On a different hill outside Jerusalem called Golgotha, another judgment would take place, not in myth but in the harsh reality of Roman crucifixion. Unlike Mars Hill, Golgotha was not a place of philosophical debate but of ultimate sacrifice, as Jesus Christ gave His life for humankind (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). In Acts 17, Paul confronts the philosophers of Athens on Mars Hill, redirecting their focus from myth and idolatry to the Creator, contrasting two rocks of judgment: one of mythical gods and one of the living God who offers true salvation through resurrection.

The Areopagus: A Place of Judgment and Inquiry

The Areopagus lies northwest of the Acropolis, 250 meters from the imposing temple complex of Athena. The rocky hill (rising over 70 feet above the agora) itself functioned as a critical institution in ancient Greece, serving as the high court of appeal for criminal and civil cases. Known in Greek as “martial peak,” the Areopagus combined its symbolic connection to Ares with a reputation for strict, impartial justice. Parties brought before this court were positioned between sacrificial remains, swearing oaths by the infernal deities. Here, truth was paramount, as testimonies were given without emotional manipulation to ensure fairness.¹

By the time of Paul, Mars Hill was as much a center for philosophical debate as it was for legal cases. Athenians and foreigners alike would gather to discuss the nature of the divine and the meaning of life. On this hill, Paul encountered Epicureans and Stoics, the leading philosophical schools of his day. Epicureans, following Epicurus, argued that pleasure was life’s highest aim, though they emphasized rational, restrained pleasure rather than indulgence. They dismissed any notion of divine intervention in human affairs, seeing gods as indifferent. In contrast, the Stoics, founded by Zeno of Citium, embraced a worldview in which everything was governed by Fate, seeing virtue and emotional self-control as the pathway to happiness. Their deity was a cosmic force, bound to Fate, in stark contrast to Paul’s personal, sovereign Creator.

Paul’s Address to the Unknown God

Paul’s opening words on Mars Hill highlight the Athenians’ pervasive religiosity: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious” (Acts 17:22).² The city, saturated with idols, had even erected an altar “to an unknown god” (Acts 17:23, NIV). Paul seizes this symbol of uncertainty to declare that the God they worship in ignorance is indeed knowable—the Creator of heaven and earth, who “does not live in temples made by man” (Acts 17:24). By this, Paul directly challenges the Athenians’ pantheon, where gods were represented by lifeless stones and idols. Instead, he presents the true God, who is not confined to altars but is the source of life and breath.

The Areopagus was, therefore, not merely a location but a microcosm of the Athenian quest for truth—a place where philosophical ideas about human existence and divinity were debated with intense scrutiny. Yet, Paul insists that the Athenians’ knowledge is incomplete. His appeal climaxes with the resurrection: “He has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). In a city and location dominated by lifeless idols, Paul boldly introduces the reality of a living God, validated by Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

Golgotha: The Reality of Judgment and Redemption

In contrast to Mars Hill, Golgotha—meaning “Place of the Skull”—was not a place of myth but a site grounded in history, located just outside Jerusalem’s walls. Archaeological excavations led by Kathleen Kenyon³ in the 1960s revealed that Golgotha was part of a quarry used until the first century B.C., a conclusion supported by the Gospel descriptions that it lay outside the city (John 19:20). Over time, this abandoned quarry area likely became gardens or fields, as indicated by traces of plowing and other agricultural activities, corresponding to the Gospel accounts that speak of surrounding gardens (Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; John 19:41).

The topography of Golgotha, a hill outside the city, added to its ominous reputation as a place of judgment, fitting the Romans’ practice of executing criminals in visible, public locations to emphasize the consequences of defying Rome. Excavations have further uncovered Roman-era artifacts, such as debris layers from the Jewish-Roman wars, which indicate periods of rebuilding and destruction after Jesus’ crucifixion. Golgotha was a stark, elevated outcrop that provided visibility, making it a fitting site for the climactic judgment of Jesus, where the sin of humanity was judged through His sacrifice. In sharp contrast, Mars Hill’s fame lies in its cultural associations with philosophy and legend.

The significance of Golgotha rests in its transformation from a place of death to a symbol of hope through Christ’s resurrection. Jesus represents peace and reconciliation, transforming Golgotha into a place of redemption. Here, Paul’s message at Mars Hill finds its fulfillment. He juxtaposes the silent deities of Athenian myth with the living God, declaring, “We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man” (Acts 17:29). The judgment at Golgotha is no myth; it is a testament to the divine mercy and justice enacted on behalf of all humanity.

Connecting Mars Hill to Golgotha

Paul’s message on Mars Hill is not only a critique of Athenian idolatry but an invitation to bridge two vastly different conceptions of divinity. Mars Hill represented a judicial tradition where justice was intertwined with stories of gods like Ares. While the judicial system on Mars Hill may have attempted to maintain impartiality, the Athenian justice system was based on gods who themselves made foolish choices and were driven by selfish whims. Golgotha, on the other hand, demonstrates the true impartiality and selflessness of the living God who was willing to allow His only son to die for all humankind. While the Areopagus symbolized human attempts to grapple with concepts of justice and divinity, Golgotha represented the ultimate act of divine judgment, grounded not in myth but in Christ’s real sacrifice.

Myth Versus Reality: Theological Implications

Mars Hill embodies a philosophical ideal bound to myth, a culture of gods lacking compassion or reality. Ares embodied conflict and vengeance, traits that offered no hope for humanity. While Ares was being tried for a murder that he did commit, Jesus was the victim of capital punishment, though He was innocent of any crimes. Ares was guilty (although acquitted), and Jesus was guiltless (and still condemned). Golgotha represents a profound theological truth. Where Mars Hill’s idols were static symbols of human longing and shortcoming, Golgotha stands as the culmination of God’s plan of redemption, where a man—Christ—bore the penalty of sin for all.

When Paul speaks of the resurrection, he highlights the sharp difference between Athens’ gods and the God of Israel. While the gods of Ares’ Rock remained forever silent, the God of Golgotha validated His power through the resurrection of Jesus. This cornerstone of Paul’s argument underscores that Golgotha, unlike Mars Hill, represents true justice, love, and life. “For in him we live and move and have our being,” Paul declares, quoting a Greek poet (Acts 17:28) while pointing his listeners away from their lifeless idols to the living Creator.

Paul’s words at the Areopagus accentuate the futility of worshipping lifeless stones (Acts 17:29). Here, Paul draws from Deuteronomy and Psalms, emphasizing that the God he proclaims is not an object of human invention, but the Creator who desires a relationship with humanity. The unknown god of Mars Hill finds clarity and fulfillment in Golgotha’s sacrifice. Paul’s words, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), signify the urgency of his message, encouraging Athenians to turn from myth to the reality of Christ.

Conclusion: An Invitation from Myth to Reality

In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul bridges the cultural and theological gap between two rocks of judgment, inviting his audience to transition from myth to reality, from lifeless idols to the living God. He does not simply critique their traditions; he reveals the incompleteness of their understanding. The resurrection, central to his argument, stands as proof of God’s power over death and the true path to life. Paul’s declaration that God “does not live in temples made by man” (Acts 17:24) points away from the temples of Athens toward the living temple found in Christ.

Through Paul’s speech, Mars Hill becomes a steppingstone to Golgotha, offering an invitation to all who seek truth to move beyond philosophy and myth, finding ultimate judgment and mercy in the redemptive act of Christ. By presenting the God of resurrection, Paul calls the Athenians—and all who hear—to turn from lifeless stones to the living “cornerstone” of faith (1 Peter 2:6-8).

Endnotes

¹ Lysias (6.14) described the Areopagus as the most revered and impartial court in Athens. Sophocles, in Oedipus at Colonus (947-949), portrays Creon praising the Council as a body known for its wise deliberation, while Euripides, in Orestes (1650-1652), has Apollo assure Orestes that the Areopagus would judge his case with utmost fairness. The court’s dignity and esteemed reputation are also highlighted by Aristophanes’ decision never to satirize its activities, and it was deemed inappropriate to display humor in the presence of its members (Aeschin, 1.81-84). In the 1st century B.C., Diodorus (1.75.3) ranked the Areopagus alongside Sparta’s Council as one of the finest judicial bodies in Greece [E. Harris (2021), “Areopagus,” Oxford Classical Dictionary, August 31, https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-703]. This respect reflects the Athenians’ high regard for the rule of law, with the Areopagus symbolizing stability and order. During his visit to Athens, the Apostle Paul addressed the Areopagus, discussing theology and denouncing false idols, leading to several conversions (Acts 17:16-34). Even in Paul’s time, the Areopagus retained its status as Athens’ most esteemed court, representing the city’s deep respect for the rule of law [Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz (2011), “The Guardian of the Land: The Areopagus Council as a Symbol of Stability,” in Stability and Crisis in the Athenian Democracy, ed. Gabriel Herman (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag), 103-126].

² Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are taken from the English Standard Version.

³ Kathleen M. Kenyon (1967), Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History (New York: McGraw Hill), pp. 151-153; Kathleen M. Kenyon (1974), Digging Up Jerusalem (London: Ernest Benn Limited), pp. 227-231,261.

The post From Mars Hill to Golgotha: Paul’s Bridge Between Two Rocks of Judgment appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the May issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The physical and anatomical features of the figure depicted on the Shroud of Turin have undergone extensive scrutiny and analysis. The man’s hands appear to be positioned over the genital area, with the right hand fully covering any nudity. To maintain this position, either the body would need to be tilted forward with arms stretched downward, or the elbows would need to be propped up and the wrists drawn together.¹ However, after death, muscles lose tension and postural control, causing the limbs to relax. Without nervous activity to sustain specific positions, a corpse’s arms are likely to fall to the sides once muscle tension dissipates. Therefore, maintaining a hand-over-groin position post-mortem while supine is improbable.²

Ercoline, et al. found significant deviations between the man on the Shroud and normal human anatomy, specifically regarding the length of the fingers, length of one arm, size of the hips, and the placement of the elbows.³ The researchers concluded that these deviations could not be due to normal anatomical variations. According to some scholars,⁴ the anatomy of the left hand and arm appears unusually elongated and the fingers disproportional to allow for this modest covering. By applying principles of medical human proportion, researcher Elio Quiroga Rodriguez conducted an analysis revealing that the figure on the Shroud exhibits an exaggerated arm length, notably showing the left arm as approximately 7 to 10 centimeters longer than a typical arm.⁵ This discrepancy does not align well with known anatomical norms. Unfortunately, either the torso of the image on the Shroud is too short or the arms are too long for the hands to cover the genitals.

One might argue that trauma from crucifixion could cause such a deformation. However, studies like that of Bordes, et al.,⁶ which utilized direct forensic techniques, refute this claim. Even with shoulder, elbow, and wrist dislocations resulting from crucifixion, such an event would not cause an arm to extend to the exaggerated proportions observed. Furthermore, the hypothesis suggesting that the head is leaning forward is difficult to substantiate and does not align well with the anatomical expectations of a relaxed supine posture.⁷ These discrepancies raise questions about the anatomical accuracy and potential anachronisms present in the Shroud’s depiction.

Fanti, et al.⁸ also observed that the buttocks and legs do not appear flattened against the cloth, even where direct pressure on it is expected. The fatty tissue of the buttocks is not affected by rigor mortis, so if a real man, dead or alive, in rigor or not, was placed on the cloth, some evidence from 3D image software should show this contact flattening. However, there is none.

The hair depicted in the Shroud seems to be flowing towards the man’s shoulders, instead of falling towards the ground. Interestingly, the hair is not matted with blood, as one would expect from the trauma of a crown of thorns. Rather, the hair itself appears clean. In addition, there are some blood spots that seem to fall around the hair, as opposed to dripping from it.⁹ Coroners Bucklin and Zugibe accurately note that scalps bleed precipitously, but there still lacks an adequate explanation for the lack of blood on the hair and the blood that appears to lie outside the hair.

Caja and Boi¹⁰ recently analyzed the Shroud’s body image and bloodstains to assess the anatomical characteristics of the depicted figure. Upon detailed examination of high-quality images of the Shroud, the researchers observed significant discrepancies between the frontal (anterior) and posterior (back) views. According to Caja and Boi, in the frontal view of the image, both ankles are visible and aligned parallel, with no overlap or superposition of the feet. However, in the posterior view, the right foot is notably plantarflexed (pointed downward), a position not reflected in the frontal image. Additionally, the degree of plantarflexion differs substantially between the two views—14.5 degrees in the frontal view and 32 degrees in the posterior view—nearly double. In the posterior view, the right foot appears to be beneath the left, while in the frontal view, the right foot appears on top. These discrepancies between the two images, which should theoretically depict the same moment in time, raise concerns about the accuracy of the representation. The researchers concluded that there is no anatomical or scientific explanation for these anomalies.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Shroud clearly depicts nail wounds from nails driven through the dorsal area (top) of the feet, whereas all archaeological remains of crucified victims discovered to date exhibit piercings through the sides of the heel bone in a straddling formation.¹¹ Although variations in crucifixion methods or regional practices could explain these differences, there are no documented examples of nails being driven through the top of the feet, nor is this method depicted in early artistic renderings. In recognition of the fact that very few crucified victims have been discovered and that all of them, thus far, demonstrate piercing through the sides of the heel bone, the depiction of nail wounds and blood patterns on the Shroud—indicating a dorsal penetration through the foot—lacks any known archaeological basis. This inconsistency calls into question the Shroud’s authenticity, suggesting that its portrayal may be more aligned with artistic interpretation than historical accuracy, as it does not reflect the documented practices of Roman crucifixion methods.

In addition, proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity often argue that if someone were attempting to create a forgery, they would have depicted the crucifixion wounds with the hands as they were commonly portrayed in medieval art, aligning with contemporary beliefs. Instead, they claim that the nail marks on the Shroud are located where the Romans actually placed them—through the wrists. While there is no direct archaeological evidence of nail wounds in the wrists of crucifixion victims, it is plausible to infer that the wrists would have been the most likely location for nail insertion by the Romans to maximize the inflicted torture and ensure the victim’s support on the cross. This assertion corresponds with the idea that nailing through the wrists would effectively bear the weight of the body, unlike the hands which would likely tear under the strain.¹² However, the image on the Shroud shows the left hand resting over the right, with the palms turned inward toward the body. This inward orientation does not allow for definitive identification of the placement of the nails.

Advocates of the Shroud’s authenticity, such as Paul Vignon,¹³ have endeavored to explain the origins of the scourge marks visible on the Shroud. To account for the circular marks, a theoretical device was envisioned—one equipped with somewhat spherical blunt objects attached to the ends of its lashes, each culminating in a lead weight capable of producing the impression of two side-by-side balls, resembling a small dumbbell. Having conceptualized this scourge, Vignon¹⁴ sought to reconstruct the likely direction of the strikes and even speculated on the positions the torturers might have assumed during the beating. He went so far as to create a facsimile of this hypothesized three-strap instrument of torture, publishing a photograph of it in his second book. Notably, in this reconstruction, he deviated from his earlier description by replacing the imagined small dumbbells with two rounded weights, akin to bullets, spaced at least three centimeters apart.

Many of these hypothetical flagrums have been materially reconstructed, following Vignon’s example, and presented as if they were faithful replicas of an ancient original, despite the complete absence of any historical evidence for such an instrument. One such reconstruction is currently on display at the Shroud Museum in Turin. The museum’s audio guide even claims, “The flagellation in Roman times was carried out with instruments like the one shown here, which has been faithfully reconstructed.”¹⁵ Flagrums such as these have been presented as corresponding to a typical or even unique model purportedly used in Roman times and allegedly well-documented by archaeology—a claim that is entirely unfounded.

Despite the lack of evidence, some have manipulated this absence into an argument supporting the Shroud’s authenticity. For example, Gaetano Intrigillo¹⁶ poses the question: how could a hypothetical forger have known about the Roman flagrum taxillatum, a device supposedly forgotten for centuries and only rediscovered through archaeology, and then replicated its distinctive marks so precisely on the Shroud? The implication is that the forger could not have known, thereby bolstering the Shroud’s authenticity. However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The forger could not have known about the flagrum taxillatum because such an instrument has neither been forgotten nor rediscovered—it has never been documented. To date, no evidence exists that a flagrum taxillatum ever existed, nor have any marks made by such an instrument been discovered.

THE SHROUD AND CRUCIFIXION HYPOTHESES

Several scholars have attempted to estimate or conjecture how Jesus’ crucifixion physically occurred using the Shroud as a guide. Since the early 20^th century, medical professionals and scholars have sought to examine the blood patterns on the Shroud in an effort to make informed inferences about Roman crucifixion methods. This approach lacks both an archaeological and scientific precedent.

Most of the Shroud advocates with a medical background, like Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, and W.D. Edwards,¹⁷ a medical doctor, have adhered to the classical interpretation established by Pierre Barbet,¹⁸ which identified a single wound in the center of the right foot as depicted on the Shroud. Most of these advocates agree, based upon their interpretations of the blood distribution on the Shroud, that the left foot was likely nailed atop the right foot, necessitating a severe contortion of the foot and ankle, which would also require the leg and knee to show an abnormal position.

Paul C. Maloney, following the work of Dr. Joseph M. Gambescia, argues that the Shroud suggests two nails were used to secure the right foot, flattening it against the stipes of the cross. This would account for the downward flow of blood and capillary spread observed on the bottom of the foot. In contrast, the left foot, secured with only one nail, retained its natural arch, which would have limited capillary action and the spread of blood.

However, Caja and Boi’s¹⁹ research identified a clear mismatch between the frontal and posterior images concerning the proposed overlap of the feet. The frontal image shows a bloodstain originating from the right foot or ankle, running between both feet, with no corresponding stain from the left foot. The bloodstain from the right foot appears to indicate a nail entry at the midfoot region (Lisfranc’s joint). In contrast, no bloodstain on the left foot corresponds to a nail entry point. The discrepancies between the frontal and posterior images of the feet cast doubt on the single-nail hypothesis and the overall consistency of the Shroud’s imagery.

ORIGIN THEORIES

The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of various theories attempting to explain the detailed imprint and blood marks, each supported by different researchers and evidence.

Painting or Artistic Technique

As previously noted, McCrone,²⁰ among others, has proposed that the Shroud was painted using iron oxide and other pigments, a conclusion based on his analysis of particles found on the cloth. Although this theory has faced criticism, it remains a plausible explanation, particularly given the prevalence of relic creation during the medieval period. Despite the conflicting views, it is evident that the image as it exists today is extremely superficial, with any pigment being almost imperceptible and very finely dispersed. A significant part of the image appears to result from the yellowing of the fibers themselves. Charles Freeman²¹ offers an intriguing solution to this puzzle, suggesting that over time, the original pigment has been removed, leaving only the “shadow” of its former presence.

Medieval Photography Theory

Nicholas Allen’s²² research on the imprint transfer on the Shroud points to the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was a product of medieval ingenuity, created using a photographic process involving a camera obscura and a quartz lens. Allen argues that the Shroud was deliberately manufactured for a noble or religious audience, rather than for public display, and that the image on the Shroud was created using a form of medieval photography, not traditional painting methods. His hypothesis explains all the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the superficiality of the image, its high level of detail, and the absence of pigment. Allen also believes that the medieval creators of the Shroud finalized their work by carefully trickling blood to the areas of the image corresponding to the wounds from nails and thorns on the crucified body. According to Allen, the bloodstains were applied in a manner consistent with the artistic practices and conventions of the late 13^th century.

Allen’s work²³ challenges previous interpretations and asserts that the Shroud’s creation involved a sophisticated process that was ahead of its time. He contends that this medieval photographic technique would have required advanced knowledge of optics and light-sensitive chemicals, which, while difficult to accept, provides a logical explanation for the Shroud’s mysterious features. Ultimately, Allen concludes that the Shroud’s image was intentionally crafted to appear miraculous, exploiting contemporary religious beliefs, and should be understood within the context of medieval art and science.

Scorch or Thermochemical Process

This theory, as championed by Emily Craig and Randall Bresee,²⁴ suggests that the image was formed through a chemical or thermal process, possibly involving a heated statue or bas-relief. The superficial nature of the image and the lack of brush strokes support the idea that heat or light could have transferred the image onto the linen. The bloodstains would have been added later as droplets atop the corresponding anatomical areas.

Pellicori²⁵ successfully replicated the coloration and some properties of the Shroud of Turin by applying certain substances to linen fabric and then heating it to induce oxidation and dehydration of the fibers. The applied substance acted as a catalyst, resulting in a more intense yellow color in the treated areas. Building on this approach, Craig and Bresee used a dust-drawing technique with nearly colorless aloe powder. The aloe powder, intended to catalyze oxidation and dehydration rather than produce direct coloration, was used to create an image of a human face on paper. This image was then transferred to linen, which was subsequently heated in an oven at 200°F for approximately five hours to induce the oxidation and dehydration of the linen fibers.

Naturalistic or Contact Theory

This hypothesis posits that the image was formed by direct contact between a body and the cloth, with body fluids reacting chemically with the linen fibers. Pierre Barbet supported the idea that the image was formed by natural chemical processes resulting from the direct contact of the body with the cloth. Raymond Rogers,²⁶ a chemist who worked on the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), considered the possibility that chemical reactions might have contributed to the image formation, although he also explored other mechanisms such as Maillard reactions.²⁷

While the Contact Theory provides a naturalistic explanation for the Shroud’s image, it faces challenges. For instance, critics argue that the theory does not fully account for the three-dimensionality and uniformity of the image, and that a perfect imprint would be difficult to achieve without significant distortion. Despite this, the Contact Theory remains one of the possible explanations for the Shroud’s enigmatic image.

Radiation or Energy-Based Theory

Introduced by John Jackson,²⁸ this theory suggests that a burst of radiation or energy, possibly during the resurrection, created the image. It attempts to explain the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the alleged lack of pigments and the precise, superficial image.

The idea of a coronal discharge or any other form of radiation as the mechanism behind the Shroud’s image formation is as speculative as other theories and lacks both empirical evidence and biblical support. Throughout the Bible, there are several instances of miraculous resurrections performed by Jesus and the apostles, yet none are described as emitting any kind of radiation or energy. Examples include the resurrection of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7), Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8), Lazarus (John 11), Tabitha (Acts 9), and Eutychus (Acts 20). In none of these cases is there any mention of light, energy, or radiation accompanying the resurrection.

Discussion on Theories

Although current scientific understanding does not fully explain the phenomenon observed in the Shroud, several rational solutions have been proposed, even if none have been perfected. The hypothesis that an artist could have created the image on the Turin cloth is bolstered by historical evidence. Historians have identified over 40 documented copies of the Shroud from the 14th to 16th centuries, suggesting that earlier replicas likely existed.²⁹

It is plausible to suggest that an image originally intended to portray the serene repose of death could have been later repurposed to vividly depict the sufferings of Christ with the use of real blood. This transformation would have served to enhance the Shroud’s status as a relic and an object of intense veneration. Additionally, it is conceivable that what began as painted blood was later augmented with real blood to bolster the cloth’s authenticity as a sacred relic. Alternatively, the blood could have been added on top of an image that was deliberately created to represent a crucified Jesus.

CONCLUSION

According to the New Testament, Jesus was alive for nearly six weeks after His resurrection, fully restored from death. In this context, relics such as the Shroud, which are associated with the dead, would have held no significance. The remnants of Jesus’ suffering, such as the cross, nails, crown of thorns, and seamless tunic, were all discarded and only “rediscovered” centuries later. There is no biblical or historical reason to believe that His grave wrappings, considered unclean according to Jewish customs, would have been uniquely preserved.

