.g., the Exodus; the Great Flood; the 40 year wanderings in the desert).  That is not to say that some pagan religions do not refer to actual historical events (e.g., the flood), but that at their core they are not based in reality, instead they are grounded in myths and legends about the mortal life and the pantheon.  Judaism, however, is based upon the historical reality of God’s personal intervention within human history.  Exclusive orality of tradition, therefore, has never been the basis of the Jewish faith (see Duet 4.1-2, 13-14; 6.4-9; Josh 1.6-9). From as early as the time of Moses, Judaism was founded upon written texts that are contained in the Old Testament, specifically beginning with the Pentateuch. Moreover, Jews were expected to be able to read and understand their religious texts if they wished to correctly obey them. Consequently, the literacy rate among Jews was in all probability higher than that of polytheistic Gentiles whose worldview consisted of a belief in the pantheon and mystery religions, which all were primarily rehearsed and preserved through oral mediums. Some modern scholars have suggested that the literacy rate during the Roman empire was around 10%, and even lower among Jews.  However, more recent scholarship has observed historical data that contradicts this assertion, as well as the apparent weaknesses and significant gaps in the research techniques of those who promote such a conjecture concerning Jewish literacy rates.

Nevertheless, this is not to say that oral traditions were not important in Judaism, for clearly oral traditions were a part of the practice of Judaism since Jews often depended upon priests, scribes, and Pharisees to explain the correct application of God’s word—and many of these later explanations were originally communicated orally. However, it is to say that unlike the pagan religions that surrounded Israel, Judaism was grounded in a written text that was fixed and not subject to change. This is evident in Jesus’ rebukes of his opponents for either their outright disobedience of God’s written word (Mark 7.1-13) or their misunderstanding of the emphasis of God’s Word (Matt 23.23-28).  Furthermore, Jesus, his opponents, and Paul all referred to the Law of Moses as being originally composed by Moses himself and containing the correct practice and theology of Judaism, as well as prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah (Luke 20.28 & 37; Rom 10.5).  Most importantly, Jesus himself believed that Moses was the actual human author of the Mosaic Covenant in its original written form; consequently, his writings preserve the origin and correct practice of the Hebrew faith, which is referred to by Second Temple period scholarship as “Judaism.”  Jesus never credited Ezra or any of the scribes and priest from the Babylonian exile with the origins of Judaism (i.e., the original authentic beliefs and practices contained in the Mosaic Covenant). Jesus knew the progenitors of the Jewish nation were Abraham and Sarah, and the authentic Judaism began with the Mosaic Law, which was recorded and preserved by Moses himself (such an assertion does not deny that Moses may have used scribes to assist in recording the Mosaic Covenant; e.g., Joshua or Aaron).  Most importantly, Jesus argued that Moses actually wrote about him (John 5.45-47); consequently, if one is inclined to reject that Moses was the original author of the Torah, then they must also conclude that Jesus did not know what he was talking about, and thus Jesus was also a bumbling idiot and a fraud. It is more likely, however, that the incarnate God knew what he was talking about.

Some liberal scholars argue that there was no such thing as “writing” during the time of Moses, and whatever type of writing existed in that era the average Jew could not read it. This is a poorly defended argument; most scholars recognize that even in Moses time there existed styles of written communication among both the Egyptians (hieroglyphics) and the Hebrews (pre-paleo-Hebrew). Moreover, an very obscure passage in Judges 8.14 reveals that when Gideon capture a “young” man (or boy) that he was able to “write down” the names of the leaders of the city, which numbered more than 70 men.  It is not likely that later copyist would insert such an obvious potential anachronism into a text that they were inventing. It is more probable that they would have simply recorded that the boy “told” them the names of the leaders of the city.  However, the text states that it was the young boy that “wrote down” the names of the men that Gideon was seeking.  Consequently, to assert that these were not written forms of communication is simply ludicrous. In fact, in our technologically advanced modern era we are now returning to a similar method of communication with our Smartphones that is eerily similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics, which we call “emojis” and/or “memes.” For example, if you text to me a time and a place to have coffee and while doing so you insert an emoji of a cup of coffee with the following symbols “@ 9am @ McD’s”, and I text back to you a “thumbs up,” we both have communicated in written form even though we have not actually used English words.  Another example is a cigarette encircled in red with a red strip across it. Everyone knows that this symbol means that cigarette smoking is prohibited in that area. Consequently, Evangelical scholars should recognize that Moses communicated in some type of written form to the Hebrews the covenant that he received directly from God, and he expected them to be able to read and obey it for themselves.