Moreover, the New Testament does not indicate any interest in preserving such items, nor does it suggest that they even existed as relics. Attempts to link the Shroud to biblical texts, such as the interpretation of the word proegraphe in Galatians 3:1 as referring to a picture or image, are etymologically and contextually implausible. The lack of biblical and traditional support for the preservation of any such relic further undermines the claim that the Shroud of Turin could be an authentic burial cloth of Christ.

Historical records show that there was no interest in searching for Jesus’ burial cloths until the latter half of the sixth century, with no prior documentation of their existence.³⁰ It wasn’t until this time that references to such relics began to appear, alongside other artifacts associated with Christ. Over the centuries, numerous “sister” shrouds surfaced, each claiming to be genuine, and many found their way into the most prominent cities across Christendom. France, especially during the Carolingian period, became a hub for these relics, though many were later exposed as medieval forgeries, such as the Shroud of Cadouin and the Shroud of Carcassonne. In Spain, the Shroud of Oviedo continues to be venerated despite dating back only to the eighth century. The Shroud of Turin stands out among these various relics because it uniquely features the image of a tortured body, unlike others that typically portrayed only the face, like the Veil of Veronica and the Mandylion of Edessa. The existence of numerous shrouds claiming authenticity raises substantial doubts about the legitimacy of the Turin Shroud.

While the Roman Catholic Church may have a vested interest in the Shroud as one of its most prominent medieval relics, it has never officially claimed the Shroud to be authentic. The Church’s teachings emphasize the resurrection itself, rather than any material object, as the foundation of faith. Likewise, Protestants who adhere to the principle of sola Scriptura find their assurance in the Bible’s narrative and the testimonies it records. Note that believing that the Shroud is genuine does not mean that one needs to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just that He actually died. Therefore, one does not need to be Christian to believe that the Shroud is real.

Despite the extensive scientific analysis conducted on the Shroud of Turin, the most critical evidence lies within the biblical text itself. According to the Scriptures, there were multiple cloths used to cover Jesus’ body at His burial, not a single shroud. The Gospel accounts, particularly in John 20:6-7, clearly describe both a linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. This explicit detail directly contradicts the notion that the Shroud of Turin could be the sole burial cloth of Jesus. The existence of only one shroud fails to align with the biblical narrative, undermining its authenticity as the true burial cloth of Christ.

The Shroud of Turin, much like the Egyptian pyramids, stands as a testament to the enigmatic abilities of its creators. Despite the passage of centuries, the precise methods employed in constructing the pyramids remain elusive, suggesting that the Egyptians possessed capabilities and technologies that may no longer exist today. Similarly, the Shroud of Turin represents a creation that defies easy explanation. While vastly different in purpose and form, the artisans behind the Shroud clearly possessed the skill to craft a detailed and lifelike image, potentially augmented with blood, pointing to an advanced understanding of both art and anatomy.

The Shroud of Turin continues to captivate and fuel intense interest despite its carbon dating to the medieval period and the clear discrepancies with biblical accounts. This enduring fascination is largely driven by the unresolved mystery surrounding how the image of a crucified man was imprinted onto the linen cloth. Van Biema³¹ notes the persistent and aggressive defense of the Shroud’s authenticity by its adherents, who challenge scientific conclusions because, even after extensive analysis, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the formation of the image. The scientific community remains perplexed, and many proposed explanations are dismissed as speculative. This ongoing mystery, coupled with historical documents and modern scientific theories that keep the debate alive, sustains the Shroud’s allure, drawing both skeptics and believers into the conversation. The Shroud’s enigmatic nature, combined with the lack of a definitive explanation, ensures that interest in it remains strong.

However, for Bible believers, the need for material evidence of Jesus’ death is unnecessary. The Shroud, whether real or fake, does not affect the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is already affirmed by the accounts of numerous witnesses documented in the New Testament, and no relic is required to substantiate this truth.

Endnotes

¹ Raymond E. Brown (2002), Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), pp. 151-152.

² E.A. Mare (1999), “Science, Art History and the Shroud of Turin: Nicholas Allen’s Research on the Iconography and Production of the Image of a Crucified Man,” South African Journal of Art History, 14[1]:66-83; R.E. Brown (1984), “Brief Observations on The Shroud of Turin,” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 14[4]:145-148.

³ Ercoline, et al (1982), “Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society,” Westin Hotel, Seattle, Washington (New York: IEEE), October 28-30.

⁴ See Elio Quiroga Rodriguez (2024), “Unveiling Deception: An Approach of the Shroud of Turin’s Anatomical Anomalies and Artistic Liberties,” Archaeometry, July, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382219566_Unveiling_Deception_An_Approach_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin’s_Anatomical_Anomalies_and_Artistic_Liberties; Joe Nickell (1983), Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books); Edward Steers, Jr. (2013), “The Shroud of Turin,” Hoax: Hitler’s Diaries, Lincoln’s Assassins, and Other Famous Frauds (Louisville, KY: University Press of Kentucky), p. 146.

⁵ Rodriguez.

⁶ S. Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21.

⁷ Andrea Nicolotti (2019), The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press), pp. 253-342.

⁸ Giulio Fanti, et al. (2005), “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud,” The Third Dallas International Conference on the Shroud of Turin, September 8-11, Dallas, TX, p. 9.

⁹ Ibid.; Luigi Garlaschelli (2010), “Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and Its Image,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 54[4]; Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, 127.

¹⁰ V.L. Caja and M. Boi (2018), “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin Through the Anatomical Traits of the Lower Limbs and Feet,” Archaeometry, 60:1377-1390.

¹¹ Nicholas Haas (1970), “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59; Emanuela Gualdi-Russo, et al. (2019), “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11[4]; David Ingham and Corinne Duhig (2022), “Crucifixion in the Fens: Life & Death in Roman Fenstanton,” British Archaeology, 182:27, January-February.

¹² This assumption is supported by anatomical considerations that Stephen Bordes, et al. concluded from their experiments with cadavers that the most probable site for nail insertion was through the carpal bones of the wrist. See Stephen Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21; cf. Zugibe.

¹³ Paul Vignon (1902), Le Linceul du Christ (Paris: Masson), pp. 110-116; Paul Vignon (1939), Le Saint Suaire de Turin (Paris: Masson), pp. 55-60.

¹⁴ Vignon (1939), p. 55.

¹⁵ Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:1-59.

¹⁶ Sindone Gaetano Intrigillo (1998), L’istruttoria del Secolo (San Paolo: Cinisello Balsamo), p. 111.

¹⁷ W. D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel, and F. E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255[11]:1455-1463.

¹⁸ Caja and Boi, “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin,” 60:1377-1390.

¹⁹ Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.

²⁰ Charles Freeman (2014), “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin,” History Today, 64[11].

²¹ N.P.L. Allen (1995), “Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin,” De Arte, 51:21-35; N.P.L. Allen (1997), “On Proto-photography and the Shroud of Turin,” History of Photography, 21[4]:264; N.P.L. Allen (1993), “Is the Shroud of Turin the First Recorded Photograph?” South African Journal of Art History, 11:12-32; N.P.L. Allen (1994), “A Reappraisal of Late-thirteenth Century Responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin: Encolpia of the Eucharist, Vera Eikon or Supreme Relic?” Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4[1]:62-94. Allen argues that the Shroud was created using a primitive form of photography involving a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals like silver nitrate. This theory accounts for the high level of detail, negative image, and superficiality observed on the cloth. Allen’s experiments successfully replicated these features, making this one of the more scientifically grounded explanations for the Shroud’s origin during the 13th or 14th century.

²² N.P.L. Allen (1997), 21[4]:264.

²³ Emily A. Craig and Randall R. Bresee (1994), “Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 34[1], January.

²⁴ S.F. Pellicori (1980), “Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19:1913-1920.

²⁵ Pierre Barbet (1955), A Doctor at Calvary (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons).

²⁶ R. Rogers (2008), A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin (Florissant, CO: Lulu Press).

²⁷ See also T. De Wesselow (2012), The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (New York: Penguin Group).

²⁸ J.P. Jackson (1991), “An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image,” History, Science, Theology and the Shroud, ed. A. Berard (St. Louis: Richard Nieman), pp. 325-344; L. Gonella (1987), “Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons” in Turin Shroud Image of Christ? Proceedings of Symposium in Hong Kong, 1986, pp. 29-40,31; Mark Antonacci (2012), “Particle Radiation from the Body Could Explain the Shroud’s Images and its Carbon Dating,” Scientific Research and Essays, 7[29]:2613-2623.

²⁹ F.C. Tribbe (1983), Portrait of Jesus (New York: Stein and Day), p. 63.

³⁰ Andrea Nicolotti (2019), Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends; Andrea Nicolotti (2022), “The Shroud of Turin: Anything Left to Say? The History of Christianity’s Most Controversial Relic,” Biblical Archaeology Review, April 6, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-shroud-of-turin-anything-left-to-say/.

³¹ D. Van Biema (1998), “Science and the Shroud,” Time Magazine, April 20, https://time.com/archive/6732613/science-and-the-shroud/.

The post Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also completed a Ph.D. at Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology. In addition to practicing medicine part-time, Moore teaches, guides, and provides intensive biblical education around the world. Moore is also an adjunct faculty member in the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Theology. Sarah Ferry received her M.A. in English from Eastern Kentucky University. She is a former high school, middle school, and college English teacher. She has edited articles and papers on biblical studies for the past decade. She currently works remotely as a part-time freelance editor and proofreader.]

History and Background

The Shroud of Turin, a controversial linen cloth housed in a cathedral in Turin, Italy, is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Publicly displayed first in the 1350s in France, the Shroud has a complex history, having suffered fire damage in 1532 and undergone multiple repairs since then. It was handed to the Dukes of Savoy in 1578. The House of Savoy eventually gave it to the Vatican in 1983, who then placed it in St. John’s Cathedral under the care of the archbishop of Turin.

The Shroud bears a full-length frontal and dorsal¹ negative imprint of a man’s body. The linen cloth, which is woven with a herringbone pattern, is approximately 4.3 meters long and 1.1 meters wide. The Shroud contains multiple blood and fluid stains as well as areas that have been burned and watermarked.

Supporters of the Shroud’s authenticity note that the blood splatters match those described in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. They connect the blood wounds around the head, back, side, wrists, and feet on the cloth respectively with the placing of the crown of thorns on His head (John 19:2), the scourging of His back (Matthew 27:26; John 19:1), the piercing of His side (John 19:34), and the nailing of His hands and feet (John 20:25).

Scientific examinations by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)² in 1978 revealed intriguing details, such as the presence of pollen allegedly predating the Byzantine period and first-century coins imaged in the eye sockets. Additionally, the Shroud’s herringbone weave is, according to Shroud advocates, similar to first-century burial cloths found in Jerusalem.

While significant passion and well-intentioned efforts have elevated the Shroud of Turin as a cornerstone of archaeological evidence for the death of Jesus, the artifact is fraught with many inconsistencies and unresolved issues. The dedication and hard work of those who have devoted their lives to substantiating the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are worthy of respect; however, the evidence supporting the Shroud fails on many levels, particularly in its alignment with both historical facts and biblical scriptures, undermining its credibility as an authentic relic.

Although many aspects could be examined in this brief discussion, the purpose of this article is not to diminish the beliefs of those who uphold the Shroud’s authenticity, but rather to highlight its vulnerabilities under critical scrutiny. This is especially true when considering the biblical discrepancies that remain inadequately addressed by its proponents and the Shroud’s late emergence in historical records.

Biblical Accounts

The biblical accounts of Jesus’ burial are of utmost importance in examining the validity of the Shroud of Turin. According to the Gospel accounts of Luke and John, Jesus was wrapped in more than one burial cloth.

Luke 24:12 (ESV)—But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

John 20:5-7 (ESV)—And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) lying there, and the face cloth (σουδάριον), which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths (ὀθονίων) but folded up in a place by itself.

Note that John reports that a separate face cloth (σουδάριον) was folded and set aside from the burial cloths (ὀθονίων). The term “cloths” is translated from the Greek “τὰ ὀθόνια” (ta othonia). The word ὀθόνια in verses 5 and 6 of John 20 unequivocally means “strips of linen,” and the word used in verse 7 is also the plural form of the same Greek word, ὀθονίων, indicating multiple pieces of cloth. In short, John reports that Jesus’ body was wrapped in two different types of grave-cloths: a face cloth (σουδ΄άριον) and strips of linen (ὀθόνια).

John 11:11-45 describes Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus involving two different burial clothing items, just like John 20:5-7. Verse 44 notes Lazarus’ appearance when he came forth from his grave: “The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips (κειρίαις), and his face wrapped with a cloth (σουδαρίῳ). Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’” Although the verse specifically mentions cloths wrapping only his hands, feet, and face, it is evident that Lazarus was wrapped in multiple cloths, similar to how Jesus was bound in John 20:7, where a separate cloth or napkin (σουδαρίῳ), was placed around His head.

Anointed with Spices

Some additional details in the biblical account may be valuable for studying the evidence of bloodstains on the Shroud. The Gospel of John mentions that a large quantity of spices were wrapped with Jesus’ burial garments:

Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews (John 19:39-40).

Nicodemus provided approximately 75 pounds of myrrh and aloe, substances known for their strong adhesive properties. These spices were traditionally used in Jewish burial practices to anoint the body and help preserve it, likely creating a sticky and fragrant coating over the burial cloths.

The Shroud of Turin and the Biblical Accounts

Mathew 27:59, Mark 15:45-46, and Luke 23:53 all use the singular Greek word for fine linen cloth (σινδόνι), indicating that these Gospel writers described Jesus’ burial garments more generally than did John. Proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity argue that John may not have been correct in identifying two separate burial clothing items. Some have suggested that John’s reference to a separate face cloth may denote a simple binding strap, intended to secure the jaw in a closed position at death, in addition to the full-body linen shroud later identified as the Shroud of Turin.³

While this interpretation may seem to provide a possible solution to the textual problem for Shroud advocates, the notion that John was mistaken in his account regarding two separate burial cloths does not hold up under scrutiny for two reasons. First, John 20:7 notes that the σουδάριον (soudarion) was “folded up in a place by itself,” suggesting it was larger than just a strap for the jaw. Second, though Luke in his Gospel account (Luke 23:53) uses the singular Greek word for a fine linen cloth (σινδόνι), in the very next chapter, Luke uses the plural Greek word for linen cloths (ὀθόνια), identical to John 11 and 20, when describing Peter’s first glimpse into the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:12).

Another theory proposed by scholars like Arnold Lemke is that the face cloth referred to by John was only used initially at the cross to wipe Jesus’ face and then set aside inside the tomb by an unknown burial attendant. Lemke summarizes this theory as follows:

It is also possible, of course, that there was in fact a true face cloth used for a brief time perhaps to help cover the head or face of our Lord while being taken on a carrier to the grave and then left there, with the main linen wrapping cloth later having been taken away from the grave by the time Peter arrived on Easter morning—but this is speculative.⁴

This view suggests that a genuine face cloth was briefly used to cover the head or face of Jesus at the grave or during His transport to the grave and was subsequently left inside the tomb while the main linen burial cloth was used to cover the body of Jesus. In other words, the face cloth would have been buried with the body but may not have remained on the face upon Jesus’ final interment. According to this view, the folded face cloth set aside from the burial garment was not folded or set aside by divine action, but by human agents.

Discussion on Biblical Accounts

To reconcile how the Shroud could have captured the complete image of Christ despite the clear indication in the biblical text of two distinct burial cloths, one must assert one of the following scenarios:

1. Nicodemus did not actually apply 75 pounds of spices and aloes to Jesus’ body. This view discounts the explicit statement in John 19:39-40 where it states that “they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices.”
2. The face covering was used in conjunction with the body shroud, covering the entire body without causing any disruption to the image of Jesus on the Shroud. However, John 20:7 specifically mentions “the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself,” implying that this face cloth was separate from the larger body shroud.
3. A single shroud was used to cover the face, head, and body without causing any smearing or distortion to the resulting image. This would require that the Shroud, with its precise image and unsmeared droplets of blood, was somehow applied without affecting the condition of Jesus’ blood and sweat, contradicting the realities of wrapping a recently crucified body in linen (as implied in John 20:6-7).
4. John misrepresented the details, mistakenly describing two distinct clothing items, thereby suggesting that only one shroud covered the body from head to toe. This approach would essentially argue that the description in John 20:6-7 of two cloths is a gloss or error in the account.
5. The second, folded face covering referenced by John and Luke was merely a thin linen strap used to close Jesus’ mouth. This theory disregards the textual implication in John 20:7 that it was a larger piece of cloth, “folded up in a place by itself,” suggesting that it was more substantial than a simple strap. Further complicating this theory is the lack of any clear evidence of a strap on the face depicted on the Shroud of Turin.
6. The face covering referred to by John was merely a sweat cloth used immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross but not applied within the tomb. This hypothesis, however, begs the question: why mention the napkin being folded in the tomb if it was not on Jesus when He was resurrected? This theory also relies on a human agent manipulating these burial cloths, rather than recognizing the possibility of divine action, as the biblical text seems to indicate.

Ultimately, all these scenarios challenge the clarity and authenticity of the text. They rely on arguments from silence or require reinterpretation of the text, which is clear in its description that two distinct burial cloths were used (Luke 24:12; John 20:5-7). John 20:6-7 indicates that when the tomb was found empty, the face cloth was folded neatly on the tomb bench, strongly suggesting that Jesus’ body was not stolen but that He had risen, leaving behind these items in an orderly manner, thus pointing to the resurrection.

In 1543, John Calvin presented a critical biblical rationale concerning burial cloths that remains relevant in comparing the Shroud of Turin with the biblical accounts:

In all the places where they pretend to have the graveclothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But the Evangelist John relates that Christ was buried, “as is the manner of the Jews to bury.” What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot…. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned.⁵

If two linen garments (one for the face and one for the remainder of the body) were employed in the burial process, a single shroud could not encompass the entirety of the body and simultaneously capture a full and detailed image. Additionally, once again, the process of wrapping a body with linen, especially with the application of spices and aloes, would likely result in distortions, making it difficult to produce a clear and accurate representation of the entire form. The existence of the Shroud presents a clear contradiction with the descriptions provided by the biblical writers regarding Jesus’ burial garments, which imply a more complex arrangement that would not easily accommodate such an image under these conditions.

Dating the Shroud

On April 21, 1988, four samples were removed from the Shroud for analysis, each sample weighing approximately 50 mg and measuring 10×70 mm. It is important to note that the samples were taken from the main body of the Shroud, away from patches, but not necessarily far from the charred areas or obvious water stains. Three laboratories independently dated the Shroud to the Middle Ages,⁶ specifically between A.D. 1260 and 1390, rather than to the first century.⁷

Shroud advocates allege that of the 12 samples measured,⁸ there was a decrease in radiocarbon age as the samples were taken farther from the main body of the Shroud. In other words, samples taken closer to the area where the body lay were dated older, indicating less residual carbon-14 and therefore less modern contamination. Shroud proponents contend that the carbon dating results are flawed due to significant contamination by external sources of carbon-14, arguing that the Shroud dates to the first century.⁹ Possible contaminants include oils from human skin and soot from candles. Riani, et al.¹⁰ analyzed the samples measured by the three radiocarbon laboratories and concluded that the original sampling was flawed due to poor experimental design. Casabianca, et al. noted the following:

The measurements made by the three laboratories on the Shroud sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% CE 1260-1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval…. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers “conclusive evidence” that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.¹¹

However, according to Dr. Harry Gove, who developed AMS technology and observed the Shroud’s dating process in the Arizona lab, if the Shroud were truly from the first century and the results were skewed by contamination, the samples tested would have needed to be contaminated to the extent that one-third of the entire sample was affected—something that is highly improbable.¹²

Textile Analysis

In 1988, during the extraction of the radiocarbon sample, the Shroud underwent a comprehensive examination by Gabriel Vial, the Technical General Secretary of the Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens (CIETA). Vial determined that the Shroud had been produced on a four-shaft treadle loom.¹³ The distinctive herringbone pattern of the Shroud can be characterized by its V-shaped formations. Across the width of the Shroud, there are 53.5 of these V-shapes, each comprising approximately 80 warp threads—40 slanting in one direction and 40 in the opposite. This intricate pattern is achieved by sequentially attaching the threads to four shafts in a specific order: 1-2-3-4, repeated 40 times, followed by 3-2-1-4, also repeated 40 times, and continuing this sequence across the entire width of the Shroud. Accomplishing this with around 4,300 threads to produce 53.5 complete V-shapes is a highly skilled task.¹⁴ The evidence points unmistakably to the Shroud being woven on a four-shaft loom, likely operated by heddles. No such loom or weaving technique is known to have existed in the first-century Middle East, where silk production using similar technology was confined to China.

Vial expresses some skepticism toward claims that similar textiles had been discovered from ancient periods. Vial explains:

So far every example studied—and these have come from Pompeii, Antinoe, Palmyra, Cologne, Dura-Europos—has been radically different from the shroud, both from the point of view of the structure (2/2 twill as opposed to 3/1) and the materials used (wool and silk rather than linen). We have to look to the 16th century to find the first example of linen chevron weaving with a 3/1 twill structure, found in the canvas of a painting in Herentals (Belgium). Taking into account the constituent elements of any textile (material, structure, warp and weft density), the textile of which the shroud is composed is unlike anything presently known to date prior to the 16th century.¹⁵

Although Vial refrains from assigning a precise date to the Shroud’s origin, he contends that the four-shaft loom responsible for the Shroud’s distinctive 3/1 herringbone weave likely did not exist until the late medieval period. Supporting this, Hugh Farey states, “The conclusion to all this is clear, and difficult to obfuscate. The Shroud was inescapably woven on a four-shaft loom, and most probably one operated by heddles. Nothing of the kind is found, illustrated, or mentioned around the 1st century Middle East, and silk production involving such a loom was restricted to China. The Shroud, however, was made in Northern Europe, in the late 13th century, by which time the appropriate apparatus was established.”¹⁶

The Bloodstains

After His arrest and appearance before Pilate, Jesus would have been severely wounded, covered in blood during the journey to Golgotha (John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:29–31). The Gospel accounts, specifically John 20:25 and Luke 24:39-40, indicate that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to the cross. Additionally, the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side (John 19:34). Sure enough, bloodstains correspond to these areas on the Shroud.

Real Blood?

Despite years of debate on whether the stains on the Shroud constitute actual blood, little consensus has been achieved. While some experts have rejected the notion that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are actual blood,¹⁷ there are those who, despite doubting the Shroud’s authenticity, acknowledge the presence of blood.¹⁸ Scholars like Hugh Farey argue that blood may have been used to enhance or embellish the artistic depiction of a man in repose.