This is not to assert, however, that we do not have “progressive revelation” from God contained in the scriptures. By progressive revelation I mean new prophetic writings inspired by God that reveal his will for his people during the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Consequently, the people of God received new prophetic and historic books that also became part of the canonical the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms, minor and major prophetical writings, and historical writings such as the books of Esther or Nehemiah). God continued to reveal himself to the Jews by speaking to them through his prophets who continued to faithfully preserve God’s commands and directives in written form. The preservation of God’s word into written form occurred before the exilic period, during the exilic period, as well as after the exilic period. It is to argue, however, that authentic Judaism was not “invented” during the exilic or post-exilic periods, as many radical liberal scholars assert. Consequently, the paradigm that radical Form Critics use to explain the “development” of the Old and New Testaments (i.e., that the sacred texts of both Jews and Christians “evolved” and changed over time) is severely flawed. The bottom line of this blog is that Jesus believed and taught that Moses was the original author of the Mosaic Covenant (i.e., the Pentateuch). It is this covenant, which was preserved in written form during the earliest periods of Jewish history, that provides the authentic origin and basis of the Hebrew faith. Moreover, the Hebrew faith, commonly referred to in biblical research as “Judaism,” was not originally preserved in written form until the exilic or post-exilic periods; instead it finds its origins from the very hand of Moses himself. Consequently, since Jesus believed and taught that the recording of Judaism originally began with Moses, this should be our conviction as well.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2012

 

Read Full Post »

Why Isn’t Jesus’s Birth Year AD 1 and Other Answers about His Ministry and Crucifixion

When people study the life of Jesus Christ, some are often confused by the assertion that he was born in 4 BC, meaning that he was born in the year 4 “Before Christ.” Intuitively, one would think that Jesus’ birth year should be AD 1; more precisely, during year 1 of the “year of our Lord” (“anno domini” is the proper Latin phrase and “AD” is it’s abbreviation for year designations). First, the confusion concerning Jesus’ birth year originates from several errors made by a 6th century Scythian monk named Dionysius, who was the originator of the designations BC/AD (you can find more information about him on the web).  Dionysius, being a Christian monk, desired to create a new division of history that started with the year of Jesus’ birth. Obviously these designations were not used during Jesus’ earthly ministry. Ironically, Dionysius’s idea didn’t even catch on very quickly in his day. Nevertheless, as Dionysius calculated Jesus’ birth year, he made several critical errors. However, one should not castigate him too badly since the historical records available to him were not as accurate as those available to us today. Moreover, precision with respect to historical records was not as highly valued as it is today. Nevertheless, his mistakes are the origin of one of the greatest confusions in all of human history—literally. We all have bad days, but his takes the cake! Consequently, with respect to the year of Jesus’ birth, he was off by at least 4 years (I personally calculate Jesus’ birth as having occurred near the beginning of 4 BC). This particular estimation dovetails well with the final year of Herod the Great’s reign. Historical evidence indicates that during the final days of Herod the Great’s life, knowing that his death was nearing, he ordered that “all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation” be gathered into a stadium (i.e., the “Hyppodrome”) where they were to be executed for the purpose of ensuring that there was great mourning throughout the land upon his death.

Josephus documented Herod’s order in this manner:

“But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins; . . . and having no longer the least hopes of recovering, he gave order that every soldier should be paid fifty drachmae; and he also gave a great deal to their commanders, and to his friends, and came again to Jericho, where he grew so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman; and though he were near his death, he contrived the following wicked designs. He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation, wherever they lived, should be called to him . . . .  he ordered them to be all shut up in the Hyppodrome, and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: “I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; . . . but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death.”     . . .  He desired therefore, that as soon as they see he hath given up the ghost, they shall place soldiers round the hippodrome, while they do not know that he is dead; and that they shall not declare his death to the multitude till this is done, but that they shall give orders to have those that are in custody shot with their arrows; and that this slaughter of them all will cause that he shall not miss to rejoice on a double account; that as he is dying, they will make him secure that his will shall be executed in what he charges them to do; and that he shall have the honor of a memorable mourning at his funeral. . . . Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man’s mind; . . .  since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes . . . .”[1]

Consequently, it is not a great stretch to imagine that Herod would have given a similar demented order to slaughter a few dozen male infants in the little hamlet of Bethlehem around this same time. An order that he gave upon receiving news that the Magi from the East (i.e., political emissaries from the Parthian empire) had evaded him while not providing to him the exact location of where the new born king of the Jews was born (cf. Matt. 2.1-18). Therefore, since most scholars date Herod the Great’s death as occurring in 4 BC, it seems that Jesus actual birth also occurred in either early 4 BC or very late 5 BC.

Another common mistake some make when calculating how old Jesus was when he began his public ministry concerns the number of years between BC and AD (or BCE and CE according to secular designations, primarily because they wish to minimize the impact that Jesus’ life had in today’s culture).  One must not calculate an additional year by adding a “0” year between the years 1 BC and AD 1. Consequently, the transition from 1 BC to AD 1 is immediate, there is no “0” year in between them.

So with these issues in mind, when was Jesus born, how long was his public ministry, and when was he crucified? Luke wrote that Jesus was “around” 30 years old when he started his public ministry (Lk 3.23), which means that he could have been between 29 to 33 years of age (Luke was not trying to provide Jesus’ exact age). Consequently, if one assumes that Jesus began his ministry in AD 30, then it would mean he was approximately 33 years old at that time (assuming his birth was in 4 BC). A review of the Gospels reveals that at the very least Jesus’ earthly ministry was 2 full years, but more probably 3 full years (that is if one views John 5.1 as also referring to a Passover). However, his ministry could have lasted as long as 5 years (assuming that the Gospel writers did not record all of the Passovers that occurred during his earthly ministry). This longer period assumes that Jesus’ trial occurred during Pilate’s final year in office (which was AD 36). This estimation is the latest possible year of Jesus’ earthly ministry since Pilate oversaw the Roman portion of Jesus’ trial. However, it is not likely that Jesus’ trial occurred during Pilate’s final year in office. Consequently, assuming that Jesus was crucified in AD 33 (the most likely year of his crucifixion), then that would make him around 36 years old at his death and resurrection (assuming a full 3 years of public ministry; see the chronology below).

• 4 BC = Jesus was born.
• AD 30 = Jesus was around 33 years old when he began his 3 year public ministry.
• AD 33 = Jesus was around 36 years old when he was crucified and arose physically from the dead. Remember, his public ministry began near the Passover in AD 30 and it ended during the Passover in AD 33; thus, the estimate of a full 3 year ministry.

If one assumes that his crucifixion was in AD 30 (which is another reasonable possibility), then it means his public ministry began ca. AD 27 (thus Luke’s description that Jesus was around “30” since AD 27 + BC 4 = 30 years). Remember, being born in 4 BC only includes 3 years to 1 BC, not 4 full years.  For example: 4-3 is one year, 3-2 is the second, and 2-1 BC is the final year, which equals 3 years. Afterwards, one’s calculations must begin immediately with AD 1. This alternative calculation means that Jesus was about 33 years old when he died and arose physically from the grave.[2]

• 4 BC = Jesus was born
• AD 27 = Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his 3 year public ministry.
• AD 30 = Jesus was about 33 years old when he was crucified and arose from the grave.

Please be aware that these are only estimations that are based on the historical records that are currently available. It is hoped that they help in clarifying some of the confusing issues concerning when Jesus was born; as well as when his public ministry began and how long it lasted; and finally, the year of his glorious resurrection.

[1] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVII.6.5-6.

[2] For explanations of astronomical calculations that point to Jesus’ crucifixion as occurring during the Passover in either AD 30 or AD 33, see D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 126-27. For a more thorough explanation of these issues and more, see Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspect of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: 1977).

Read Full Post »

WAS THE APOSTLE PAUL A “MYSTIC”?

Was Paul a mystic?  Bruce’s discussion on this topic in his book Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free is not very helpful on this subject, primarily because he uses three different definitions for mysticism in his discussion; consequently, his approach causes more confusion than clarity.  If one attempts to employ every possible definition of mysticism to Paul’s experience, then it will be impossible to determine if Paul was a “mystic.”  Therefore, I will begin discussing this issue by offering a single brief definition before addressing this question.

For the sake of this discussion, and against my better judgment, I will use Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary for a definition of mysticism.  One of Webster definitions for “mysticism” is as follows:  2. “A doctrine of an intermediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding . . . .”   My own definition would be “a propensity to rely upon personal experiences of subjective intuition that bypasses the senses and defies rational thought or reason.”  However, for this discussion Webster’s definition will suffice.