Whether the stains are genuine blood, paint, or a combination of both, the limited studies conducted on the Shroud have primarily analyzed samples that had been cleaned of any adherent particles, often with differing methodologies, resulting in inconsistent conclusions. Walter McCrone¹⁹ analyzed approximately 30 sticky tape slides taken from various sections of the Shroud of Turin and identified small orange-red particles on numerous fibers, which he recognized as an iron oxide pigment. By assessing the density of these particles, he could distinguish between image and non-image areas, leading him to conclude that the image on the Shroud was at least partially created by iron oxide paint.²⁰

In contrast, John Heller and Alan Adler²¹ examined about 20 of the same slides but did not report observing a significant presence of these orange-red particles or their differential distribution. Heller and Adler,however, used a different approach. Instead of direct microscopic examination, they extracted individual fibers with toluene, thoroughly rinsing them to remove the sticky tape glue. This process likely also removed any paint medium and most of the embedded pigment. The discrepancies between McCrone’s and Heller and Adler’s findings likely stem from these differing methodologies rather than any intentional misrepresentation.²² Understanding these experimental differences offers a more balanced explanation for the conflicting results.

Heller and Adler concluded that the blood predates the image on the cloth.²³ Their research suggested that since the image fibers exhibited “corrosion” while the blood-covered areas did not, the image must not exist beneath the blood. However, this conclusion does not consider the potential effects of the blood or serum on the image at the time of application or during subsequent removal. The evidence suggesting that the blood predates the image is not definitive and may overlook key factors.

This raises the possibility that the blood and image could have been created simultaneously or that the blood was even added afterward as part of an artistic process. The Shroud clearly was carefully crafted to simulate the appearance of a burial cloth, using techniques that might enhance its credibility as a holy relic. The ambiguity surrounding the timing of the blood application lends credence to the theory that the Shroud may have been purposefully designed as a devotional or symbolic piece rather than an authentic witness to a Jesus burial (or anyone in the first century).

Flow Patterns and Scourge Marks

Upon evaluating the bloodstains on the Shroud, the distinct flow patterns have sparked considerable debate regarding their authenticity. Among the chief concerns are the marks on the back and legs of the Shroud image that are supposed to represent the injuries incurred through the scourging of Jesus. It is well known that scourging was designed to inflict pain and bodily injury through the tearing of flesh.

It is unknown what type of flagrum was utilized in the scourging of Jesus. However, if wounds were inflicted that would abrade and tear the skin (as most often depicted), significant blood flow would occur with each strike (John 19:1). Shroud advocates maintain that these continually oozing injuries would remain moist for hours and would eventually allow for the transfer of the scourge wounds to the cloth. However, according to Farey, there is no sign of any “flow” on the Shroud from the scourge marks on the back, let alone “areas of torn skin [which] would ooze blood and clear body fluid (serum).”²⁴

Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli forensically analyzed the blood patterns from the Shroud. They found that the blood flow patterns observed on the arms and legs of the figure depicted in the Shroud do not align with the expected behavior of blood from a man who had been crucified with his arms positioned at an approximate 45-degree angle. Specifically, the blood rivulets on the back of the left hand correspond to a position in which the arms are extended 35 to 45 degrees above horizontal. Conversely, the bloodstains on the forearm suggest a scenario in which the hands were positioned almost vertically. In such a case, the blood would flow directly down the forearm, rather than at an angle, which is inconsistent with the blood patterns shown on the Shroud. The authors of the study note, “Assuming that the red stains on the Turin linen are actually blood from the crucifixion wounds, the results of the experiments demonstrate that the alleged flowing patterns from different areas of the body are not consistent with each other.”²⁵

Nicolotti²⁶ has observed that the marks on the body depicted in the Shroud correspond precisely with the shape of scourges known to people in the Middle Ages and commonly represented by artists of that period. Nicolotti maintains that the scourge marks are further evidence for dating the Shroud around the Middle Ages, specifically, in the first half of the fourteenth century.

Washed or Unwashed?

Whether Jesus’ body was washed or remained unwashed after His crucifixion is a crucial issue in determining the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. While many have weighed in on this matter, examining the blood spatter, the angle of the wrist stain, and the distinct divergence of the streams, little consensus has emerged.²⁷

Some advocates²⁸ argue that Jesus’ body was washed before burial and that the stains on the Shroud came from blood that flowed from the wounds after Jesus was laid to rest. This hypothesis requires the assumption that the wounds continued to bleed significantly after death. However, medically speaking, dead bodies do not continue to bleed after death. Once the heart stops, blood pressure drops to zero, halting active bleeding. While gravity may cause some passive leakage from wounds, significant blood flow ceases immediately. Blood also coagulates shortly after death, preventing any meaningful post-mortem bleeding. Medical literature confirms that post-mortem bleeding is typically minimal and does not result in the flowing patterns seen in living bodies.²⁹

Those who advocate that Jesus’ body remained unwashed when placed in the tomb³⁰ must assume that, despite being removed from the cross, transported to the tomb, and wrapped in a linen shroud with a large quantity of spices, the bloodstains remained precisely defined without smearing.

Discussion on Bloodstains

Interpreting the bloodstain patterns on the Shroud of Turin is fraught with significant limitations. Current analysis relies solely on photographs, lacking direct examination of the cloth itself. Even if the blood stains from the Shroud represent real blood, this fact does not specify whether the blood was human nor a person from the first century.³¹ Furthermore, there is still insufficient scientifically verified information about the cloth’s history over the past 2,000 years to draw definitive conclusions. As Jumper, et al. rightly note, science is not in a position to categorically prove the Shroud’s authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus,³² which underscores the inherent uncertainty and challenges in attempting to interpret the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Given the cessation of active bleeding after death, it is highly improbable that the detailed blood patterns on the Shroud of Turin could have been produced by a natural interaction between the burial cloth and a dead body. In an attempt to reconcile the presence of detailed bloodstains on the Shroud with the biblical account of Jesus’ burial, some proponents have suggested various theories³³ to explain how dried blood could have become re-liquefied and transferred to the linen cloth. These speculative hypotheses underscore the difficulty—if not futility—of trying to justify the detailed blood patterns observed on the Shroud as being naturally produced by a corpse post-crucifixion. The need for such elaborate explanations only highlights the implausibility of these claims.

Moreover, again, the spices mentioned specifically in John 19:39-40 would have significantly impacted the condition of the skin and any blood present on it, likely absorbing or smearing the blood, preventing the creation of the sharp, well-defined rivulets depicted on the Shroud.³⁴ Yet, modern scientific analysis has found no trace of these sticky, resinous materials on the Shroud.³⁵ The absence of any spice residue undermines the claim that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, as it contradicts the details provided in the Gospel and the burial practices of the time.

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ The frontal image refers to the anterior or front portion of the man’s body: face, chest, etc., whereas the dorsal image refers to the posterior or back plane of the body.

² STURP was a comprehensive study of the Shroud of Turin conducted by American scientists in 1978. The project was led by John Jackson, a physics professor at the Air Force Academy, after he discovered in 1975 that the Shroud’s images contained 3D information. With permission from the Shroud’s owner and church authorities, the scientists performed nondestructive experiments on the Shroud for 120 hours, including light and electron microscopy, photography, UV spectrophotometry, X-ray fluorescence, and thermal photography.

³ Vignon is one of the early researchers who proposed that the image of Jesus’ beard on the Shroud appears to be pressed or distorted, possibly due to a jaw strap. See Paul Vignon (1939), The Shroud of Christ (Westminster: Archibald Constable). Ian Wilson also makes reference to some distortion of the beard of Jesus portrayed in the Shroud as potentially created by a jaw strap. See Ian Wilson (2010), In The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved (New York: Doubleday).

⁴ Arnold E. Lemke (2000), “The Shroud of Turin—Is it or Isn’t it the Burial Cloth of Christ?” Paper presented at the St. Croix Pastor, Teacher, Delegate Conference, 6.

⁵ John Calvin (1844), “An Admonition Showing the Advantages which Christendom Might Derive from an Inventory of Relics,” trans. Henry Beveridge (Calvin Translation Society) pp. 332-334.

⁶ The C-14 dating protocol employed in dating the Shroud was thorough and designed to remove the claim of bias from having four samples delivered to three independent laboratories with three control samples.

⁷ P.E. Damon, et al. (1989), “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Nature, 337:611-615.

⁸ The four samples were submitted to three independent accelerator-mass-spectrometry (AMS) laboratories in Tucson, Arizona; Oxford, England; and Zurich, Switzerland. For verification purposes, three control samples were included: (1) a linen piece from a Nubian tomb dating to the eleventh or twelfth century, (2) a linen cloth from a mummy associated with Cleopatra of Thebes, dating to the early second century, and (3) threads extracted from the cope (a ceremonial outer garment) of St. Louis d’Anjou from the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, France, dating to the early thirteenth century. Table 1 presents the age results as published in Nature. Following rigorous calibration, the radiocarbon analysis of the Shroud indicated a date range between A.D. 1260 and 1390. Significantly, the dates obtained for the control samples aligned appropriately with their anticipated historical periods (P.E. Damon, et al.).

⁹ Note that radiocarbon dating does, in fact, sometimes result in ages of materials that exceed 10,000 years. Radiocarbon dating, however, is understood to be suspect for objects thought to be older than roughly 3,000-4,000 years old [cf. George H. Michaels and Brian Fagan (2013), “Chronological Methods 8—Radiocarbon Dating,” University of California Santa Barbara Instructional Development.]. Further, biblical creationists argue that radioactive decay rates were apparently accelerated during the Flood and afterward, possibly up to 1,500-1,000 B.C., making all dating techniques unreliable for ages beyond that time. For evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in the past, see Don DeYoung (2008), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

¹⁰ M. Riani, et al. (2013), “Regression Analysis with Partially Labelled Regressors: Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Statistics and Computing, 23:551-561.

¹¹ T. Casabianca, et al. (2019), “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,” Archaeometry, 61[5]:1223-1231, March 22.

¹² H.E. Gove (1996), Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud (Bristol, UK: Institute of Physics Publishing, Techno House), pp. 291-292.

¹³ Gabriel Vial (1990), “Shrouded in Mystery,” HALI: The International Magazine of Fine Carpets and Textiles, p. 49.

¹⁴ Ibid.; See also Hugh Farey (2018), The Medieval Shroud: The Beginning of an Exploration into its Purpose, Process and Provenance, p. 17; Hugh Farey (2019), The Medieval Shroud 2: No Case for Authenticity, p. 20.

¹⁵ Vial, p. 49.

¹⁶ Hugh Farey (2019), “The Medieval Weave.” Medieval Shroud, September 13, https://medievalshroud.com/the-medieval-weave/.

¹⁷ Walter McCrone (1981), “Light-Microscopical Study of the Turin Shroud III,” The Microscope 29:19-38; Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.

¹⁸ Hugh Farey (2020), “The Medieval Shroud,” Science, Theology and the Holy Shroud, Edited Papers from the 2019 International Conference on the Turin Shroud, ed. R. Gary Chiang and Evelyn M. White (Ancaster, Ontario: Doorway Publications), pp. 1-7.

¹⁹ McCrone (1981); McCrone (1990).

²⁰ McCrone documented his findings with photographs, which were later supported by Eugene Nitowski and Joseph Kohlbeck, who also photographed the sticky tapes, showing orange-red particles adhering to the fibers, though they did not quantify or differentiate them based on image areas.

²¹ John H. Heller and A.D. Adler (1981), “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 14[3]:81-103; John H. Heller (1983), Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin); John H. Heller and A.D. Adler (1980), “Blood on the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19[16]:2742-2744.

²² Heimburger, a medical doctor with an interest in the Shroud of Turin, authored “A Detailed Critical Review of the Chemical Studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and Interpretations” (2008), https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf. Additionally, David Ford provides insightful analyses of the debate between McCrone/Nickell and Heller/Adler in his work titled, “The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry” (2000), which can be accessed at www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf.

²³ Heller and Adler (1981), 14[3]:81-103.

²⁴ See Hugh Farey (2023), “Book Review: The Shroud of Jesus,” https://medievalshroud.com/book-review-the-shroud-of-jesus/.

²⁵ M. Borrini and L. Garlaschelli (2019), “A BPA approach to the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Forensic Science, 64[1]:137-143.

²⁶ Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:57; Andrea Nicolotti (2015), Storia e Leggende di una Reliquia Controversa (Turin: Einaudi); Andrea Nicolotti (2016), “La Sindone, Banco di Prova per Esegesi, Storia, Scienza e Teologia,” Annali di Storia Dell’esegesi, 33[2]:459-510.

²⁷ See A. Heger, et al. (2024), “Further Experiments and Remarks Regarding the Possible Formation of Blood Stains on the Turin Shroud: Stains Attributed to the Nailing of the Hands,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, 138:1573-1581.

²⁸ See Frank C. Tribbe (2006), Portrait of Jesus? The Shroud of Turin in Science and History, 2nd ed. (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House); also F.T. Zugibe (2005), The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry (New York: M. Evans & Co.), p. 219.

²⁹ Robert A. Wild, “The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th-Century Artist or Forger,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 10[2]:30-46; Joris Meurs (2023), “Immediate Postmortem Changes,” Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, 3:218-223.

³⁰ I. Wilson (1998), The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World’s Most Sacred Relic is Real (New York: Simon & Schuster), p. 32.

³¹ Kelly P. Kearse (2020), “Unanticipated Issues in Serological Analysis of Blood Species: The Shroud of Turin as a Case Example,” Forensic Science International: Reports, Vol. 2.

³² E.J. Jumper, et al. (1984), “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,” ed. J.B. Lambert, in Archaeological Chemistry-III, Advances in Chemistry Series 205 (Washington DC: American Chemical Society), pp. 447-476.

³³ König, L., et al. “Some Experiments,” 229-238.

³⁴ G.R. Lavoie, et al. (1983), “Blood on the Shroud of Turin: Part II—The Importance of Time in the Transfer of Blood Clots to Cloth as Distinctive Clot Images,” Shroud Spectrum International, 8:2-10; L. König, et al. (2024), “Some Experiments and Remarks Regarding the Possible Formation of Blood Stains on the Turin Shroud: Stains Attributed to the Crown of Thorns, the Lance Wound and the Belt of Blood,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, 138:229-238.

³⁵ Raymond E. Brown (1994), The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday); David Noel Freedman (1992), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 1 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

The post Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:

A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem…. John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem…. Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all.⁴

Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was “not born in Bethlehem”? Dawkins quoted from 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (KJV). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem. These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus’ birth.⁵

How often are individuals born in one place and reared in another? I was born in Georgia, brought up in Oklahoma, went to undergraduate and graduate school in Tennessee, and yet have lived most of my life in Alabama. When people ask where I’m from, I generally say, “Alabama.” I sometimes say, “I was raised in Oklahoma.” I rarely say, “I was born in Georgia,” yet that is where I was born. Interestingly, no one ever accuses me of contradicting myself.

Blind Faith or Contradiction Confusion?

If Dr. Dawkins actually believes that John 7:41-42 contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote, then he may be so blinded by an allegiance to atheism and naturalism that he refuses to interpret the Bible fairly. (Yet, surely Dawkins desires for his readers and listeners to interpret his own writings and speeches fairly. Will he not give the Bible writers the same level of fair and honest evaluation that he expects others to give him?) Or, perhaps Dawkins is unaware of what constitutes a genuine contradiction.⁶ If John wrote that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. However, John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

Missing the Messiah…Again

Rather than honestly and reasonably pointing out a legitimate contradiction, Dawkins has tragically aligned himself with the very people in John 7 who missed (or altogether rejected) the astonishing evidence for Jesus’ Deity (and, in Dawkins’ case, the inspiration of the Bible). The Old Testament writers specifically (and miraculously) prophesied hundreds of years earlier that the Messiah would “come forth” from “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (Micah 5:2)—i.e., Bethlehem of Judea.⁷ Furthermore, the prophets also perfectly predicted the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6-7) would dwell in Galilee and let His light shine in the land of Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 9:1-2). This, too, happened just as the prophets predicted (Matthew 4:12-16).

These two marvelous pieces to the Messianic puzzle (presented 700 years earlier by Micah and Isaiah) were missed by many souls in the first century, just as they are missed by Dawkins and many others today. Yet, Christians will follow the example of Christ (Luke 19:10; 1 Timothy 1:15) and never stop striving to help unbelievers see the Light. With God’s help, we will continue demonstrating both the supernatural attributes of the Bible and the One Whom the Bible perfectly presents—the Prince of Peace, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Endnotes

¹ Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 97.

² Ibid., pp. 96-97.

³ Ibid., p. 94.

⁴ Ibid., 93, emp. in orig.

⁵ For more information on Micah 5:2 and John 7, see Eric Lyons (2022), “Micah, the Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem,” Reason & Revelation, 42[8]:86-89, August, https://apologeticspress.org/micah-the-messiah-and-the-little-town-of-bethlehem/.

⁶ See Eric Lyons (2013), “Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions—Part 2,” Reason & Revelation, 33[11]:122-125,128-129, November, https://apologeticspress.org/dealing-fairly-with-alleged-bible-contradictions-part-ii-4747/.

⁷ This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah. People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrathites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 2:4; 4:11; 1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4).

The post Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Fact or Fiction? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Moses Encounters Jehovah

When Moses was being commissioned by God at the burning bush to return to Egypt, go before Pharaoh, and convey to him God’s demand to let the Israelites exit Egypt, Moses manifested considerable reluctance and offered several excuses why he was not the man for the job. One of his excuses pertained to God’s identity:

Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:13-14).

Extensive discussion has characterized Christendom through the centuries regarding God’s response to Moses in this passage. Yet the bulk of Christendom generally agrees that the expressions “I AM” and “I AM WHO I AM” are allusions to the eternality of Deity.² No mere human being can make a comparable claim. All humans have come into existence. But not Deity. Deity is eternal in nature and infinite in divine essence—with no beginning and no end. This passage pinpoints the one true God, the only Being that possesses Godhood. None of the gods conjured by the minds of mere humans through the millennia are real. But the God Who spoke to Moses really exists.

Jesus Connects His Own Divinity With Jehovah

Those who deny the deity of Jesus must attempt to explain away Jesus’ repetitious conduct while He was on Earth. Since John’s purpose in writing his Gospel account was to demonstrate that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), he, in particular, “went out of his way” to flag Christ’s divinity.

John 8:58

It may well have been Moses’ encounter with Jehovah in Exodus 3:14³ to which Jesus alluded on one of those occasions when He was verbally assaulted by the Jews:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.” Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM (ego eimi).” Then they took up stones to throw at Him (John 8:51-59).

A perusal of 61 English translations revealed that all of them translate Jesus’ words as “I AM,” without inserting “he” afterwards. The translators apparently felt that Jesus was claiming affiliation with Jehovah. Without a doubt, Jesus surely identified Himself with the LORD [Jehovah]⁴ of Exodus 3—an identification that His critics no doubt considered blasphemy and deserving of the death penalty by stoning.

But what does the expression in both passages mean? The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWTrenders the sentence: “Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.’”⁵ Compare this rendering with the NWT’s handling of Exodus 3:13-14—

But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What should I say to them?”  So God said to Moses: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become has sent me to you.’”⁶

Are the renderings “I have been” and “I Will Become What I Choose to Become” legitimate renderings for the underlying Greek and Hebrew? What do the bulk of scholarly linguistic authorities through the centuries say on the matter?

In the first place, the Greek words ἐγὼ εἰμί [ego eimi] in John 8:58 literally mean “I am.” The first term is the usual nominative first person singular pronoun “I.” The second term is the present tense active indicative first person singular verb “to be.” Hence, the words unquestionably mean “I am.” The Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 reads אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה which is literally “I am who I am,” “who” being a relative pronoun, and the repeated term is a first person singular imperfect verb in the Qal. The Septuagint translates the three Hebrew words into Greek as “ego eimi ho on” which means “I am the one who is.” The idea of ongoing existence is the apparent thrust of the words: “[T]he thought of eternal life is always present in the ἐγὼ εἰμί.”⁷ Observe that when all is said and done on the subject, Jesus’ allusion to Exodus 3:14 trumps linguists’ evaluation of the Hebrew text, since He provided a proper understanding of the Hebrew by John’s inspired rendering of His words.⁸ Jesus said that the words mean, “I AM.” Morris insisted: “It is an emphatic form of speech and one that would not normally be employed in ordinary speech. Thus to use it was recognizably to adopt the divine style.”⁹

But what did Jesus mean when He declared “I AM”? Some commentators assume that the expression is intended to imply an unstated predicate and so offer several hypothetical possibilities—from the pronoun “He” (“I am He”), to “I am the Messiah,” to “I am the Deliverer,” or some other identification. However, noted Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson explains that in John 8:58, the verb εἰμί [eimi] “express[es] existence as a predicate like any other verb” and that “in John 8:58, εἰμί is really absolute.”¹⁰ In other words, “I AM” is its own predicate. Commenting on Jesus’ use of the same expression in John 8:24, he further explained “‘that I am’ without supplying a predicate in the absolute sense as the Jew (Deut. 32:39) used the language of Jehovah” could have been Jesus’ meaning, concluding that “Jesus seems to claim absolute divine being.”¹¹ Marvin Vincent, classics professor and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Criticism at Union Theological Seminary, New York City, is not tentative about the meaning of verse 24: “[t]he words are rather the solemn expression of His absolute divine being.”¹²

Swiss theologian and textual commentator Fredric Godet explains Jesus’ claim regarding Abraham:

I am not only his contemporary, is the reply of Jesus, but I even existed before him. The formula, amen, amen, announces the greatness of this revelation concerning His Person. While γενέσθαι, was born (literally: became), designates the transition from nothingness to existence, εἰμί, I am, indicates a mode of being, not the result of such a transition: viz. existence (am) as an attribute of the personality (I). Jesus says: I am, not: I was. This latter expression would have designated mere priority with respect to Abraham, and would be strictly compatible with the Arian view of the Person of Jesus, while the former expression places the existence of the subject who thus speaks in the rank of the Absolute, the Eternal, the Divine. It recalls the words of Ps. xc. 2: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art, God!”¹³

Nineteenth century German Protestant theologian, historian, biblical commentator, and linguistic authority, August Tholuck, observed: “After a usage of the Hebrew,…the expression ἐγὼ εἰμί is to be construed: ‘I am that, I am who I am.’… γενέσθαι and eίnai mark the distinction between human existence limited by time, and eternal existence.”¹⁴ In other words, as a finite being, Abraham’s existence was limited by time; but Jesus, being infinite, is eternal in nature. Tholuck continues: “The sense therefore is: ‘In my higher Being, in a manner not restricted by time, I am who I am, before Abraham had existence.’”¹⁵

Likewise, Heinrich Meyer, German Protestant theologian, member of the Hanover Consistory, known for his valuable 16-volume exegetical and critical commentary on the New Testament, added his confirmatory observations: “As Abraham had not pre-existed, but came into existence (by birth), therefore γενέσθαι is used; whereas εἰμί denotes being per se, which belonged to Jesus, so far as He existed before time, as to His divine nature, without having previously come into being.”¹⁶ Marcus Dods, 18^th-century theologian, biblical scholar, Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Principal in the New College, Edinburgh, explains Jesus’ words: “Before Abraham came into existence I am, eternally existent. No stronger affirmation of pre-existence occurs.”¹⁷ Kittel described it as “the pre-temporal existence of the Son.”¹⁸ And Warfield insisted: “He claims for Himself the timeless present of eternity as His mode of existence.”¹⁹

In his popular Expository Thoughts J.C. Ryle astutely observes:

This famous verse, I believe, can only receive one honest interpretation. It is a distinct assertion of our Lord’s eternity—His existence before all creation…. Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was “I AM” who brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was “I AM” who died for us on the cross. The amazing strength of the foundation of a sinner’s hope appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man.²⁰

Cronin summarizes his review of centuries of commentary on Exodus 3:14: “We have seen ample evidence that the Ehyeh [‘I AM’—DM] of Exodus 3:14b has been long recognised [sic] in Judaism as the Personal name of God and YHWH as His proper name, where ‘Personal’ indicates the name by which God is known to Himself.”²¹

Commenting on John 8:58, Edwin Abbott, English schoolmaster and theologian, explained: “[T]aken here, along with other declarations about what Jesus IS, it seems to call upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of man is not only the Deliverer but also one with the Father in the unity of the Godhead.”²² Buchsel agrees: 
“[T]here is here ascribed what Scripture attributes to the Father.”²³ C.K. Barrett, British biblical scholar and Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, adds: “The meaning here is: Before Abraham came into being, I eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be.”²⁴ Professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Charles Erdman likewise observed:

Jesus startles them by replying that, for him, life has been, and ever will be, an eternal state…. This is a claim of identity with God in his changeless Being. No wonder that the Jews “took up stones…to cast at him” as a blasphemer. Such he was, or else he spoke the truth. The claims of Jesus are unmistakable. He was either a deceiver or the divine Son of God.²⁵

Vincent summarizes succinctly the meaning in John 8:58 voiced by all of these linguistic scholars: “Jesus’ life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am.”²⁶

John 4:26

On several occasions, Jesus used the same expression—without a predicate—in the presence of others to refer to Himself. When He encountered the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, she assured Him: “‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things’”—to which Jesus responded: “I who speak to you am He.” Again, “He” is not in the original. The order of the Greek is literally, “I am (ἐγὼ εἰμί)—the One speaking to you” (John 4:26). Her subsequent actions show that she was grappling with the implications of Jesus’ declaration: “The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, ‘Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?’” (John 4:28-29). Upon doing their own investigation, the Samaritans of her city exclaimed to her: “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world” (John 4:42). They realized they were in the presence of deity.

John 8:24

In addition to verse 58, John chapter eight has two additional affirmations. In the first instance, Jesus interacted with hostile Jews:

Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.” So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?” And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:21-24).

In the NKJV, “He” is in italics as having been supplied by the translators. In keeping with the theme of the book of John, Jesus was undoubtedly emphasizing His deity to His enemies. He gives them several indications of His divine identity that they failed to grasp (“Where I go you cannot come,” “I am from above,” “I am not of this world,” etc.). Then He drove home the point: “If you do not believe that I AM….” The only way for any person to be saved and ushered into heaven into the presence of Deity is if that person acknowledges and confesses that Jesus is divine. The deity of Christ is the foundational platform on which the entire scheme of redemption rests. It’s not an exaggeration to state that one cannot even talk about being right with God, saved, and forgiven of sin without understanding the divine Person of Christ as the sole means to that end.

John 8:28

Four verses later, Jesus made the same point to the same audience:

Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.” They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father. Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him” (John 8:25-29).

Once again, “He” is in italics. Jesus declared His intimate relationship with the Father as the backdrop of His own divine identity and eternal role in the salvation of mankind. Indeed, He announced to them that they were the very ones who would participate in His death by “lifting him up”—an obvious prediction of His crucifixion. What’s more, His resurrection would unquestionably cinch the point by proving His divinity. 

John 13:19

Another instance is seen on the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of the apostles. His remarks foreshadowed the betrayal of Judas:

I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, “He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.” Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me (John 13:18-20).

Observe that Jesus was alerting the disciples to the fact that He knew that Judas was going to betray Him, even quoting Scripture that anticipated that fact—all further proof of His divinity. He was pressing them with the fact that when it happened, they would have additional confirmation of His claim to Godhood. As if that were not enough to make the point, Jesus strongly accentuated the fact with a double “amen” (rendered “most assuredly”)²⁷ followed by a reiteration of the Godhead: the Holy Spirit Whom Jesus would send (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7), Himself, and His Father Who sent Him.

John 18:5-6,8

Still another instance of the occurrence of ego eimi in John is seen on the occasion of Jesus’ arrest:

Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?” They answered Him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am He.” And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. Then—when He said to them, “I am He,”—they drew back and fell to the ground. Then He asked them again, “Whom are you seeking?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I have told you that I am He. Therefore, if you seek Me, let these go their way,” that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, “Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none” (John 18:3-9).

Again, observe that the NKJV inserts the word He into the text. What was there in Jesus’ demeanor or words that would have caused the Jewish troops and the many other Jews who came—described by Luke as a “multitude” (Luke 22:47,52)—to draw back and fall to the ground? Surely not simple surprise that Jesus would admit to being the One for whom they were looking. If, on the other hand, being Jews, they were familiar with the divine identification associated with the words “I AM,” they would surely have been taken aback by His bold declaration—particularly if they were at all familiar with Jesus’ activities in and around Jerusalem in the recent days. Indeed, Jerusalem was abuzz with considerable talk regarding the Messiah (e.g., Luke 24:18-31). John had set the stage for this notoriety when he preached to people who “went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan,” including “many of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 3:5-7). The Complete Jewish Bible renders verse 6: “When he said, ‘I AM,’ they went backward from him and fell to the ground.” For John to record this incident in his book—which the other three Gospel writers did not record—is yet another deliberate accentuation of Jesus’ repetitious attempts to encourage the Jews to recognize what they, of all people, should have recognized: the arrival on Earth of the divine Messiah.

Observe that in all these situations,²⁸ Jesus was stressing to His contemporaries—not merely that they must believe in Him—but that they must believe in Him as the Son of God, even as the theme of John indicates. To become a Christian, one must “confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus” (Romans 10:9). The essence of Christianity revolves around Christ’s deity. That divinity must both be believed and confessed in order to sustain a saving relationship with God.²⁹

Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20

Consider one additional incident that spotlights Jesus’ divinity. Matthew, Mark, and John all report the same incident in which Jesus walked on water. In all three accounts, when Jesus approached the boat in which the disciples were situated, He reassured them with these words: “It is I; do not be afraid” (Matthew 14:27); “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid” (Mark 6:50); “It is I; do not be afraid” (John 6:20). In all three of these accounts, the Greek is the same: Ἐγώ εἰμι; μὴ φοβεῖσθε, which is rendered, “I AM—stop being afraid.” The import and impact of His words on them is seen in Matthew’s account: “Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God’” (Matthew 14:33). The only reason for the disciples not to fear a life-threatening situation is if Jesus was more than a mere man Who, in fact, possessed the divine power to still a storm.

Conclusion

A host of additional scriptural evidence demonstrates the deity of Christ. The numerous indications that Jesus is to be identified with the LORD/Jehovah of the Old Testament is ample proof that Jesus is God. Though He assumed human form in order to come to Earth and atone for human sin, He remained an eternal Being Who shares complete divinity with the other two Members of the Godhead.

Endnotes

¹ In addition to the essentiality of the oral confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the other prerequisites to salvation include faith in Christ, repentance, and water immersion for the remission of sins into and in the name of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 13:3; John 8:24; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21; et al). See these free books: https://apologeticspress.org/issue/receiving-the-gift-of-salvation/; https://apologeticspress.org/issue/baptism-and-the-greek-made-simple/; https://apologeticspress.org/issue/surrendering-to-his-lordship/.

² This is not to say that the words “I am” are always used in Scripture to refer to the deity of the one who articulates the words. As in everyday discourse, a person can respond, “I am,” to any number of possible scenarios wherein the person is asked concerning his identity, e.g., “Are you the sister of so-and-so?” “I am.” Instances of this ordinary use of the expression may be seen in John 8:18; 9:9. However, in contexts in which Deity is plainly under consideration and doing the speaking, the divine import is self-evident.

³ While some question whether Jesus was connecting specifically with Exodus 3, many scholars insist that He was. See, for example, Ethelbert Stauffer who affirms: “This emphatic formula rests ultimately on the ‘I am that I am” of Ex. 3:14”—(1964), e)gw/, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:352. Also J.C. Ryle (1870), Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John (New York: Robert Carter & Bros.), 2:132.

⁴ A word of clarification is in order. English translations typically capitalize every letter of the word “LORD” in order to alert the English reader that the divine name occurs in the Hebrew text. This name consists of four consonants (known as the Tetragrammaton): YHWH. Since the Jews resisted, apparently out of respect, pronouncing the name of God, the original pronunciation of the word is lost in antiquity. When read aloud, the Jews typically replaced the word with the Hebrew word for “lord,” i.e., adonai, even as the translators of the Septuagint inserted the Greek word for “lord” (kurios). Various suggestions have been made as possible pronunciation approximations, the most prominent being simply to insert the Hebrew vowel points from adonai into the Tetragrammaton—which resulted in “Jehovah,” first appearing in the 14^th century. The ASV standardized the term in 1901. Since that time, scholars have generally indicated that “Yahweh” (pronounced yah-way or yah-vay) more nearly approximates the divine name. It is important to understand that the name “Jehovah” is a concocted name that attempts to represent the divine name—but no proof exists to verify this claim and, as indicated, the linguistic evidence is against it.

⁵ Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (2023), New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition), JW.org, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/8/.

⁶ Ibid., https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/exodus/3/.

⁷ Friedrich Buchsel (1964), εἰμί, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:399.

⁸ It matters not that Jesus spoke Aramaic. He inspired the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek.

⁹ Leon Morris (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 473, emp. added.

¹⁰ A.T. Robertson (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), p. 394.

¹¹ A.T. Robertson (1960), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 5:146, emp. added.

¹² Marvin Vincent (1905), Word Studies in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), 2:170.

¹³ Frederic Godet (1893), Commentary on the Gospel of John (New York: Funk & Wagnalls), 2:122, emp. added.

¹⁴ August Tholuck (1836), A Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Boston: Perkins & Marvin), p. 229.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Heinrich Meyer (1891), Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of John (New York: Funk & Wagnalls), p. 293, italics in orig.

¹⁷ Marcus Dods (1902), The Gospel of St. John in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.), 1:782.

¹⁸ Gerhard Kittel (1967), le/gw, lo/go$: “Word and Speech in the New Testament,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 4:130.

¹⁹ Benjamin Warfield (1950), The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company), p. 60.

²⁰ Ryle, 2:132.

²¹ K.J. Cronin (2022), “The Name of God as Revealed in Exodus 3:14,” https://exodus-314.com/part-i-summary.

²² Edwin Abbott (1906), Johannine Grammar (London: Adam & Charles Black), p. 187, emp. added.

²³ 2:399.

²⁴ C.K. Barrett (1978), The Gospel According to St. John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster), p. 352.

²⁵ Charles Erdman (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA Westminster), p. 82, emp. added.

²⁶ Vincent, 2:181, italics in orig. For more discussion on “I AM,” see James White (1990), “Purpose and Meaning of ‘Ego Eimi’ in the Gospel of John,” https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/.

²⁷ For a discussion of the use of “amen” in the Bible, see Dave Miller (1996), Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications), pp. 235ff.

²⁸ Vincent discusses yet another instance of “I AM” found on the occasion when the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take Jesus by force. Here was Jesus’ response to them: “I shall be with you a little while longer, and then I go to Him who sent Me. You will seek Me and not find Me, and where I am you cannot come” (John 7:33-34). Vincent indicates that the phrase “Where I am” refers to Jesus being “in absolute, eternal being and fellowship with the Father” since He used “the formula of the divine existence”—2:162.

²⁹ But let us suppose for a moment that “He” should be inserted in each of these six occurrences of ego eimi. We must still ask the question: With the possible exception of John 18, why would Jesus say, “I am he”? He who? The answer can only be that He was identifying Himself as the Messiah, the divine Son of God. He, Himself, declared this very fact before the authorities: Matthew 26:64; 27:11; Mark 14:61-62; 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:37; 1 Timothy 6:13. Even His enemies admitted that He made such claims (Luke 23:1-2; John 10:33; 19:7).

The post Jesus: The Great “I AM” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

1. Genesis 2:1-4 → Colossians 1:16

One instance where Jesus is equated with Jehovah of the Old Testament can be seen at the very beginning of Creation. Genesis indicates that the entire Universe was created by God, specifically, Jehovah:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done…. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD [Jehovah] God made the earth and the heavens (Genesis 2:1-4).

When we move to the New Testament, we are informed concerning Jesus: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth…. All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16). Hence, the Jehovah Who created the Universe at the beginning of time is said to be the Jesus Who created all things.

2. Exodus 5:2 → Hebrews 11:26

Another example of the equation of Jesus with Jehovah is seen on the occasion when Moses confronted Pharaoh’s obstinacy. God instructed Moses to take the elders and pay a visit to Pharaoh:

…you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, to the king of Egypt; and you shall say to him, “The LORD [Jehovah] God of the Hebrews has met with us; and now, please, let us go three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD [Jehovah] our God” (Exodus 3:18).

We are informed that when Moses articulated God’s directives, Pharaoh reproached Jehovah: “And Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD [Jehovah], that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD [Jehovah], nor will I let Israel go’” (Exodus 5:2). Yet, the writer of Hebrews states emphatically that Moses endured the Pharaoh’s reproach of Christ:

By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible (Hebrews 11:24-27).

3. Exodus 16:29; 20:8-10 → Matthew 12:8

Shortly after their exit from Egypt, as the Israelites were traveling through the Sinai Peninsula on their way to the Promised Land, on the occasion when God miraculously provided them with manna, He instituted their observance of the Sabbath. They were to gather manna Sunday to Friday, gathering twice as much on Friday to supply their needs on Saturday. Moses identified Saturday as “a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD [Jehovah]” and “a Sabbath to the LORD [Jehovah]” (Exodus 16:23,25). When some disobeyed the directive, God, Himself, addressed the matter: “And the LORD [Jehovah] said to Moses, ‘How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? See! For the LORD [Jehovah] has given you the Sabbath’” (Exodus 16:28-29). This context makes it very clear that the Sabbath was instituted by Jehovah, He authored the Sabbath observance, it was to be dedicated to Him, and refusal to comply was a failure to keep His command.

Yet, with the advent of Christ on Earth, we see Jesus repeatedly addressing the observance of the Sabbath in conversations with His contemporaries. On one such occasion, He sparred with the Pharisees who invented trumped-up charges in order to accuse Jesus’ disciples of violating the Sabbath. In a dazzling display of logic and keen insight into Mosaic law, Jesus showed that the charges were unfounded and inaccurate.³ He placed closure on His masterful handling of the charges with this sweeping declaration: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8; cf. Mark 2:28). Jesus was not simply affirming His agreement with the Sabbath law. He was not simply asserting that His disciples had not violated the Sabbath. He was declaring in no uncertain terms that His explanation and application of the Sabbath law in the face of Pharisaic accusations was correct since the Sabbath law emanated from Himself. He authored it and, exercising His divine authority, He enjoined its observance on the Jews.⁴ Here is yet another indication of Jesus’ identification with Jehovah.

4. Number 21:5-7 → 1 Corinthians 10:9

Another example is seen on the occasion when God punished the Israelites for whining about their difficult traveling conditions and speaking against Him and Moses—putting Him to the test. Consequently, the LORD [Jehovah] punished their presumption by sending snakes among them:

And the people spoke against God and against Moses…. So the LORD [Jehovah] sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD [Jehovah] and against you; pray to the LORD [Jehovah] that He take away the serpents from us” (Numbers 21:5-7).

It is self-evident that, as they had done incessantly ever since leaving Egypt (Deuteronomy 6:16; 8; Hebrews 3:7-11,15), the Israelites “tempted” Jehovah, that is, they put Him to the test, essentially blaming Him for their discomfort and hardship. Yet when we come to Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth, the Corinthians are admonished: “…nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents” (1 Corinthians 10:9). When the Israelites tempted Jehovah in Numbers 21, they were tempting Christ.

A further confirmation of Christ’s deity on this same occasion is the fact that the term “God” is used in Numbers 21:5-6 synonymously with “the LORD.” Likewise, the Psalmist accused the Israelites of having “tested God in the desert” (Psalm 106:14). Hence, “God,” “the LORD” [Jehovah], and “Christ” are terms that can all refer to the same Person of the Godhead, i.e., Jesus Christ.

5. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 → 1 Corinthians 10:4

After declaring to the Israelite nation the words that God wanted them to hear in anticipation of entering the Promised Land, Moses presented the words of an inspired song to the entire assembly, which included these words: “For I proclaim the name of the LORD [Jehovah]: Ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He” (Deuteronomy 32:3-4). Moses, by inspiration, clearly connected three terms that are intended to identify Deity: “Jehovah,” “God,” and the “Rock.” While we might refer to a spouse or friend as “the rock that I lean on” or some such comparison, we do not intend to suggest that we are attributing deity to that individual. But for Moses to use the term “Rock” to refer to Jehovah, he clearly means to convey the idea that God is a “Rock” in a way that cannot be compared with mere humans. He is a divine Rock.

Incredibly, when Paul surveyed some of the highlights of Israelite desert travels, he noted that the Israelites “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:3-4). Alluding to the two occasions when God provided the Israelites with physical water from a rock (Exodus 17; Numbers 20), Paul uses those incidents to inform the Corinthians that the Israelites’ journey from Egypt to Sinai was accompanied by the very presence of Jesus Christ. Jesus was there with them every step of the way. And He is declared by the inspired apostle to be the Rock—an unmistakable and undeniable allusion to the same Rock that Moses identified in Deuteronomy. Jesus is “Jehovah,” “God,” and “Rock.”

6. Deuteronomy 10:17 → Revelation 17:14

Near the end of the desert meanderings that the Israelites were doomed to endure due to their incessant disobedience (Numbers 14:32-35), Moses issued directives and admonitions to the new generation of Israelites who would soon enter the Promised Land. He admonished them with firm insistency to love God, obey God, fear God, serve God, and keep His commandments. He then declared: “For the LORD [Jehovah] your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Using the Hebrew superlative, Moses expressed the marvelous truth that Jehovah God is the ultimate, quintessential Lord—there are no others who are greater than Him in His role as Lord. All mere human lords are not and cannot be “Lord of lords”—except, perhaps, as an exaggeration.

Yet, once again, when we come to the New Testament, we find just such terminology being used to refer to Jesus. In the book of Revelation, in a context in which an angel is explaining to John the meaning of the apocalyptic portrait of the great harlot sitting on a beast, he explains that the kings who give the beast power will wage war with Jesus: “These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings” (Revelation 17:14). If the Hebrew superlative is used to refer to that which is the ultimate, peerless, and exclusive, there can’t be two “Lord of lords.” Such an appellation applied to Jesus requires Jesus to be every bit “Lord of lords” as Jehovah.⁵

7. Psalm 24:10; 29:3-4 → 1 Corinthians 2:8

Deity possesses a glory that humans do not possess. Ultimate glory resides only in the Godhead. The psalmist asked this poignant question: “Who is this King of glory?” His answer? “The LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, He is the King of glory” (Psalm 24:10). He further extolled: “The voice of the LORD [Jehovah] is over the waters; The God of glory thunders; The LORD [Jehovah] is over many waters. The voice of the LORD [Jehovah] is powerful; The voice of the LORD [Jehovah] is full of majesty” (Psalm 29:3-4). Such exclamations and attributions belong only to Deity. The LORD is the God and King of glory.

Once again, the New Testament ascribes the same designation to Jesus Christ. “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7-8). The LORD is the God and King of glory. Jesus Christ is King and He is the Lord of glory. “Lord of glory,” “God of glory,” and “King of glory” are equivalent expressions referring to divinity.

8. Psalm 89:8-9 → Mark 4:39

If God intends for us to understand that Jesus partakes of deity, would we not expect Him to weave indications of that fact into the Old Testament—with the added intention of providing direct fulfillments of those anticipations in the New Testament? That is precisely what we encounter. In a psalm extolling God, the psalmist asks, “O LORD [Jehovah] God of hosts, Who is mighty like You, O LORD [Jehovah]? Your faithfulness also surrounds You. You rule the raging of the sea; When its waves rise, You still them” (Psalm 89:8-9). Indeed, Jehovah created the Universe and He, and only He, is in total control of every facet and feature of that Creation. But, incredibly, we are informed that Jesus is equally in control of the created order.

After a tiring day of teaching multitudes of people by the sea, Mark informs us concerning Jesus and His disciples:

On the same day, when evening had come, He said to them, “Let us cross over to the other side.” Now when they had left the multitude, they took Him along in the boat as He was. And other little boats were also with Him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that it was already filling. But He was in the stern, asleep on a pillow. And they awoke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace, be still!” And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. But He said to them, “Why are you so fearful? How is it that you have no faith?” And they feared exceedingly, and said to one another, “Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey Him!” (Mark 4:35-41).

Of course, the answer to the disciples’ question is obvious and undeniable: “Jehovah God!” Only Deity can rule the raging sea and calm the wind. Only God can cause the waves to instantaneously cease their turbulence. What the psalmist claimed Jehovah can do—because He is God—the New Testament writers claim that Jesus can do. Jesus is Jehovah.

9. Psalm 102:25-27 → Hebrews 1:10-12

Psalm 102 constitutes a psalm of petition to Jehovah for His assistance. The divine name LORD [Jehovah] occurs eight times (vss. 1,12,15,16,18,19,21,22). The psalm then reads:

Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:25-27).

The second person singular pronouns “You” (4 times) and “Your” (2 times) are directed to the LORD [Jehovah]. The writer of the book of Hebrews quoted these very verses in 1:10-12 and indicated that these words were specifically spoken by God the Father to the Son. Jesus Christ is indicated to be the LORD [Jehovah].

10. Psalm 145:10-13 → Daniel 7:14

In a context in which the psalmist extols Jehovah, the kingdom of Jehovah is particularly emphasized:

All Your works shall praise You, O LORD [Jehovah], and Your saints shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom, and talk of Your power, to make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations (Psalm 145:10-13).

Jehovah’s kingdom is everlasting. What’s more, His dominion is equally everlasting. Yet the mighty prophet Daniel clarifies the matter further by alluding to Jesus:

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).

Daniel’s vision consisted of Jesus, the “Son of Man,”⁶ coming before the Ancient of Days—an unmistakable allusion to God the Father, i.e., the LORD. Jesus was then given dominion and a kingdom. Both His dominion and His kingdom would be everlasting, enduring forever. Of course, Jesus’ kingdom is the Church of Christ over which He is now reigning (Colossians 1:13). It was formally established on the first Pentecost after His resurrection and ascension in Acts 2. The reign of Christ is, indeed, an everlasting exercise of His rule. His kingdom will continue into eternity (1 Corinthians 15:24; Revelation 11:15). To repeat: Jehovah’s kingdom and dominion are everlasting; likewise, Jesus’ kingdom and dominion are everlasting. Either Jehovah and Jesus have separate and distinct kingdoms—or Jehovah is Jesus.

Conclusion

A host of additional passages affirm the same magnificent truth: Jesus Christ is fully God. He shares divinity with the other two Members of the Godhead. He possesses all the attributes of Deity and is completely equal in nature, essence, and being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus and Jehovah are one.