For some people any subjective spiritual experience would qualify as a mystical experience since it does not involve the physical senses.  Such a position, however, views the spiritual world as unnatural; consequently any expression of spirituality is viewed as mysterious or mystical.  I would contend that such a worldview is biased simply because it rejects the spiritual world as a reality; thus, it should be rejected.  Any worldview that considers the spiritual realm as “unnatural” or mysterious should be questioned. The bottom line is this, being a spiritually minded person is not synonymous with being “mystical.”

But by using Webster’s second definition the question is, was Paul a mystic and was his conversion a mystical experience?  I would argue that Paul conversion and his approach to spirituality was not mystical.  For starters one should analyze his conversion.  Paul was converted when he experienced a miraculous event that was confirmed by several real and physical phenomena.  First, Paul and his companies saw a bright light, which was also accompanied by a noise that was heard by all—which Paul understood as the voice of Jesus (speaking in a Hebrew dialect) but those with him either did not understand that is was a voice or did not understand the language that was being spoken (for further discussion see my blog on is there a contradiction in Paul’s personal testimonies in Acts).  Second, Paul was immediately confronted with the loss of a physical sense—his eyesight.  And lastly, Paul regained his sight when Ananias touched him and “scales” fell from his eyes. These scales were physical and not “mythical” since they were seen by others.  That they may have symbolized Paul’s spiritual blindness before he received Christ one can only speculate.  Nevertheless, they were real scales, they were not imagined by Paul.  Moreover, how mystical could Paul’s Damascus Road experience have been if he didn’t fully understand what had happened to him?  In other words, Paul didn’t fully comprehend the experience and identify of who he had met until Annias showed up and explained it to him (Acts 9.17-18).  Consequently, Paul’s experience was not completely understood and appreciated solely by “spiritual intuition” or through a “personal experiences of subjective intuition.”  Instead, Paul’s conversion involved the physical senses of sight and sound that were also experienced by multiple people, as well as being corroborated and illuminated through rational explanation from Annias concerning the identity of who Paul met on the Damascus Road. Clearly, Paul’s conversion was miraculous, but it was not mystical.  What Paul experienced and heard was attested to by others and involved physical events and phenomena.  Consequently, Paul’s Damascus Road experience and subsequent conversion is best described as a supernatural divine intervention and not a subjective mystical experience.

This is not to say that Paul never had mystical experiences—e.g., being caught up in the third heaven.  Clearly, Paul had personal spiritual experiences that defy explanation or confirmation by others.  The question is, however, were those experiences the basis for his theology and his approach to spirituality (e.g., what Paul meant when he spoke of being “in Christ”)?  If one reviews all of Paul’s epistles what will be found is regular references to the Old Testament and appeals to logic and real world experiences (such as the Law was a tutor, and that Jews are freed from the Law just as a wife is upon the death of her husband).  Paul’s theology was not based upon appeals to his mystical experiences.  Does not Paul call our union with Christ a mystery?  Indeed he did, but Paul’s theology of our union with Christ was not based upon his mystical experiences but upon the teachings of Jesus and the promises that Paul found in the Old Testament.  Being “in Christ” in Paul’s theology spoke to our legal standing before God the Father as much as it spoke to our inseparable fellowship with Jesus.  Paul and his theology was a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” experience or doctrine.  Consequently, while there are mystical elements to Paul’s teachings about our relationship to the Lord (I doubt anyone would argue that the union of sinful mortals with the holiness of God is “normal” or logical), that is not to prove that Paul was a mystic.  Instead, Paul was a leader with a vital and intimate relationship with the Lord, who based his theology of the reality of the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament, promises that could be rationally explained and reasonably believed, all of which were ultimately grounded upon the historical event of the Lord Jesus’ crucifixion, death, burial, and physical resurrection from the dead.  Moreover, lest we forget, Paul claimed that he met the risen Lord Jesus Christ, not through some mystical subjective experience, but in his physical resurrected body (cf. 1 Cor 9.1, 15.8; Acts 23.11).  Consequently, Paul did not appeal to his own subjective experiences as the foundation of his theology, but to the historic fact of the risen Savior.  Consequently, Paul was not a mystic.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2014

 

Read Full Post »