Endnotes

¹ A word of clarification is in order. English translations typically capitalize every letter of the word “LORD” in order to alert the English reader that the divine name occurs in the Hebrew text. This name consists of four consonants (known as the Tetragrammaton): YHWH. Since the Jews resisted, apparently out of respect, pronouncing the name of God, the original pronunciation of the word is lost in antiquity. When read aloud, the Jews typically replaced the word with the Hebrew word for “lord,” i.e., adonai, even as the translators of the Septuagint inserted the Greek word for “lord” (kurios). Various suggestions have been made as possible pronunciation approximations, the most prominent being simply to insert the Hebrew vowel points from adonai into the Tetragrammaton—which resulted in “Jehovah,” first appearing in the 14^th century. The ASV standardized the term in 1901. Since that time, scholars have generally suggested that “Yahweh” (pronounced yah-way or yah-vay) more nearly approximates the divine name. It is important to understand that the name “Jehovah” is a concocted name that attempts to represent the divine name—but no proof exists to verify this claim and, as indicated, the linguistic evidence is against it.

² Does that mean that Jesus is Jehovah in the sense that He is the same Person? No. Rather, it means that the word “Jehovah” can be used as a broad, generic term for deity/Godhood and, as such, be used to refer to God the Father, or to God the Son, or to God the Holy Spirit, or to all three simultaneously. Similarly, the Hebrew and Greek words for “God” (Elohim/Theos) are generic and can be used to refer to each individual Member of the Godhead.

³ For a discussion of this incident and other occasions where Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Sabbath, see Dave Miller (2019), Is Christianity Logical? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 19ff. and Dave Miller (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” https://apologeticspress.org/situation-ethicsextended-version-645/.

⁴ A host of scholars affirm this fact. For example: “The entire exposition regarding the Sabbath is given by Jesus as the Lord who has instituted the Sabbath, who thus knows what the Sabbath law involves…. As Lord of the Sabbath, who instituted it, he upholds it”—R.C.H. Lenski (2001 reprint), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 466; “As the lawgiver is greater than the law, so Christ is greater than the Sabbath…. Jesus claims to be the divine legislator of the world; he is truly God manifest in the flesh”—H. Leo Boles (1961), The Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 259; “He had a right to direct the manner of its observance—undoubted proof that he is divine”—Albert Barnes (2005 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 127.

⁵ It is true that Artaxerxes referred to himself as “king of kings” (Ezra 7:12) and that God referred to Nebuchadnezzar as “king of kings” (Ezekiel 26:7; Daniel 2:37), but these references are clearly referring to mere human kings and the temporary power that they wielded on Earth. To refer to God or Christ as “King of kings” or “Lord of lords” transcends the temporal, limited use assigned to mere human beings.

⁶ “Son of man” was Jesus’ favorite expression for Himself, used over 75 times in the Gospel accounts. Outside the Gospel accounts, it is used only four times, each time referring to Jesus: Acts 7:56, Hebrews 2:6, and Revelation 1:13 and 14:14. It is clearly used to refer to Him in Daniel 7:13. As a Hebrew expression, it refers to a person’s humanness. Since Jesus’ humanity was never questioned (i.e., only His deity), why would He use this phrase more than any other to refer to Himself? One would fully expect Jesus to manifest such a preference since the whole purpose of His coming to Earth was to take the form of a human being to offer Himself in that very form as a physical, blood sacrifice. Hence, His repeated use of “Son of Man” surely indicated His intention to accentuate His unique redemptive role and, hence, to flag the fact that He was/is “the Man,” specifically the divine Son of God inhabiting a “prepared” body (Hebrews 10:5) to do what no mere human being could do. For further study, see, Larry Hurtado (2005), Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 290ff.; “The Son of Man” (2001), Israel My Glory, January/February, https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-son-of-man/.

The post Is Jesus Jehovah? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The discussion centers around whether “God” (theos) is intended to be the subject, or a predicate nominative, or a vocative nominative. If the first is intended, the phrase would be translated “God is your throne.” If the second is intended, the phrase would be rendered “your throne is God.” If the third possibility, the vocative nominative, is intended, the phrase should be translated “Your throne, O God, is forever…” The bulk of scholarship treats the third possibility as the appropriate rendering based on strong linguistic/grammatical evidence for the vocative use in which Jesus is addressed as “God.” Wallace offers an extensive discussion of the three syntactical possibilities and gives four grammatical reasons why the third option is the correct one.¹

Additional Greek scholars confirm Wallace’s observations. For example, in his Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, Samuel Green notes: “When the Nominative is used for the Vocative in direct address, the Article is prefixed” and he gives Hebrews 1:8 as an instance of this Greek idiom, describing it as “elliptical.”² Alford indicates either of the first two renderings “seems forcing them from their ordinary construction,” describing the rendering “Thy throne is God” as “repugnant to the decorum.”³ Noting that the nominative case is often used for the vocative, Clarke notes that “the original Hebrew cannot be consistently translated any other way” and that the predicate nominative rendering “will not make the sense contended for without adding esti to it” (esti being the third person singular of the verb “to be”—DM).⁴ Indeed, Lenski rightly observes that “here we have a vocative even in the Hebrew as well as in the LXX [Septuagint—DM] and in Hebrews, and only the unwillingness of commentators to have the Son addressed so directly as Elohim…‘God,’ causes the search for a different construction…. The Son is ‘God’ in the fullest sense of the word.”⁵ Delitzsch similarly observed: “God is neither the substance of the throne, nor can the throne itself be regarded as a representative or figure of God: in this case the predicative Elohim would require to be taken as a genitive…which, however, cannot possibly be supported in Hebrew by any syntax.”⁶ In his classic treatment of the Psalms, Alexander likewise opposed the first two possibilities: “To avoid the obvious ascription of divinity contained in the first clause, two very forced constructions have been proposed…. The explanation of God as a vocative is not only the most obvious,…but is found in all the ancient versions and adopted in the New Testament.”⁷ In his celebrated treatment of the psalms, Leupold agreed that the third possibility is “the simple and obvious translation, upheld by all the prominent versions.”⁸ Barnes asserted that Psalm 45:6 “is undoubtedly an address to the ‘king’ here referred to as God—as one to whom the name God may be properly applied; and, as applied to the Messiah by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it clearly proves that Christ is Divine.”⁹ In his comments on Hebrews, Barnes adds: “The word God should be taken in its natural and obvious sense…. The form here—the God—is in the vocative case and not the nominative…. This then is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God…. [f]ull proof that the Lord Jesus is divine.”¹⁰ Linguistic authorities could be multiplied endlessly. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ renderings of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 are unjustifiable. Jesus is God.

Endnotes

¹ Daniel Wallace (1996), Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 59; also Daniel Wallace (2000), The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 36.

² Samuel Green (1880), Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament (New York: Fleming Revell), pp. 213,224.

³ Henry Alford (1980 reprint), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 20.

⁴ Adam Clarke (n.d.), Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), pp. 365-366.

⁵ R.C.H. Lenski (2001 reprint), The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 54.

⁶ F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 5:82-83.

⁷ Joseph Alexander (1975 reprint), The Psalms Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 203.

⁸ H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 361.

⁹ Albert Barnes (2005 reprint), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 32.

¹⁰ Albert Barnes (2005 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 38.

The post Is Jesus Referred to as God in Hebrews 1:8? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

When He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then Jesus put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed (Matthew 8:1-3).

Then a leper came to Him, imploring Him, kneeling down to Him and saying to Him, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” And Jesus, moved with compassion, put out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” As soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed (Mark 1:40-42).

And it happened when He was in a certain city, that behold, a man who was full of leprosy saw Jesus; and he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him (Luke 5:12-13).

Atheists might very well insist that since Jesus “violated” God’s law by touching a leper, He sinned and therefore cannot be divine. Others—within Christendom—give credence to this allegation by claiming that this incident illustrates Jesus’ willingness to set aside the “letter of the law” while retaining the “spirit of the law.” In other words, they maintain that Jesus technically violated Mosaic law by touching the leper, but that this legal infraction was excused, superseded, or justified on the basis of the compassion that the violation enabled Jesus to confer to the diseased man. Several observations are in order pertaining to this viewpoint.

Obedience Always Necessitated

In the first place, the Bible consistently and repeatedly stresses the fact that humans are under divine obligation to obey God’s laws—always and without exception. Psalm 119 constitutes a breath-taking declaration that God’s laws are the only means by which a person can live life effectively. Regarding the living of life, Solomon concluded that the “whole” of man is to fear God and keep His commandments. Jesus insisted that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. Indeed, John stated emphatically: “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. For this is love for God: to keep His commands. And His commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3). Since “it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23), it is absolutely essential and mandatory that humans obey God’s laws and not seek any so-called “exceptions” by which one may excuse oneself from strict, loving obedience. After all, Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9). The Bible is literally saturated with admonitions to obey God’s laws—with no hint that His laws may be set aside under certain conditions—as suggested by the next observation.

Spirit vs. Letter of the Law?

In the second place, the Bible makes no such distinction as the “letter of the law” versus the “spirit of the law” as envisioned by those who assert it. Though this notion has gained traction in recent years, it is a complete misuse and misrepresentation of Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian Christians found in 2 Corinthians 3 as well as Paul’s remark to the church in Romans 6:6. An instance of its promotion may be seen in the podcast “Exploring Faith Pursuing Grace”:

Jesus broke the law as far as the exact wording and as far as the specific letter of the law was concerned, but He did not actually break the law because the law, the purpose, the intent of the law was not put in place so that this man could not be healed. The purpose or the intent of the law was put in place to protect other people. And so Jesus, while technically violating the letter of the law was not actually violating the intent or the purpose of the law…. We have to understand that the spirit of the law allows for exceptions and qualifiers that are not actually stated in the letter of the law.¹

This approach to Scripture imposes a humanly-devised hermeneutical grid on the biblical text. It is certainly true that every single law that has ever ushered forth from the mind of God has deliberate divine intention. The biblical truth on the matter is that the so-called spirit, purpose, or intent of the law is inherently contained within the letter of the law and cannot be separated from it.² The intent of law is embodied in the law itself. Those who press this concocted, anti-biblical bifurcation are, though perhaps unwittingly, encouraging people to sidestep laws of God in order to advance a self-centered agenda. All of God’s laws are perfect and do not require human tinkering in order to determine whether they may be set aside in order to accommodate the alleged intent of those laws.³ Indeed, the only way for humans to manifest the love that God requires to be manifested toward others is to obey His laws. Paul said as much when he declared that “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). He meant that the only way to love your neighbor is to obey God’s laws which, in turn, constitute the sole expression of love. Performing God’s laws is the way to express love. In God’s sight, it is impossible to express true love while disobeying His commands. Disobedience is unloving, while obedience is loving. The only way to love others is to obey the law.

Legalism?

In the third place, closely associated with the artificial “spirit vs. letter” concept, it is commonplace in religious circles to insist that a sizable percentage of the church is afflicted with the malady of “legalism.” Those who maintain a biblical emphasis on obedience to God’s laws are frequently decried as “legalistic” in their approach to the Bible: “When we approach the Scriptures from a legalistic framework in which we elevate the letter of the law above the intent of the law…, then we’re really not being Christlike at all.”⁴

Listening carefully to the majority of those who fling about the term “legalistic,” it is soon apparent that they understand the term to refer to too much attention to legal detail. While the term “legalism” is not used in the Bible, its use can certainly express a biblical idea: trusting one’s own goodness. Legalism pertains to one’s attitude about one’s own person (i.e., having an inflated sense of self-importance—Luke 18:11-12; Proverbs 25:27; Romans 12:3) and practice (i.e., thinking he or she can earn or merit salvation on the basis of performance—Luke 17:10; Romans 3:9-18,23; 11:35; 1 Corinthians 9:16). Of course, the classic “legalists” of Jesus’ day were the Pharisees and, ironically, they were guilty of the very accusation that some make today when they speak derisively of those who stress obedience by labeling them “legalistic.”⁵ No wonder Jesus stated emphatically: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven… For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19-20). He meant that careful attention to all of God’s commandments—including those deemed “least”—demonstrates a conscientious regard for pleasing God. Indeed, seeking to obey God with an humble attitude and a loving heart is paramount (cf. Matthew 23:23).⁶

Jesus Never Sinned

Fourth, the very definition of sin is violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). The fact is that Jesus never violated any law of God—“technical” or otherwise (Hebrews 4:15). Nor did He ever exempt Himself from the laws of God. He set the perfect example of complete obedience (Hebrews 5:9). He perfectly conformed to the life-giving laws of Deity (which He, Himself, authored!). He never—even for an instant—encouraged anyone to stray from rigid obedience to the laws of God. He enjoined both “weightier” and less weighty matters of the law as equally essential (Matthew 23:23). No one is ever justified in breaking God’s laws—since all of God’s laws were designed and intended by God to bring life (Romans 7:10).⁷ Indeed, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). By them we will be judged (John 12:48). Those who view law as somehow negative, undesirable, or oppressive betray an antinomian spirit that is completely contrary to the very nature of God. The interpretation of the account of the leper that maintains that Jesus violated the law pertaining to the touching of lepers is in direct contradiction to the life that Jesus lived on Earth.

Mosaic “Uncleanness” Was Not Sinful

In the fifth place, the book of Leviticus has as its central theme: “You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:45). Forms of the word “holy” are used well over 100 times in the book. The Hebrew verb means to be set apart, consecrate, dedicate, devote, hallow, sanctify, make inviolable.⁸ God desired that this concept of separateness be instilled—even ingrained—into the Israelite consciousness. He regularly emphasized to them that they were to be distinct and separate in their conduct from the rest of the nations that surrounded them. They were set apart for service to God and they were to understand very keenly that they were to be devoted to His laws—the very means by which they could remain holy. Peter used this very passage from Leviticus to emphasize the necessity of Christian obedience:

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:13-16).

Hence, there are many injunctions in the Law of Moses in which God prescribed procedures to be enacted under certain circumstances that are purely symbolical and instructive in their import—intended to continually remind the Israelites of the distinct and separate lives they were living. Some related to illness and disease, with some of God’s injunctions also serving as medical assistance. Yet other measures addressed everyday features of human life that were not sinful, but which were to be dealt with in such a way that the central message of holiness was reinforced.

One example of this latter category of Levitical instructions pertained to bodily discharges and emissions. God used these natural occurrences as another opportunity to emphasize separateness. For instance, bodily fluids associated with a married couple’s sexual intercourse were to be treated as a state of uncleanness in which the couple were to wash themselves as well as the clothing and bed sheets that might have been affected. They would be considered unclean until that evening (Leviticus 15:16-18). Was their sexual union sinful in God’s sight? Of course not—He ordained the sexual relationship. Another example pertains to the normal, God-designed monthly discharge of menstrual blood among women. Similar cleansing procedures were to be enacted and periods of uncleanness to be observed (Leviticus 15:19-24). Notice that these circumstances had nothing to do with sinful activity. Being placed in a state of uncleanness did not make the individual guilty of sin. Being “unclean” was not to be equated with being “sinful.”⁹

Another example of non-sinful Mosaic uncleanness relates to dead bodies. Everyone who lives for any length of time will experience the deaths of family members and friends. They will very likely come into physical contact with a dead body—either at the very moment of death (if they are present when death occurs), or when they visit the funeral home or attend the funeral. It would be virtually impossible for all Israelites to avoid coming into physical contact with a deceased person (cf. Joshua 8:29; 1 Kings 13:29-30; Mark 6:29). And to do so would not have been sinful!¹⁰ Sin came into play if one failed to implement cleansing procedures. Interestingly, in this regard, an occasion arose in Israel in which “there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day” (Numbers 9:6). Moses inquired of the Lord and received these divine instructions: “If anyone of you or your posterity is unclean because of a corpse, or is far away on a journey, he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it” (Numbers 9:10-11). In other words, they could observe the Passover one month later. While their uncleanness exempted them from observing the Passover at the stipulated time, they were not guilty of sin either for their uncleanness or their inability to observe the Passover at that time. Observe further that God did not approach the matter with the faulty “spirit vs. letter of the law.” Rather, He built into the law additional laws that could be applied to unusual happenstances.

What are we to conclude from these Mosaic injunctions? Under most circumstances, it was not sinful for a person to enter into a state of uncleanness—accidental or otherwise. Sin would ensue only after the fact if the person failed to enact the cleansing procedures stipulated by the law. In the case of Jesus touching the leper, He would not have been guilty of sin merely for touching the man. He would have been required by the law after the fact to enact the specified cleansing activity and timeframe (Leviticus 22:6-7)—which He, no doubt, did if it was necessary for Him to do so. The inspired writer did not choose to inform us of these subsequent potentialities. Hence, it is incorrect to conclude that (1) Jesus violated the law (“letter” or otherwise) by merely touching the man, and (2) He did not engage in the appropriate after-the-fact cleansing procedure stipulated by Mosaic law. In fact, on this very occasion, Jesus demonstrated His high regard for and commitment to the Law when He “strictly warned him” to show himself to the priest and to offer “those things which Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Mark 1:43-44; Cf. Luke 5:14; 17:14). If Jesus was so strict about adherence to the law in the case of the leper, it stands to reason He would have been strict about it in His own case as well. If cleansing was legally necessary, He most certainly would have sought cleansing.

The Priesthood of Jesus

Finally, apart from these five observations, the fact of the matter is that the Law of Moses was equally explicit regarding how lepers were to be handled in Israelite society as it related to the matter of clean/unclean, as reported in Leviticus 14. The cleansing procedures involved the use of two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, and one log of oil (Leviticus 14:10). Various actions were to be performed using these items, which included the actual touching of the leper:

The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. Then the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD. And of the rest of the oil in his hand, the priest shall put some on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the blood of the trespass offering (Leviticus 14:14-17).

For those who were unable to afford all the items to be used in the cleansing ritual, less expensive items were incorporated into the ceremony but, once again, the priest touching the diseased individual was included:

Then he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering and put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot…. And the priest shall put some of the oil that is in his hand on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of the right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the place of the blood of the trespass offering (Leviticus 14:25,28).

Observe carefully that, even though the rank-and-file Israelite would have been made unclean if he touched a leprous person, that law did not apply to the priests.¹¹ It’s not that priests were exceptions to the rule, or that they were violating the so-called “letter of the law”; rather, they were simply not envisioned as included in the restriction—in the same way that males are not included in the legal admonitions directed to females (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:12), and single Christians are not required to be married as are elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3:2,12). Though Jesus’ priesthood was not according to the Law of Moses, having descended from the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), nevertheless, He was a priest—after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:1-11)—and fully qualified to enact Mosaic legislation. It follows, then, that Jesus did not violate the Mosaic restriction concerning the touching of a leprous person for the simple reason that that particular law was not addressed to Him. That is, as is the case with the purpose of miracles throughout Bible history, He was confirming (Mark 16:20) His oral claim to be God by performing a miraculous sign authenticating that claim.¹² In so doing, He also foreshadowed the magnificent fact that He was/is a priest, in fact, our high priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 7:26; 8:1; et al.). And while it was not necessary for Jesus to physically touch the leper to cleanse Him, as the ultimate, quintessential priest, He had legal right as a priest to touch the leper in order to convey cleansing to him.

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14-16).

Summary

Jesus’ touching of a leper is not an instance of Him breaking “the letter of the law.” In doing so, He did not contradict His consistent insistence that all people are under divine obligation to conform themselves to God’s directives. When He admonished all of us, “If you love Me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15), He was simply reiterating His own attitude and conduct toward His Father’s will: “I always do those things that please Him” (John 8:29). The sinless Son of God remains the perfect example of how to live life on Earth.

Endnotes

¹ Kevin Pendergrass and Dr. Lee Grant (2020), “E3: Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law,” May 14, https://efpg.podbean.com/e/e3-spirit-of-the-law-vs-letter-of-the-law/, emp. added.

² See Dave Miller (2002), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” https://apologeticspress.org/the-spirit-and-letter-of-the-law-1225/; Dave Miller (1996), Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications), pp. 410-415.

³ The “Father of Situation Ethics,” Joseph Fletcher, released his book Situation Ethics in the 1930s and, in so doing, launched a trend that has had an enormous negative impact on American civilization. He maintained that we should follow the rules until we need to break them for reasons of love. Of course, all of God’s laws are based on agape love (Christian unconditional love), and though we should always do the most loving thing in any situation, God must tell us what that loving thing is. For a discussion of situational thinking, with specific treatment of the grainfield incident in Matthew 12, the adulterous woman in John 8, et al., see Dave Miller (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” https://apologeticspress.org/situation-ethicsextended-version-645/.


⁴ Pendergrass and Grant, emp. added.

⁵ While the Pharisees were vocal about their commitment to obeying God, their actions showed that they were paying lip service to faithful, loving obedience. The progressive element within Christendom does the same thing. While stressing love and grace, they introduce illicit, manmade innovation into worship without God’s approval, all the while justifying themselves like the Pharisees.

⁶ For a more extensive analysis of “legalism” in the church, see Dave Miller (2002), “Legalism,” https://apologeticspress.org/legalism-1211/.

⁷ God articulated an eternal principle when He stated: “You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 18:4-5; cf. Nehemiah 9:29; Ezekiel 20:11,13,21; Galatians 3:12). In other words, obedience to God’s laws enables the obedient to survive, be alive spiritually, and remain in God’s favor.

⁸ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles Briggs (2004 reprint), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson), p. 873; L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, M.E.J. Richardson, & J.J. Stamm (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, electronic ed.), p. 1074.

⁹ The only way their unclean status could involve them in sin is if they appeared before the Tabernacle in that state of uncleanness (Leviticus 15:31), or disobeyed God’s instructions concerning cleansing.

¹⁰ An exception to this fact under Mosaic law was the one who had taken the Nazirite vow: “All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. He shall not make himself unclean even for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head. All the days of his separation he shall be holy to the LORD” (Numbers 6:6-8). Observe that, though the Nazirite was forbidden to contact a dead body under any circumstance, the average Israelite was under no such restriction. After all, someone has to bury the dead! Even this seemingly severe regulation for the Nazirite—which was strictly voluntary—was intended to accentuate the critical importance of being holy before God and exalting His breathtaking, infinite holiness. Cf. B.F. Westcott (1892), The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan), p. 346.


¹¹ One might argue that the reason the priests could touch a leper is because the leper had already overcome his leprosy and thus the priests were not technically touching “lepers.” However, since the priest’s involvement was for the purpose of pronouncing the leper “clean,” and the rituals that the priest applied to the leper are specifically said to be the means of cleansing that preceded the declaration of “clean,” then he was still considered “unclean” until the stipulated rituals were completed. So even if the leper was actually already relieved of the disease, he was still considered unclean until the cleansing rituals were performed. For someone to touch him during this period would still make that person unclean. So, for example, Leviticus 14:18-20 states: “The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for him before the LORD. Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for him, and he will be clean.” The wording throughout the chapter presupposes that cleanness is not achieved until all the rituals are performed. Hence, priests had to touch lepers before those lepers were pronounced “clean.”

¹² For a discussion of the purpose of miracles throughout the Bible, see Dave Miller (2020), Modern-Day Miracles? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://store.apologeticspress.org/collections/new-and-featured-products/products/modern-day-miracles.

The post Did Jesus Sin When He Touched the Leper? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

• Isaiah 7:14 by being born of the virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18-2:1),
• Isaiah 9:1-2 by dwelling in Capernaum, “which is…in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali” (Matthew 4:12-17),
• Isaiah 53:4 by healing many who were sick and demon-possessed (Matthew 8:16-17),
• Isaiah 53:12 by being “numbered with the transgressors” (Matthew 27:38; cf. Mark 15:27-28),
• Isaiah 53:9 when “they made His grave…with the rich at His death” (Matthew 27:57-60).

Luke reminded his first-century readers that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 9:7 by sitting on “the throne of His father David…forever” (Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-13). Mark began his Gospel account quoting Isaiah 40:3 and identified not only the forerunner of the Messiah as John the baptizer, but the Messiah Himself as Jesus (Mark 1:1-15; cf. Luke 3:4-6). Paul, the Old Testament scholar,² former persecutor of the Church, and later devoted Christian apologist, quoted Isaiah 11:10 and attested that this prophecy was one of “the promises made to the fathers” which was fulfilled in Jesus (Romans 15:8,12).

In the early-to-mid 30s (very shortly after the establishment of the Church), an Ethiopian proselyte was returning from Jerusalem reading from the scroll of Isaiah, specifically 53:7-8 (Acts 8:28-33). The Ethiopian asked the evangelist Philip, “[O]f whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” (Acts 8:34). “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him” (8:35). Who was the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? Once again, the answer is Jesus. The consistent, recurring testimony of the often threatened, persecuted, and martyred New Testament apostles and prophets is unmistakable: the Messiah of Whom Isaiah frequently prophesied was Jesus of Nazareth.

Considering the plethora of testimony throughout the New Testament that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah, it should come as no surprise that early on in Jesus’ ministry, He read publicly from Isaiah and made Himself known as the Messiah. While in the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth, He was given the scroll of Isaiah “and found the place where it was written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor’” (Luke 4:17-19, ESV). Jesus not only read from Isaiah’s prophecy of the coming Messiah (Isaiah 61:1-2), He also made an astonishing announcement: “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Jesus plainly and succinctly announced that He was Isaiah’s marvelous Messiah.

Jesus and the New Testament apostles and prophets quoted from the prophet Isaiah dozens of times—primarily to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. Jesus perfectly fulfilled every prophecy, sufficiently proving³ His identification as humankind’s Divine, Sovereign Savior.

Reasonable Evidence

Any rational person knows that it is beyond the ability of humanity to foretell the future. People can have knowledge of many things about the past and the present, but no one knows the future. We may speculate about what the stock market is going to do in the coming days and years, or we can make an educated guess at who is going to win a particular game, etc., but no mere human being actually knows the future.⁴

I live in a tri-county area of Alabama with a population of nearly 400,000 people. For many years, I have passed a “fortune-teller’s” place of business on my way to and from work. Are there long lines at this establishment? Are there crowds of people anxiously waiting outside for someone to tell them who is going to win the lottery, the Super Bowl, or the next election? Nothing could be farther from the truth. “Business” is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. It seems evident that the vast majority of people have come to the reasonable conclusion that only an all-knowing, supernatural Being knows the future.⁵

The Bible acknowledges such a logical conclusion about the knowledge of future events. Jeremiah wrote: “[W]hen the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent” (Jeremiah 28:9). On the other hand, “Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, when the Lord has not commanded it?” (Lamentations 3:37). That is, those who prophesy things that do not come to pass, “the Lord has not sent”; “they prophesy falsely” (Jeremiah 28:15; 29:8-9; cf. Deuteronomy 18:21-22). Indeed, no one accurately foretells the future unless the omniscient God of heaven informs him of it.⁶

If only God knows the future, then a logical way to prove that (1) He exists, (2) the Bible writers were correct about the Messiah, and (3) Jesus was and is the long-awaited Sovereign Messiah is (a) if real prophecies about the Messiah were made, and (b) Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.

How Do We Know the Prophecies Were Real?

How do we know that the supposed prophecies of Isaiah were not simply made up in the first century? How can we know that Jesus and the New Testament writers did not fake the “future-telling” of Isaiah? Could it be that Jesus, Paul, and all other first-century apostles and prophets were mere con men who claimed Jesus fulfilled prophecies (that were never actually made)?

First, if Jesus and the Bible writers were liars, then they repeatedly pronounced their own destruction, for they claimed that lying is sinful and that all impenitent liars will suffer eternal punishment.⁷

Second, the early audiences of Jesus and the New Testament prophets were devout Jews,⁸ who could have easily fact-checked their use of Isaiah and whether Jesus fit the description of the Messiah.

Third, non-biblical sources refer to and quote Isaiah. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus, for example, refers to “the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies.”⁹ Josephus then quotes from and summarizes Isaiah 44:28-45:3 and notes how “this was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished” (in 586 B.C.). Indeed, Josephus believed that Isaiah lived, prophesied, and wrote his book long before the New Testament was penned.

Finally, and perhaps most important, we have tangible, verifiable archaeological evidence that the book of Isaiah was in existence in its totality long before Jesus or any New Testament writer ever could have invented the many Messianic prophecies in Isaiah. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in the 1940s and ’50s) were 19 different manuscripts of Isaiah, as well as five commentaries¹⁰ on the book.¹¹ Most scholars acknowledge that these manuscripts were made several decades or even a century or two before Jesus began His ministry around A.D. 27, and well before the first New Testament books were penned around the middle of the first century A.D. One manuscript of Isaiah, known as the “Great Isaiah Scroll” (1QIsa^a), contains the book of Isaiah in its entirety. What’s more, the scroll is conservatively dated to at least 100 B.C. (and very possibly as much as 200 B.C.).¹²

Though skeptics may reject that the Messianic prophet Isaiah actually prophesied in the 8^th century B.C. (in the days of Jewish kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, as Isaiah 1:1 claims), they cannot justifiably dismiss the hard evidence among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Verifiable proof exists that the New Testament writers did not invent the Isaiah prophecies and mislead simpletons about Jesus’ alleged Messiahship. On the contrary, it was largely an in-depth study of the Old Testament scriptures that led many thousands of first-century Jews (as well as countless Gentiles) to acknowledge Jesus’ fulfillment of the many Messianic prophecies.¹³

Why Should We Believe the New Testament Writers?

Some might argue that, though Isaiah’s prophecies were already in existence well before the time of Jesus, we cannot really know if Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. The evidence, however, firmly stands on the side of the New Testament writers, indicating that Jesus actually did fulfill the Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

First, Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical Person, affirmed even by various first and second century hostile, secular sources.¹⁴

Second, the case built for the authenticity of Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies stands upon not what one writer testified, but multiple independent writers. Even leading unbelievers admit that the events in Jesus’ life were recorded by more than one writer.¹⁵ If scholars of ancient history generally render facts unimpeachable when two or three sources are in agreement, then the multiple attestations of Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Peter, and Jude) is extremely impressive.

Third, as stated earlier, if the Bible writers were sinful deceivers, they repeatedly pronounced their own destruction, claiming that impenitent liars would suffer eternal damnation.

Fourth, as Wayne Jackson observed, “If the New Testament writers did not believe in eternal accountability, and so callously fabricated the documents that affirmed Jesus’ divine nature, why would they have subjected themselves to the persecution that accompanied Christianity—since this life would be all they believed they would ever enjoy? It makes no sense at all. This is a problem that no skeptic can explain. The New Testament documents are reliable!”¹⁶

Fifth, the New Testament apostles and prophets consistently challenged first-century Jews to compare the recent life of Jesus of Nazareth with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. The apostle Paul’s “custom” was to enter Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath and reason with the Jews from the Old Testament about the Christ, “explaining” and “demonstrating” Jesus’ fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies.¹⁷

Sixth, Paul’s teachings could withstand thorough, analytical scrutiny. The Bereans, for example, “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed” (Acts 17:11-12).

This leads us to our last point: In the immediate 30 years following the life of Jesus, tens of thousands of Jews (Acts 21:20), including “a great many” Jewish priests (Acts 6:7), became followers of Jesus, the Christ. What did these Jews believe about the Old Testament? That it is the inspired Word of God, just as it claims thousands of times. And what did these Old Testament believers realize about Jesus of Nazareth, Who had only recently lived among them? That, indeed, He was the long-awaited Messiah.

Conclusion

Did Isaiah not predict (among other things) that a virgin-born, Galilee-dwelling, morally perfect, miracle-working Divine Ruler would be afflicted, oppressed, wounded, struck, bruised, pierced, and spat upon? Did Isaiah not predict that the Messianic suffering Servant would be numbered with the transgressors and yet also be buried with the rich? He did.

Who came along hundreds of years later and fulfilled all of these prophecies (and more) with exact precision? Who proved His Messiahship with such fulfillment? Who did the New Testament apostles and prophets repeatedly testify (at their own peril) with great specificity the One and only fulfiller of these prophecies? Jesus of Nazareth.

Though many more prophecies are found throughout the Old Testament, Isaiah’s accurate predictions alone are more than capable of sufficiently spotlighting the Messiah, Who came along hundreds of years later as the suffering Servant and ruling Redeemer. Who else but Jesus could the prophesied Messiah have been?

Endnotes

¹ Isaiah also foretold of those who rejected Jesus’ teachings.

² Philippians 3:4-6.

³ Along with the supernatural miracles He worked (John 20:30-31).

⁴ Perhaps there is no better example in recent times of humankind’s inability to know the future than Donald Trump’s rise in politics. Do you recall how, early on in the primary process, virtually no one thought the life-long businessman, Donald Trump, would ever be elected President of the United States? Even the most seemingly politically informed Americans—both Democrats and Republicans—did not give Donald Trump a chance (at least early on in the process). Yet, the virtually incomprehensible happened in 2016: Mr. Trump won the Republican nomination and then went on to become the 45^th President of the United States.

⁵ Granted, atheists do not believe in God, but even they know that if, theoretically, such an omniscient Being does exist, then He would have the ability to know the future.

⁶ Diviners may occasionally and vaguely “predict” something that comes to pass, but such guesswork or weatherman-like predictions are far from the supernatural foreknowledge of God.

⁷ John 8:44; Acts 5:3; Ephesians 4:25; Revelation 21:8.

⁸ E.g., Jews traveled from all over—from many distant lands—to Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection and heard various Old Testament scriptures applied to Jesus and the establishment of His Kingdom (Acts 2:5-40). Devout Jews who were in synagogues on Sabbath days were challenged to compare the recent life of Christ with the prophecies He was said to have fulfilled (Acts 13:14ff; 17:1-4,10-12).

⁹ Antiquities of the Jews, 11:1:2.

¹⁰ These commentaries are known as pesharim [John D. Barry (2013), “The Great Isaiah Scroll and the Original Bible: An Interview with Dr. Peter Flint,” Associates for Biblical Research, April 17, biblearchaeology.org/research/topics/ancient-manuscripts/2812-the-great-isaiah-scroll-and-the-original-bible-an-interview-with-dr-peter-flint].

¹¹ Obviously, if a commentary exists on a book, then the book on which that commentary is based has already been in existence.

¹² Even the pro-atheistic, pro-evolution magazine New Scientist admitted that the Great Isaiah Scroll “was completed around the 2^nd century BC” [Krista Charles (2021), “AI Analysis Shows Two Scribes Wrote One of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” New Scientist, April 21, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2275298-ai-analysis-shows-two-scribes-wrote-one-of-the-dead-sea-scrolls/].

¹³ Cf. Luke 24:27; Acts 9:20; 17:10-12; 21:20; 28:23.

¹⁴ See Kyle Butt (2000), “The Historical Christ—Fact or Fiction?,” Reason & Revelation, 20[1]:1-6, January, https://apologeticspress.org/the-historical-christ-fact-or-fiction-187/.

¹⁵ Cf. Dan Barker (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation), p. 179; cf. also Tad S. Clements (1990), Science vs. Religion (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus), p. 193.

¹⁶ “Are the Gospel Writers Credible?” (2022), Christian Courier, https://christiancourier.com/articles/are-the-gospel-writers-credible.

¹⁷ Acts 17:1-4; cf. 9:20; 13:5; 14-41; 18:4.

The post The Remarkable Reality of Isaiah’s Messiah appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The import of God’s declaration on this occasion pertains to the eternal nature of deity. God is the Eternal Present, i.e., He has always existed and always will because, unlike everyone else, He possesses infinite eternality. Incredibly, the same may be said of Jesus. He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He declares: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End…who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8)—precisely the same thing that is said about God (Revelation 4:8). Since the purpose of the Gospel of John is to cause people to believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), it is to be expected that the book should contain multiple allusions to the deity of Christ—and such is certainly the case. In fact, we encounter several instances in John where Jesus applies to Himself the same expression that God used at the burning bush: “I AM.”

For example, on the occasion when Jesus faced the incessant unbelief of the Jews, He forthrightly declared to them: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). The word “He” is in italics in the NKJV and several other translations,¹ indicating the translators’ insertion. However, in keeping with the theme of John, as well as the immediate context, its insertion is unwarranted and obscures the power of Jesus’ statement. He was, in fact, forthrightly declaring His deity to the hard-hearted Jews by identifying Himself with the same Deity that Moses encountered at the burning bush.² This fact is evident in the context. Three verses later, Jesus again states: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things” (vs. 28). Once again, the NKJV places “He” in italics. And then, for a third time, Jesus pointedly presses the fact to bring closure to His confrontation: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (vss. 55-58). The Jews correctly understood that Jesus was making a direct claim to Deity, evidenced by the fact that they prepared to execute Him for the capital crime of blasphemy.³ Jesus stressed this same point to the Samaritan woman with whom He engaged in a conversation regarding His identity. His remarks were such that she first considers Him to be a prophet (John 4:19). But as He continues to speak, she admits that she is aware of the fact that the Messiah/Christ was yet to come. He uses her admission to declare: “I who speak to you am He” (vs. 26).⁴ Once again, in various translations, the word “He” is in italics to denote its insertion. But I suggest that Jesus was connecting Himself with the “I AM” of the burning bush.

After the feeding of the 5,000, the disciples sought to row back across the Sea of Galilee when there arose a sudden storm. Gripped by fear for their lives, their fear was enhanced by the sudden appearance of Jesus walking on the water toward their boat. “But He said to them, ‘It is I; do not be afraid’” (John 6:20). The English reader would likely never know that the words “It is I” are a translation of the Greek ego eimi—“I am.” The only reason for the disciples not to fear a life-threatening situation is if Jesus was more than a mere man who, in fact, possessed the divine power to still a storm. Undoubtedly, Jesus was again calling attention to His divinity—as indicated by the JUB: “I AM. Be not afraid.”⁵ On the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, as a predictive prelude to Judas’ betrayal He quoted Psalm 41:9 and declared: “Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He” (John 13:19). Once again, Jesus was deliberately spotlighting His divinity to His disciples by identifying Himself with the burning bush episode. He intended to emphasize to them that they would realize that He is the great “I AM.”

Still another occasion appears to set forth the same realization. When the mob came to arrest Jesus, which consisted of Judas, together with a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, carrying lanterns, torches, and weapons, the text states: “Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, ‘Whom are you seeking?’ They answered Him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am He’” (John 18:4-5). Once again, “He” is in italics. Observe the reaction to Jesus’ identification: “Then—when He said to them, ‘I am He,’—they drew back and fell to the ground” (vs. 6). One might assume that they were surprised that Jesus would come forward and identify himself, since one would think that a criminal would try to evade arrest and not give himself up so easily. But surely such surprise would hardly evoke a reaction that included falling to the ground. Remember, that these soldiers were not Romans. They were Jewish soldiers sent by the chief priests and Pharisees. Consequently, they were likely quite aware of the Jewish anticipation of the coming Messiah, as well as the import of the expression “I AM.” They were likely initially stunned by the bold, but presumptuous, affirmation by Jesus, only to recover themselves and dismiss the claim to deity as the rantings of a madman.

The following English translation renderings capture the meaning: CEB: “When he said, ‘I Am,’ they shrank back and fell to the ground.” CJB: “When he said, ‘I AM,’ they went backward from him and fell to the ground.” ISV: “When Jesus told them, ‘I AM,’ they backed away and fell to the ground.” JUB: “And when he said unto them, I AM, they went backward and fell to the ground.” Keep in mind that the words “I am” are also used throughout the Bible simply to refer to any person’s existence—even in John where the blind man identified himself as the one that Jesus had healed (9:9). The issue in John, however, is whether Jesus intentionally used the expression to link Himself to God and thereby assert His deity.⁶ It is equally interesting that Jesus enlisted the use of “I am” in seven additional instances when He offered descriptions of His divine nature, each prefaced by ego eimi: 1. “I am the Bread of Life” (6:35). 2. “I am the Light of the world” (8:12). 3. “I am the Door” (10:9). 4. “I am the Good Shepherd” (10:4). 5. “I am the Resurrection and the Life” (11:25). 6. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (14:6). 7. “I am the Vine” (15:5). In each of these cases, a feature of Jesus’ Person is spotlighted that can only describe deity. No mere human being can rightfully be said to be the Bread of Life, the Light of the world, etc. These glorious affirmations pertain solely to Christ in His divine state.

To summarize, it so happens that the expression “I am He” likewise connotes that Jesus is the divine Messiah Who was to come. So, the import remains the same either way. However, inserting the word “He” was not only unnecessary, its insertion obscures and softens the force of Jesus’ claim explicitly linking Himself directly to the statement spoken by God to Moses at the burning bush. Indeed, the very heart and core of Christianity is Christ as the divine Son of God. One cannot even be a Christian unless that divinity is orally confessed prior to conversion (Romans 10:9-10).

Endnotes

¹ ASV, BRG, KJV, LEB, NASB (1995).

² Several English translations recognize this fact and refrain from inserting “He,” including: CEB, ERV, GNT, ISV, PHILLIPS, JUB, NABRE, NASB, TPT, TLV, WYC.

³ “Believing that He was speaking sheer blasphemy and claiming equality with the great ‘I Am,’ they sought to stone Him”—Marcus Dods (no date), The Gospel According to John in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:782.

⁴ Literally: “I am, the one speaking to you.”

⁵ Also the CEB, TLV, and WYC.

⁶ For more discussion of the nuances of the Greek, including the issue of the predicate nominative, see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 879-880; Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:68,146,242,284; Alford, 1:801-802; P.B. Harner (1970), The “I AM” of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress); Raymond Brown (1977), “The EGO EIMI (‘I Am’) Passages In the Fourth Gospel” in A Companion to John: Readings in Johannine Theology, ed. Michael Taylor (New York: Alba House), pp. 117-126; Georg Braumann and Hans-Georg Line (1976), “I Am,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2:278-283; E.D. Freed (1982), “Ego Eimi in John viii. 24 in the Light of Its Context and Jewish Messianic Belief,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 33, 1:163-167, April.

The post “I Am He” or “I Am”? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The crowds murmured while the critics lurked in the shadows. Complaints, compliments, and confusion over the Man from Galilee spread among the Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles like political opinions circulate today on social media during election time.

• “Some said, ‘He is good’; others said, ‘No, on the contrary, He deceives the people’” (John 7:12).
• In response to Jesus’ question, “Why do you seek to kill Me?” The people answered and said, “You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?” (7:19-20). Yet others said, “Is this not He whom they seek to kill?” (7:25).
• “[S]ome of them from Jerusalem said… ‘Do the rulers know indeed that this is truly the Christ?’” (7:26).
• The officers (whom the Pharisees and chief priests sent to arrest Jesus) came back empty-handed, saying, “No man ever spoke like this Man.” Yet, the Pharisees arrogantly responded, “Are you also deceived? Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed” (7:46-48). “Search and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52, NASB).
• “Some of the people therefore, after they heard these words [of Jesus], were saying, ‘This truly is the Prophet.’ Others were saying, ‘This is the Christ.’ But others were saying, ‘Surely the Christ is not coming from Galilee, is He? Has the Scripture not said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ So a dissension occurred in the crowd because of Him” (7:40-43, NASB).

The hard-hearted, egocentric Pharisees and chief priests did not know the Old Testament as well as they professed. They chided the common people for their ignorance of the Law (7:48) and then contemptibly challenged Nicodemus to “[s]earch and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52, NASB). Yet, the prophet Jonah was from Gath Hepher of Zebulon (2 Kings 14:25; Joshua 19:10-13), which is in Galilee. Furthermore, in the desperate, dark days of Assyrian dominance in Galilee in the late eighth century B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 15:29), the prophet Isaiah foretold of the everlasting Prince of Peace coming as a “great light” in “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali…in Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1-7). Who was this “great light”? Jesus of Nazareth, Who “came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet” (Matthew 4:13-14). Indeed, in one sense, the greatest Prophet of them all, the Messiah, came “out of Galilee.”¹

Bethlehem of Judea—“The City of David”

In another real sense, the “commoners”² were right, too. “Scripture said…that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (John 7:42). David may have dwelt in Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem once he became king and conquered the Jebusite city (2 Samuel 5:6-7), but it seems most any Jew knew that David’s heritage was in Bethlehem.

This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulon (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah.³ People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrahthites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 1 Samuel 17:12). David’s great grandfather, Boaz, “came from Bethlehem” (Ruth 2:4; 4:11). David’s father, Jesse, was an “Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah” (1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4). Prior to his 33-year reign in Jerusalem, which became known as “the city of David” (2 Samuel 5:7-9), David himself referred to Bethlehem as “his city” (1 Samuel 20:6). In this sense, even Luke referred to Bethlehem of Judah as “the city of David” (Luke 2:4).

Why did Joseph and Mary travel all the way from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem of Judea? To be registered in the Roman census (Luke 2:1-2). But why Bethlehem? Because “all went to be registered, everyone to his own city” (Luke 2:3), and Joseph “was of the house and lineage of David,” and Bethlehem was “the city of David” (Luke 2:4,11,15).

The Star of Bethlehem

In about 1,400 B.C. God used a non-Jewish, Mesopotamian soothsayer named Balaam to prophesy to the Moabites about, among other things, how “a Star shall come out of Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Numbers 24:17). Some 400 years later, this prophecy had an “immediate” application in Israel’s great King David. But 1,400 years later, Balaam’s prophecy would have its remote application and ultimate fulfillment in “the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16; cf. Isaiah 11:1,10; Revelation 5:5). [And He has the greatest of all scepters—having “all authority…in heaven and on Earth” (Matthew 28:18).]

Amazingly, one of the first signs of the coming of the long-awaited Messiah was the appearance of “His star” (Matthew 2:2,9), which “wise men [or “magi,” NASB] from the East” followed all the way to Judea (Matthew 2:1).⁴ The wise men stopped in Jerusalem, asking, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him” (Matthew 2:2). But Herod, the ruthless king of Judea, knew nothing about these things and inquired of “all the chief priests and scribes…where the Christ was to be born” (Matthew 2:4). What these men knew was the same thing the crowd knew 30-plus years later in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7): The Messiah was to be born “[i]n Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet, ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel” (Matthew 2:5-6).

The Dark days of Micah

What “Scripture” is this that says “the Christ comes from the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (John 7:42)? Who was this prophet who wrote that “a Ruler” will come from “Bethlehem, in the land of Judah” (Matthew 2:5-6)?

His name was Micah and he was from the country town of Moresheth (about 20-25 miles southwest of Jerusalem). Micah himself refers to the town as “Moresheth Gath” (1:14), likely implying that for a time, it “had fallen under the power of the neighboring Philistines of Gath.”⁵ Micah lived during the same period as other eighth-century prophets, including Amos (1:1) and Hosea (1:1), who prophesied to the Northern Kingdom, and Isaiah (1:1), who prophesied along with Micah in the Southern Kingdom. It was “in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” that Micah received “the word of the Lord” (Micah 1:1). These three kings reigned a combined 56 years (from about 742-687 B.C.). “Jotham…reigned sixteen years…and did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 27:1-2). Hezekiah, though not perfect, was also a great king, one of the greatest in Judah’s long history, serving for 29 years (2 Kings 18:1-20:21; 2 Chronicles 29:1-32:33). Sandwiched between these two rulers was the cowardly, repulsive King Ahaz, one of the worst, most wicked kings in Judah’s history, reigning for 16 dark years. Among other things, he “sacrificed to the gods of Damascus,” “burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel,” “shut up the doors of the house of the Lord,” and overall, “encouraged moral decline in Judah” (28:23,3,24,20).

Sadly, whether during the reigns of wicked or righteous kings, the people of Judah, like their northern counterparts (Micah 1:5-13), mostly “still…acted corruptly” (2 Chronicles 27:2). Repugnantly sinful behavior was especially characteristic of those in positions of authority. But the mighty prophet Micah did not hold back. He was given “[t]he Word of the Lord” (Micah 1:1), and as a good steward of the Divine revelation, he let the “high and mighty” have it.

I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. Now hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with bloodshed and Jerusalem with iniquity. Her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money (Micah 3:8-11).

“[H]er rich men are full of violence” (6:12). Speaking hyperbolically, Micah professed, “The faithful man has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; every man hunts his brother with a net. That they may successfully do evil with both hands—the prince asks for gifts, the judge seeks a bribe, and the great man utters his evil desire; so they scheme together” (7:2-3). In short, they “hate good and love evil” (3:2).

Tragically, Jerusalem was a repugnant center of spiritual disease (as was Samaria in the North). The courageous prophet Micah boldly confronted all manner of abusive leaders and prophesied of their eventual demise. “For behold, the Lord is coming…. The mountains will melt under Him…. I will make Samaria a heap of ruins” (Micah 1:3,4,6). And “Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins” (3:12). Indeed, the brutal Assyrians conquered Samaria in 722 B.C. And though Jerusalem was spared for a time following the fearless prophesying of Micah and Isaiah and the righteous reforms of King Hezekiah (cf. Jeremiah 26:18), the capital city of the Jews would fall calamitously at the hands of the Babylonians in 587 B.C., approximately 100 years after Micah pronounced the Lord’s judgments.

Hope…and Homing in on the Hero

But not all is lost. There is Hope from Heaven. A Hero is on the horizon. Yes, God and His faithful prophets have condemned sin from the beginning,⁶ but the story never ended there. Even as Adam and Eve were lurking in the midst of sinfully-minded blame games (Genesis 3:11-13), God boldly announced to the devil His gracious plans to save humanity through “the Seed” of woman, Who would deal a crushing blow to the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15). “Since the world began,” God “spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets” about the Hope, the “horn of salvation,” Who would save His people from sin and its fatal consequences (Luke 1:67-70).

Remarkably, the Bible writers did not speak in mere broad generalities about the coming Christ. Throughout the Old Testament, God announced that the Deliverer of humankind (and the sinful mess that humanity made) would be a male descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, and David.⁷ Notice the spectacular specificity of the prophets! The Messiah, Who would bless “all the families of the earth” (Genesis 12:3), would come from Abraham (not his brothers Nahor or Haran). The Savior would come from Isaac (not Ishmael, and not Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, or Shuah, the other sons of Abraham—Genesis 25:2). He would come from Jacob (not Esau, the father of the Edomites). He would come from Judah (and not one of the other 11 sons of Jacob, not even Levi, the father of the Levitical priesthood). The ultimate “anointed One” (i.e., Christ) would come from the anointed King David (and not the other seven sons of Jesse—1 Samuel 16:1-13; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5-6). And from where did the greatest king in Israel’s history hail? Not Hebron, Jerusalem, or Jericho. Not Dan, Bethel, or Beersheba. And not Bethlehem of Zebulon (Joshua 19:15). Not anywhere in all of Palestine except from “the little among the thousands of Judah” (Micah 5:2)—the town of Bethlehem of Ephrathah.

Micah’s Messianic Prophecy

Micah chapter 5 begins with a doom-and-gloom statement seemingly about the siege that Sennacherib’s ruthless Assyrian army would lay against Jerusalem and King Hezekiah.⁸ Hezekiah (the most powerful “judge of Israel”) would be openly insulted by Sennacherib’s spokesman, the Rabshakeh, who would come to the door of Jerusalem, shouting taunting words of mockery in the Hebrew language for all to hear.⁹ In the words of Micah, Assyria would “strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek” (Micah 5:1).

Though the household of David in Hezekiah’s day would face humiliation,¹⁰ “the true Israel will come forth triumphant.”¹¹ How? Because “the One to be Ruler in Israel…shall come forth” (Micah 5:2). The One long-awaited descendant of Abraham and David was coming (Matthew 1:1). And though His presence on Earth would still lie in the future, the Messiah, Micah testified, already had a past!His goings forth are “from of old;” “from long ago” (NASB).¹² How long? Micah said, “From the days of eternity” (5:2, NASB).¹³ But that must mean that the Messiah is…God. Indeed, as Isaiah, Micah’s fellow 8^th-century prophet in Judah, said, “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

According to Micah and Isaiah, God Himself would step out of the splendors of heaven to be the Prince of Peace, the Ruler in Israel.¹⁴ And where would He first make His appearance? Centuries before the Messiah’s birth, the prophet Micah gave us one more piece of the puzzle. Micah (and only Micah) precisely revealed the place from which the Messiah would come forth: the little town of Bethlehem in the region of Judea.

The scribes and chief priests in King Herod’s day (Matthew 2:4-6) knew of the Messianic nature of Micah 5:2. The elitist Pharisees, as well as the “commoners,” knew it some 32 years later (in John 7). And yet, though the Messiah stood in their midst, most missed, ignored, or refused to accept the amazing, fulfilled fact that Jesus was born just five miles down the road in Bethlehem of Judea—just as Micah, the proven inspired prophet (cf. Jeremiah 28:9), promised He would 700 years earlier.

Endnotes

¹ Jesus grew up in Galilee and remained in this region during much of His ministry.

² The “crowd” whom the Pharisees claimed did “not know the law” (John 7:49).

³ Which is “the name either of Bethlehem itself or of a district in which Bethlehem was situated” [Ernest Masterman (1996), “Ephrath; Ephrathah,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Electronic Database: Biblesoft)]. Moses wrote that after Jacob’s wife Rachel died, she was “buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)”—Genesis 35:19; cf. 48:7.

⁴ From where did these men receive such knowledge? How did they know that one particular “star in the East” indicated the Messiah’s entrance into the world? No one can know for sure, but it seems they had Divine direction, perhaps similar to what they later received in Matthew 2:12.

⁵ “Moresheth Gath” (1996), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁶ Genesis 2:17; 3:8-19; 4:5-15; 6:3-8; Luke 11:49-51; 2 Peter 2:5.

⁷ Genesis 3:15; 12:1-4; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; Isaiah 11:1,10; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5-6.

⁸ Cf. 2 Kings 18; 2 Chronicles 32; Isaiah 36-37.

⁹ “[T]he Rabshakeh said… ‘What confidence is this in which you trust? You speak of having plans of power for war; but they are mere words. And in whom do you trust, that you rebel against me? Now Look! You are trusting in the staff of this broken reed, Egypt…. [G]ive a pledge to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses—if you are able on your part to put riders on them!… Have I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, “Go up against this land, and destroy it!”… Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?… Do not listen to Hezekiah’” (2 Kings 18:19-31).

¹⁰ As well as Babylonian captivity roughly 100 years later.

¹¹ Homer Hailey (1993) A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Religious Supply), p. 208.

¹² The Hebrew term qedem literally means “ancient time, aforetime” [Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/06924.html]. It is used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27 and Habakkuk 1:12 where the term is translated “everlasting” or “eternal.”

¹³ This Hebrew word (olam) often refers to “for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore” (Brown, et al., https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/05769.html). Often it is used in reference to the eternality of God, including in Micah 4:7 where the prophet referenced the Lord’s eternal reign.

¹⁴ Cf. John 1:1; 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11.

The post Micah, the Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Jesus was never married and did not have to deal with the temptations that come with marriage. There are many other things He did not encounter while on Earth. How could Jesus be tempted in all ways like we are?

A:

In Hebrews 4:15, the Bible discusses Jesus and says: “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” While this statement is very clear, sometimes we go through temptations in this life that seem to be wholly different from anything Jesus experienced. Jesus never had to deal with the IRS. While Jesus was on Earth, He never dealt with a rebellious child who was addicted to drugs. Jesus was not bombarded by pornography as He walked the streets of Palestine like we are today when we check our email or innocently search the Internet for information. How were Jesus’ temptations the same as ours?

As we look for answers to this question, we realize that each of us sometimes thinks we are dealing with something that nobody has ever experienced. The Bible, however, explains: “No temptation has overtaken you except such that is common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). The Bible further clarifies this idea when it elaborates more about the sin we are tempted to commit. In 1 John 2:15-16, we read: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” This text tells us that there are three basic categories into which all sins fall. Every temptation that any person has ever experienced was a temptation to sin through the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life.

It is no accident that during the temptations of Jesus, Satan presented the Savior with three opportunities to sin. First, Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread after Jesus had been fasting for 40 days. Satan attempted to get Jesus to give into the “lust of the flesh” and use His powers to alleviate His hunger (Matthew 4:3). Satan then tempted Jesus to prove that He was the Son of God by throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple (Matthew 4:4-7). Satan appealed to the pride of life by daring Jesus to prove Who He really was. Of course, Jesus countered with Scripture and did not fall into the sin of pride. Finally, Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and “their glory” (Matthew 4:8). The Enemy promised that he would give these kingdoms to Jesus if Jesus would simply fall down and worship Satan. By presenting the kingdoms and their glory to Christ, Satan attempted to cause Jesus to fall into the lust of the eyes and covetously desire what He did not yet have. Once again, Jesus resisted the temptation. Thus, we see that Satan’s onslaught on the Lord with his temptations designed to appeal to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life summed up the Enemy’s entire repertoire of temptation.

We see this same categorization of sin in the tragic story of Adam and Eve’s fall. When Satan approached Eve in an effort to tempt her to sin, she took a closer look at the forbidden fruit. Genesis 3:6 says, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” Notice that “good for food” would appeal to the lust of the flesh, “pleasant to the eyes” would appeal to the lust of the eyes, and “desirable to make one wise” would appeal to the pride of life. Satan still bakes his poisonous dishes with the same three ingredients.

With this understanding of sin, we can now apply what we know to Jesus’ temptations. The Bible does not say that Jesus experienced every situation that we have experienced. He never drove in a car and had to deal with being cut off by a reckless driver. He was not tempted to overeat ice cream. And He had no babies of His own that cried incessantly and kept Him up till the wee hours of the morning. All of these situations, however, have three things in common. Each temptation presented to people in those situations involves the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life.

This relationship between temptations and situations can be illustrated in this way. One time a father and son were walking through a music store looking at the different instruments. For some reason, the son had been having trouble at school with some bullies and the father was telling him that Jesus understood all about his problems, since Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are. The son was incredulous. He did not see how Jesus had ever experienced what he was dealing with. Just then, the pair walked by a piano. The father directed the son’s attention to the piano and asked him, “Do you think every song in the world has been played on that piano?” The boy quickly answered that such would be impossible. The father then walked over to the piano and methodically tapped every key, causing each to ring out its individual note. He then asked his son, “Has every key on this piano been played?” The son then understood the point. Even though every song in the world could never be played on a single piano (situations), every key on the piano could be played (temptations).

While Jesus might never have been in the exact same situation that you or I find ourselves in, we can know that the temptations He experienced that involved the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life were the exact same temptations we experience.

The post Tempted in ALL Ways Like We Are? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In the latter part of 2020, Newsweek magazine³ reported a survey conducted by a Florida-based, non-profit organization called Ligonier Ministries.⁴ Though the sample size was not the largest in the world (3,002), it was still at least three times greater than the average political poll (500-1,000).⁵ Furthermore, 630 of those surveyed were self-described evangelicals. What did the survey show? No doubt, the most surprising part of the poll for many Christians was that 52% of those surveyed indicated that “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.” What’s more, another 12% were unsure. Only 37% of the Americans surveyed “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed that Jesus was God.

If this poll even remotely reflects the beliefs of the approximate 330 million Americans, Christians must seriously reflect more on God’s saving Gospel—on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). To be saved, we must come to learn Who Jesus is (Matthew 11:29), and we must come to believe Who He is (John 8:24; cf. 8:48-59—the Great “I Am”). While on Earth, did Jesus not ask pointed questions to various ones about His nature?

• “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” (Matthew 16:13).
• “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” (Matthew 22:41).
• “Do you believe in the Son of God?” (John 9:35).
• “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins…” (Mark 2:9-10; cf. 2:7).

If we care about lost souls and pleasing God (1 Thessalonians 1:6-8), we must prepare ourselves to tell our friends, neighbors, and co-workers Who Jesus is. He was not a created angelic being, and He was not merely a “great teacher”—and certainly not an imperfect “great teacher.” He was not merely a man! As the Scriptures revealed in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6; 7:14; cf. Matthew 1:23), so the Scriptures revealed in the New Testament (in many ways⁶): Jesus is Divine. He was and is God⁷—one Personality of the Godhead.⁸

“Christ Jesus, Who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7). Yes, our holy God lovingly stepped out of the splendors of heaven and humbled Himself so that He might make sinful man holy and acceptable before God (1 Peter 1:15-19).

Friends, in addition to offering evidence for the existence of God and the inspiration of the Bible, nothing is more important nor more fundamental than learning the biblical Truth regarding the nature of Jesus. Let’s take the opportunities that God gives us to immerse ourselves in these truths, and let’s teach the many non-believing, precious souls around us (and abroad!) the soul-saving truths of Who Jesus is and what He has done for us.

[We hope that the Apologetics Press website, study Bible, books, journals, tracts, and videos will be helpful in your studies and evangelistic efforts.]

Endnotes

¹ For a discussion on why every Christian should be involved in apologetics, see Eric Lyons (2021), “Preparing to Give an Answer: God’s Defense Recipe in 1 Peter 3:15,” Reason & Revelation, 41[5]:49-58, May, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1344.

² For a plethora of material on these subject matters and many more, visit apologeticspress.org. You may especially want to visit the “Doctrinal Matters” section of our site and check out the various topics under which a number of articles are listed.

³ Benjamin Fearnow (2020), “52 Percent of Americans Say Jesus Isn’t God but Was a Great Teacher, Survey Says,” Newsweek, https://www.newsweek.com/52-percent-americans-say-jesus-isnt-not-god-was-great-teacher-survey-says-1528617.

⁴ See “A Majority Of Americans Think Jesus Is A Great Teacher Yet Reject His Claims To Be God,” Cision PR Newswire, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-majority-of-americans-think-jesus-is-a-great-teacher-yet-reject-his-claims-to-be-god-301119281.html. See also “The State of Theology” at thestateoftheology.com.

⁵ See National Council on Public Polls, http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/6.

⁶ John 1:1-15,14; 10:30-38; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:16; Philippians 2:5-11; etc.

⁷ See the “Deity of Christ” section of the Apologetics Press website (apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10). Cf. Kyle Butt & Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

⁸ See Kyle Butt (2015), “The Trinity,” Reason & Revelation, 35[10]:109-119, October, apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1203.

The post Prepare Yourself to Talk About the Godhood of Jesus appeared first on Apologetics Press.

1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”¹ Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”² The highly respected 17^th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”³ The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

• “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
• “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
• “On the next day” (vs. 23)
• “the following day” (vs. 24)
• “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave “one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.”⁴ The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”⁵

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

The post The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection appeared first on Apologetics Press.

While Jesus was on Earth, He performed amazing miracles that verified His claim to be the Son of God. He often used these miracles as legitimate evidence that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that He was Who He declared Himself to be. He presented a challenge to those who disbelieved: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38). Jesus’ proposal was simple: if He accomplished things that mere mortals could not do, then He must be Who He claimed to be. One such evidence of Jesus’ divinity was the fact that He often predicted the future. Many times those predictions had to do with immediate events that would occur within a brief time after He made the predictions, such as His own capture by the Jews and His death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21), or the establishment of the Church after His ascension (Matthew 16:18; Acts 1:4-8). One of Jesus’ most profound and easily verified predictions, however, had to do with events that would occur years after His time on Earth. With meticulous detail, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that took place almost four decades after His ascension. Not only does this prophecy verify His deity, it adds another powerful piece of evidence to the case for the inspiration of the Bible.

Jesus’ Prediction

Even the most casual reader of the Gospel accounts in the New Testament quickly discovers that the majority of the Jewish leaders in the first century wanted Jesus dead. In spite of Jesus’ healings, teachings about love, sermons on the coming Kingdom of God, and invitations to enjoy God’s forgiveness, the Jewish nation, in large part, completely rejected Him. We hear His heartbroken cry for the capital city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish nation, when He lamented, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37).

The text of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life transitions from His sorrow over Jerusalem into an episode when Jesus’ disciples wanted to bring their Teacher’s attention to the majestic stones and architecture of the “buildings of the temple” (Matthew 24:1). Jesus responded to their fawning over the physical structures of Jerusalem with a startling pronouncement. “Do you not see these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (24:2). Such a declaration from the Christ would have shocked even His most ardent disciples.

First, in the minds of virtually every first-century Jew, the Messiah was supposed to usher in a glorious new Kingdom. “Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever” (Isaiah 9:7). Furthermore, this Kingdom surely would have for its seat of government the Holy City, Zion, Jerusalem, as Isaiah predicted, “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:2). If the Messiah was to reign on the throne of David “forever,” and if the center of governmental power was to be in Jerusalem, then foretelling the city’s, and especially the Temple’s, destruction approached blasphemy.

Second, the actual, physical destruction of Jerusalem seemed virtually impossible to Jesus’ hearers, and for good reason. First-century Jewish historian, Josephus, writing about the stones of the Temple, stated: “Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes, for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight…. Of its stones, some of them were forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth.”¹ Such massive stones have been estimated to weigh several hundred tons. Furthermore, the towers that adorned and protected the Temple were magnificent in and of themselves. “Now as these towers were so very tall…. The largeness also of the stones was wonderful, for they were not made of common small stones for of such large ones only as men could carry…each stone was twenty cubits in length, and ten in breadth, and five in depth.”² After all, it had taken over 40 years just to build the Temple (John 2:20). The Roman historian Tacitus was struck by the city’s defenses as well. He noted that “the commanding situation of the city had been strengthened by enormous works which would have been a thorough defence even for level ground.” He went on to comment that “two hills of great height were fenced in by walls” and “within were other walls surrounding the palace, and rising to a conspicuous height, the tower of Antonia.”³ In view of Jerusalem’s excellent military defensive position with a high elevation and massive walls, Jesus’ prediction seemed outlandish.

Naturally, such a sweeping statement of destruction piqued the curiosity of the dubious disciples, and they further questioned their Leader, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”⁴ In answer to their questions, Jesus proceeded to explain events that His disciples could identify that would signal the destruction of Jerusalem.⁵

1: False Christs and Prophets

In enumerating the events that would precede the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus stated: “Then if anyone says to you , ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you before hand” (Matthew 24:23-25, also 24:5, 11).⁶ When we scour the pages of history between the years of A.D. 30 and A.D. 70 we find a host of references that verify Jesus’ prophecy.

Josephus wrote: “Theudas persuaded a great part of the people…to follow him…for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command, divide the river and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words.”⁷ When writing of events that happened during the reign of Felix (A.D. 52-60), he stated: “There was also another body of wicked men gotten together…. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration…and these prevailed the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would show them the signals of liberty.”⁸ The historian further recorded: “Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said he was a prophet…. He said further that…at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”⁹ And “there was an Egyptian false prophet…he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also.”¹⁰ Josephus wrote despairingly of the prevalence of such false prophets when he stated, “Now, as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers.”¹¹

In recording events during these years, Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, stated: “But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was something great, to whom all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, ‘This man is the great power of God’” (Acts 8:9-10). Origen, who lived from A.D. 185-253, wrote in his book Contra Celsum: “And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views.”¹² He further stated that Dositheus proclaimed himself to be “the Son of God.”¹³ It is evident to all who give this period of history the most casual glance that it was rife with people claiming to be prophets, saviors, and divinely inspired christs.

2: Wars and Conflict

Jesus predicted, in no uncertain terms, that prior to the fall of Jerusalem there would be “wars and rumors of wars,” and that nation would “rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:6,7; Luke 21:10). While it is true that wars and talk of wars are fairly common, Jesus’ prediction corresponds precisely to the worldwide increase in hostilities during the years between A.D. 30 and 70.

Tacitus wrote of the months leading up to A.D. 70 and the strife that raged during this time, when he stated: “I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once.”¹⁴ In addition, Josephus wrote an entire book titled The Jewish Wars, because the various wars, conflicts, and battles that the Jews were involved in during this time literally required an entire volume to document. Jesus’ allusion to wars and strife during this time cannot be gainsaid by even the most ardent skeptic of divine prophecy.

3. Famines, Pestilences, and Earthquakes

In answering His disciples’ question about the signs that would precede the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus foretold that there would “be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places” (Matthew 24:7; Luke 21:11). History could not be more abundantly clear that Jesus knew what He was talking about.

When recording events from the year A.D. 51, Tacitus wrote, “This year witnessed many prodigies…. Houses were flattened by repeated earthquakes…. Further portents were seen in shortages of corn, resulting in famine…. In this year war broke out between Armenians and Iberians, and seriously disturbed relations between Rome and Parthia.”¹⁵ Concerning the years A.D. 65-66, Tacitus wrote:

Heaven, too, marked this crime-stained year with tempest and pestilence. Campania was ravaged by a hurricane which destroyed houses, orchards, and crops…. At Rome, a plague devastated the entire population. No miasma was discernible in the air. Yet the houses were full of corpses, and the streets of funerals. Neither sex nor age conferred immunity. Slave or free, all succumbed just as suddenly.¹⁶

Roman historian Suetonius documented that “a series of droughts had caused a scarcity of grain” during the reign of Claudius.¹⁷ Josephus details the story of Helena visiting Jerusalem, stating, “Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem, for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food….”¹⁸ In addition, Acts 11:27-30 records that Agabus, a prophet, foretold of “a great famine throughout all the world,” which severely affected those in Judea.

Seneca the Younger, in writing about a specific earthquake that occurred in the A.D. 60s, stated: “This tremor was on 5 February in the consulship of Regulus and Verginius, and it inflicted devastation on Campania…. For part of the town of Herculaneum too fell down and even the structures that remain are unstable.”¹⁹ Tacitus noted that an “earthquake too demolished a large part of Pompeii.”²⁰

One remarkable aspect to all these historical events is the fact that, in reality, we have very little that is recorded about the first century. Yet, what little we do have includes direct verification of exactly what Jesus predicted.

4. Persecution of the Disciples

In looking into the future at the trials that His followers would face, Jesus predicted: “But before all these things, they will lay hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake” (Luke 21:12). Those of us in the 21^st century, aware of the persecution experienced by the early Christians, hardly find such a prediction remarkable. In truth, however, the idea that Jews who were former fishermen, tax collectors, and zealots who became followers of a carpenter from Nazareth would be so infamous in secular circles that they would stand before the most politically powerful rulers of the age was a rather bold prediction.

The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy is so well documented it hardly even needs verification. The book of Acts records this persecution thoroughly. Acts 5:18,40 state: “Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him…and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison…. And when they had called for the apostles and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus.” Stephen was murdered in Acts 7. King Herod killed James the brother of John with a sword (Acts 12:2), and proceeded to capture Peter with the obvious intent of doing him harm (12:4). The Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:3). He was then sent to the governor Felix (24:10), then to Festus (24:27), and stood before King Agrippa (24:26).

The early church historian Eusebius stated: “It is therefore recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day…. And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans.”²¹ Suetonius wrote that during the reign of Nero, “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.”²² And Tacitus added that Nero “inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians…. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight expired. Nero offered his garden for the spectacle.”²³ Additional testimony could be added to this, but little need there is for it. Mark it down as historical fact: Christ’s followers were subjected to the exact punishments and persecutions predicted by their Lord.

5. Jerusalem Surrounded by Armies

In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ prophecy, he recorded that Jesus said, “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (24:15-16; Mark 13:14-15). Admittedly, the term “abomination of desolation” sounds vague to a 21^st-century reader. To what does this reference apply? Apparently, from Matthew’s parenthetical statement “whoever reads, let him understand,” the author was confident that his readers would recognize the situation when it occurred. Since it is generally recognized that Matthew wrote for an early Jewish audience, he could assume that they had an understanding of the prophet Daniel that would help them identify the “abomination of desolation” (Daniel 9:27).

Luke’s account, on the other hand, does not leave the warning shrouded in any vagueness. In his parallel passage to Matthew 24, he recorded Jesus as stating, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains…” (Luke 21:10). The context places Luke’s statement of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in the exact place that Matthew positioned Jesus’ statement about the “abomination of desolation.” Also notice that Luke’s account connects the ideas by stating that Jerusalem’s “desolation” would be near when the armies surrounded it. Clearly, the “abomination of desolation” and the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies was so closely connected that Jesus’ listeners should take action when they saw the armies around Jerusalem. That being the case, can we historically document the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies? We most certainly can.

Josephus, at length, explains that the Roman General Cestius brought a massive Roman army against Jerusalem. In his explanation of the event, Josephus further stated: “But now Cestius, observing that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, took his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight and pursued them to Jerusalem.”²⁴ The Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem as Jesus predicted.

The attentive reader will note that Jesus warned His listeners that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then they should flee from the city (Luke 21:20-21). How would that be possible with the Roman army surrounding and besieging the city? Cestius’ behavior provides one of the most remarkable instances of historic verification for any prophecy ever recorded. Josephus noted that those in Jerusalem could not withstand the forces of Cestius. In fact, he stated that “had he but at this very time attempted to get within the walls by force, he had won the city presently, and the war had been put an end to at once.”²⁵ But Cestius did not press his advantage. In fact, not only did he refuse to take the walls, he withdrew his entire army. The reader can almost hear Josephus’ disgust as he wrote: “It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, or how courageous the people were for him, and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.”²⁶

From a military standpoint, Cestius’ behavior was inexplicable. In his struggle to understand why the events occurred as they did, Josephus suggested that Cestius could have ended the war at that point, but the reason he did not, was “owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.”²⁷ In other words, God was not finished with His judgment of Jerusalem.

It is important to remember that Josephus was not a Christian and showed little, if any, awareness of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel accounts. He never considered these events to be fulfilled prophecy and never seemed to have been aware of Jesus’ prediction warning His followers to flee Jerusalem. The reader is urged to remember this fact. Josephus was not inspired, nor was he attempting to validate the biblical account. Since the events he recorded are so clearly an exact fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy, it is tempting to think that somehow he was “in league” with the Bible writers, but even the most liberal scholars and skeptics recognize that cannot be the case. Josephus saw absolutely no “reason in the world” that Cestius should have withdrawn his army. Those attending to Jesus’ words, however, have an exceedingly good idea as to why this strange event occurred.

6. Flight of Christians from Jerusalem

Cestius’ retreat provided the perfect opportunity for the Christians in Jerusalem to flee the city. Jesus had sternly warned them that when they saw the city surrounded by armies, to take no care about their earthly possessions, but run from the city for their lives. History records that they did precisely that. Church historian Eusebius wrote:

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.²⁸

Epiphanius, a fourth-century church writer, noted: “This sect of the Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea near Coele-syria, in Decapolis near Pella…. For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella, after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it because of the siege it was about to undergo.”²⁹ Josephus mentioned that after Cestius’ retreat many Jews “swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink.”³⁰ He did not specifically mention Christians, but it is quite probable that many of those who fled at that time were followers of Christ.

7. Great Distress and Death in Jerusalem

Jesus warned His followers to leave Jerusalem because soon after the armies surrounded the city He predicted there would be “days of vengeance” and “great distress in the land and wrath upon this people” (Luke 21:22-23). Matthew recorded Jesus’ foreboding description in these words: “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be” (24:21). Some have questioned how Jerusalem would suffer more destruction, death, and horror than those in the Flood, or those during the time of the Holocaust. While it is possible that Jesus was using hyperbole, a look at the devastation brought upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 reveals a period of pain, terror, and rapine that easily could be argued to surpass any in human history.

In the year A.D. 70, Roman general Titus besieged the city in an assault that would spell doom for Jerusalem. Not only did the siege begin to choke the food supplies, but the problem was compounded by warring factions within the city. Josephus mentions three “armies” of zealots in the city that fought one another for control. One of their strategies was to burn the supplies of the other factions. The result of this was that the supply of corn that the inhabitants laid up for such a siege that could have sustained them for many years, was destroyed by the Jews themselves.³¹

Thus, famine quickly took hold of the city—a famine so horrific that the details turn the stomach. The militant factions in the city marauded the streets, killing many and confiscating all food. “They also invented terrible methods of torment to discover where any food was, and they were these: to stop up the passages of the privy parts of the miserable wretches, and to drive sharp stakes up their fundamentals.”³² As the famine worsened “upper rooms were full of women and children that were dying by famine; and the lanes of the city were full of the dead bodies of the aged.” The children and the young men “all swelled with famine, and fell down dead wheresoever their misery seized them.”³³ One report before the entire ordeal was finished, said the number of dead from the famine was more than 600,000, with many dead bodies not even able to be counted.³⁴ So much so that “the multitude of carcasses that lay in heaps one upon another, was a horrible sight, and produced a pestilential stench.”³⁵ As the famine continued, those dying ate the dead carcasses of animals, the leather off of their shoes, girdles, and shields, and old wisps of hay. Furthermore, in coming to an end of his description about the famine, Josephus related a story of a woman killing and roasting her son, eating half of it, and offering the other half to the marauders who came when they smelled cooking flesh. They were so appalled by the sight that even they went out trembling.³⁶ The factions that caused the famine inside the city did so much destruction that Josephus said that a list of all the terrible things they did could not even be written, but because of these men “neither did any city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.”³⁷

In relating further instances of suffering brought on the Jews in Jerusalem, we read that Romans were also responsible for immense amounts of cruelty. Concerning Jews that attempted to desert to the Romans, the Roman soldiers “out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to crosses, by way of jest.”³⁸ And many were “whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified.”³⁹ Other Jews that attempted to desert to the Romans met a more gruesome fate. Certain Jews coming out of the city had swallowed their gold in an attempt to hide it. Soldiers in the Roman army heard of this ploy and “cut up those that came as supplicants, and searched their bellies.” In one night, about 2,000 Jews were thus dissected.⁴⁰ Such instances could be multiplied extensively. In Josephus’ summary of the death and destruction of the Jews, he wrote that because the siege happened during the time of the Passover, millions of Jews from all over the world had congregated in the city. A final, estimated number of those killed in the few months of the siege was 1.1 million, with another 97,000 sold as prisoners (as Jesus stated in Luke 21:24, that not only would the inhabitants of Jerusalem be killed, but also “led away captive into all nations”).⁴¹ Josephus lamented, “Accordingly the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world.”⁴² Jesus’ description of great distress aptly expresses what horrors were experienced during the fall of Jerusalem.

8. The Destruction of the Physical Temple

When the disciples sat marveling at the “buildings of the temple,” they could not resist drawing Jesus’ attention to the architecture and magnificence of the structures. Surely they believed that the city and its buildings would continue through history. Imagine their surprise when Jesus declared and prophesied, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2). Is it true that the buildings of the Temple were destroyed as Jesus predicted?

Again, Josephus provides one of the only first-hand accounts of the destruction of the Temple by the Roman armies. He noted how the Roman soldiers “put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all of the sudden, and caught hold of the cloisters.”⁴³ As for what was left of the Temple, he noted a Roman soldier “being lifted up by another soldier, set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side.” Josephus detailed how Titus tried to stop his soldiers from destroying the remainder of the building, but he was unsuccessful. And “flames burst out from within the holy house itself immediately…and thus the holy house burnt down.”⁴⁴

Thus, the Temple itself was destroyed, but what about the stones of the “buildings of the temple”? To discover that information we must turn to archaeology. When we do, we find complete fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction. Archaeologist Harold Mare wrote: “We do not have any remains of the Herodian temple itself because of the devastating Roman destruction in A.D. 70.”⁴⁵ H.T. Frank noted, “Strictly speaking, the Temple proper is not a matter of archaeological consideration since only one stone from it and parts of another can be positively identified.”⁴⁶ Randall Price stated, “In fact, after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans plowed under the Temple Mount and erected pagan structures upon it (which themselves were later destroyed).”⁴⁷

What about the Wailing Wall?

Not long ago I received an email from a skeptic who claimed that Jesus’ prophecy had been falsified. He stated, “Jesus was flat wrong in saying not one stone will remain on top of another. The Wailing Wall is still there today.” Supposedly, since the Western Wailing Wall existed during the time of Jesus, and since some stones are still intact, then Jesus’ prediction that “not one stone shall be left here upon another” did not come true. Does the Wailing Wall disprove Jesus’ prediction?

To discover the truth on this issue, I asked the skeptic to tell me “where, exactly did Jesus say that every stone in Jerusalem would be knocked down?” He then quoted Matthew 24:2, “And Jesus said to them, ‘Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.’” He said, because of the Wailing Wall, “So, I conclude Jesus was wrong and cannot be God’s representative.”

In response, I asked him, “Did you read the context of the passage? What had the disciples specifically asked Jesus about?” He wrote back and admitted that in Matthew 24 the disciples “wanted to draw Jesus’ attention to the buildings of the temple.”

Again, I responded by saying, “Looking closely at the context, could you tell me which buildings of the temple…the followers of Jesus were showing Him?” He stated, “I don’t know. It doesn’t say. I don’t see what difference it would make as to which buildings, since Jesus says ‘all these things’ will not have one stone left upon another.” When I asked him what he understood “all these things” to mean, he said, “Jesus means the things to occur in the following verse 7.”

I then recapped our conversation by pointing out that he first claimed that Jesus’ statement about the stones in Jerusalem not being left one on another could not be true because there are stones in the Wailing Wall. Then when I asked if he had read the context, he admitted that Jesus was actually talking about the buildings of the Temple, which might not have had anything to do with the Wailing Wall. Then I asked him which buildings Jesus predicted would be destroyed, and he correctly stated that he did not know, since the text does not say.

I then asked about his understanding of “all these things,” and he said it must be everything that follows in verse seven. Yet, a close look at the context shows that cannot be the case. Verse two is immediately connected to verse one and Jesus is specifically talking about the stones of the buildings of the Temple (whatever buildings His disciples were showing Him). Verse three starts a different discussion in a different location. Now, if we knew which buildings were under discussion in verse one, and we knew that some stones of those buildings were left, there might be a case against this prophecy (barring the frequent use of hyperbole, which does not seem to be used here, but is a possibility). But, of course, we do not know that. Furthermore, it is a historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and that destruction included vast numbers of buildings that were connected to the Temple that were completely demolished. Thus, the existence of some intact stones in the structures around Jerusalem cannot be used to logically argue against Jesus’ prediction.

Jesus never predicted that every single stone in Jerusalem would be displaced. He was specifically addressing those “buildings of the temple” that His disciples pointed out. Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer wrote: “If you read the text in Matthew, the site [the disciples] pointed out were the buildings of the Temple. Read the exact text—‘the buildings of the Temple.’ The only buildings I know that belonged to the Temple were [those] built around it and the porticos. And all these buildings that stood on the Temple Mount were indeed left without one stone upon another.”⁴⁸ Randall Price concluded, “Obviously Jesus was referring to those buildings (including the Temple itself) which were on the huge supporting platform…. Archaeology has confirmed that no trace of these Temple buildings exists today, although some of their stones may have been put to secondary use in the walls and homes in Old City Jerusalem. Nevertheless, none remain in their original setting.”⁴⁹ Indeed, the attempt to discredit Jesus by pointing to the Wailing Wall falls down as flat as the buildings surrounding the Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.

Conclusion

Jesus’ disciples boldly declared that they saw His miracles and were eyewitnesses to His marvelous works (1 John 1:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16-18). They recorded His prediction that He would be arrested, killed, and rise again (Matthew 16:21)—events about which they had first-hand knowledge. Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, however, was set for a time in the future after Jesus ascended to heaven, but during the lifetime of many of His hearers. His primary purposes for the predictions were to warn His followers when to flee Jerusalem, as well as to add further proof for His divinity by providing yet another example of His ability to foresee the future. The historical record verifies that Jesus’ prophecy was so detailed and accurate that, after all the signs He predicted occurred, and His followers saw “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20), they knew exactly what to do in order to avoid the fate of the wicked Jews who refused to recognize Jesus as God. Even so, Jesus has predicted another future event, His Second Coming, which will be Universal in its scope. Concerning this event, there will be no signs that enable anyone to predict when it will occur.⁵⁰ Indeed, it will come with no warning or announcements, like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:43). As surely and as accurately as Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem, He has foretold His Second Coming and the Judgment of all humanity. Let us all heed His words: “And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!” (Mark 13:37).

Endnotes

The post The Fall of Jerusalem appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Often, to summarize this idea of sinlessness, Jesus is described as being perfect. The idea of perfection, however, carries some baggage with it that the biblical text does not include. When many of us think of the word “perfect,” we imagine a person who does not make any mistakes. A baseball pitcher may pitch a perfect game. A professional bowler may achieve a perfect score. A football quarterback may play a game in which he connects with his receivers on every pass. Such perfection, however, is not how the Bible describes Jesus. Jesus’ perfection would not have meant that if He played a game of basketball, then He would have made every shot He took. It would not suggest that He never fell down when learning to walk, or that He never made an errant cut on the boards He worked with as a carpenter. Jesus was (and is) morally perfect and sinless, but His time on Earth would have included cuts, bruises, scrapes, falls, and less than perfect attempts at childhood games He may have played.

In view of Jesus being “perfect,” some have suggested His perfection would extend to the idea that He could not sin. The thought is that, if Jesus as God in the flesh was perfect, it would be impossible for God to sin, because that would violate His nature (Habakkuk 1:13). This line of thought admits that Jesus truly was tempted, but that at no point could He have actually sinned by giving in to the temptation. Was it possible for Jesus to sin in the same way humans choose to sin, or was His nature while on Earth such that it was impossible for Him to sin?

Christ Emptied Himself

The Bible clearly explains that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Yet the text just as clearly and boldly proclaims that Jesus was tempted in all ways like humans (Hebrews 4:15). What do we do with such seemingly contradictory statements? If Jesus is God, and God cannot be tempted, then Jesus cannot be tempted. Jesus is God, yet He was tempted, so where does that leave us? The answer can be found in Philippians 2:7, where the Bible explains that Christ “emptied Himself” (KJV) or “made Himself of no reputation” (NKJV), “coming in the likeness of men.” All that this entails cannot be understood, but it extends to the fact that somehow Jesus kept the nature of God, but put Himself in a subordinated position to the Father, and at the same time took the “likeness” of humanity.² Jesus was God, but at the same time could be tempted. This situation would extend to other concepts that would be “impossible” for God, but not for Jesus during His time on Earth. Luke explains that Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52). Yet, an all-knowing God cannot grow in wisdom, since He has possessed it from before time began (Proverbs 8:22-23). Titus explains that God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). Christ, in His emptied “likeness-of-man” state, however, would be able to lie, just as He could be tempted and needed to grow in wisdom. By taking on the likeness of man, Jesus opened Himself up to the real possibility to sin.

Tempted in All Ways As We Are

The writer of Hebrews explicitly stated that Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (4:15). If Jesus really did not have the capability to sin, how would this provide any comfort, hope, or encouragement to sinful humans? Humans have the ability to make the correct choice when they are tempted. God never allows us to be tempted beyond what we are capable of handling, and He always provides a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). It is theoretically possible for humans to live sinless lives. We all know, however, that none of us has achieved that goal (Romans 3:23). At some point in our lives, we have chosen to sin. For Jesus’ temptation to be “in all points” like ours, He must have had the capability to choose sin, just as we do. Think of how hollow the statement in Hebrews would be if Jesus were incapable of sin. If He could not sin, then His temptation could not be like ours. To illustrate, imagine a boxer going up against the heavy weight world champion. His manager explains that this opponent can be beaten. The boxer asks how he knows. The manager tells his boxer that a previous fighter recently beat the opponent. As a side note, however, the manager explains that the other guy who won had a magic force field that made it impossible for him to get hit at all. How much encouragement would that give the anxious fighter? When Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread, Jesus had both the power necessary to actually turn the stones to bread, and the capability to choose the sin. Jesus could have turned the stones to bread, or jumped from the Temple, or bowed down to Satan. He simply chose not to yield to temptation (Matthew 4:1-10).

Sin and Human Nature

It is common to hear the idea put forth that people are born with a “sinful human nature” and that humans cannot really keep from sinning. Supposedly, from the time of Adam and Eve’s Fall in the Garden of Eden, all humans born after the Fall have inherited some aspect of a corrupt human nature that is incapable of resisting all temptation. The problem with this concept is twofold. First, if Jesus came in the “likeness of man,” His nature would have contained some aspect of this corruption, since His human body was the combined product of the Holy Spirit and Mary. Second, the idea of a “corrupt” human nature does not explain how sin entered the world. Adam and Eve did not have a sinful, corrupt nature. On the contrary, God created them “very good” (Genesis 1:31), yet they still chose to sin. The capacity God gave to the first humans to choose to obey God or to sin was “very good.” There is nothing inherently corrupt or bad with the capacity to sin. In theory, Adam could have chosen never to sin. He did not. That is why the apostle Paul explained that Christ, when He came to Earth, was the “second” Adam (Romans 5:12-21). Both Adam and Jesus had the capacity to sin. Both were tempted. Adam yielded to temptation and ushered in the Fall and death that resulted from sin entering the world. Jesus did not yield to sin, though He had that capacity. “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life” (Romans 5:18). Adam could have resisted, but he didn’t. Jesus could have sinned, but He didn’t. Jesus provided the example of what Adam and all humans should have done, but what none of us choose to do. “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18). Praise God that our Savior never gave in to temptation!

Endnotes

The post Could Jesus Have Sinned? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What do we mean by “myth”? German theologian Rudolf Bultmann popularized the notion that, in order to properly interpret the text, the New Testament must be stripped of those elements that appear to be “mythical,” specifically, its supernatural features.¹ “Myth,” therefore, in theological circles refers to a traditional, non-literal story in a particular culture that manifests that culture’s worldview. The story serves as a vehicle to convey a truth, without necessarily being historically true. The Bible’s depictions of heaven, hell, demons, evil spirits, and Satan are viewed as symbols for deeper meanings rather than being literally existent. Many theologians, and now many Americans, insist that the Bible is a pre-scientific document that is riddled with the errors that accompanied early man’s quest for knowledge, making many of its claims “mythical.”

Along with the onset of modern scientific discovery and understanding has come a widespread tendency to compromise the biblical text of Genesis 1-11. Otherwise conservative thinking Christians have not been immune to this deadly cancer that ultimately undermines the entire Bible and one’s ability to arrive at the truth. In the 1980s, it was discovered that raw evolution was being taught by two Abilene Christian University professors. One of the biology professors provided his class with a handout that included a photocopy of the first page of Genesis. In the margin he scrawled the words, “Hymn, myth.”² Concerned about the backlash from its base, the university mobilized in an attempt to discredit the charge and sweep it under the proverbial carpet, but the evidence was decisive, as acknowledged even by objective outsiders as well as a Master’s thesis conducted 30 years later.³ The fact is that evolution has been taught on other Christian college campuses as well. The lack of outcry testifies to the fact that even Christians and their children have been adversely influenced by secular education.

It is amazing, even shocking, to see the extent to which the authority of the biblical text in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, has been undermined in the mind of the average American, especially in the last half century or so. In virtually every corner of our country, relaxed and compromised views of the Bible prevail—even among otherwise conservative Americans and those who profess to be Christian. Before leaving office, President Bush (“W”) was interviewed by Cynthia McFadden on ABC’s “Nightline.” When asked if he believed the Bible to be literally true, he responded: “You know. Probably not.… No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is…has got… You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.’”⁴ When asked about creation and evolution, Bush said:

I think you can have both. I think evolution can—you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an Almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.⁵

Myriad instances could be cited in which Americans manifest the degrading effects of skepticism, atheism, evolution, and liberal theology.

What a far cry from most of America’s history. It is hard to believe that—up until the 1960s—American education was thoroughly saturated with the biblical account of Creation.⁶ The book of Genesis was taken as a straight-forward account of the formation of the Universe and the beginning of human history. People took God at His Word. Though liberal theology swept through Europe in the late 19^th century, which included attacks on the verbal, inerrant inspiration of the Scriptures, and though the Creation account began to be openly challenged at the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, still, the majority of Americans continued to accept the biblical account right on up to World War II. Since then, however, sinister forces have been chipping away at belief in the inspiration and integrity of the Bible. They have succeeded in eroding confidence in its trustworthiness and authority.

But there are no excuses. The evidence is available, and it is overwhelming. No one can stand before God at the end of time and justify himself for his rejection of Genesis as a straightforward record of literal history. Failure to take Genesis at face value can easily result in acceptance of views and/or practices that will jeopardize one’s standing with God.

New Testament Proof that Genesis is Literal History

If we had no other means by which to determine whether Genesis is myth or history, the New Testament alone is ample proof. Depending on how one calculates the material, the New Testament has at least 60 allusions to Genesis 1-11, with over 100 allusions to the entire book.⁷ Jesus and the writers of the New Testament consistently treated Genesis as literal history. As a matter of fact, every New Testament author refers to Genesis, and nearly every New Testament book does as well. Their handling of the Genesis text demonstrates that they considered the events to have actually occurred, rather than being mythical or legendary folklore that merely contains useful lessons.

Jesus

Consider a sampling of allusions made by Jesus:

• He specified the foundation of the marriage institution, quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as historical precedent and proof that carte blanche divorce is unacceptable to God (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8). Did He mean to ground marriage on fairytales?
• Jesus mentioned Abel as a real person whose blood was shed on account of his righteous behavior, just like other historical personages in human history (Matthew 23:35). If Abel was not an actual person who lived on Earth, neither was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom Jesus said the Jews “murdered between the Temple and the altar”—an actual physical location.
• Jesus declared Satan to be a “murderer from the beginning” and the father of lies—referring to the Fall (John 8:44; Genesis 3:4,19; cf. Romans 5:12; 1 John 3:8).
• Jesus referenced Moses’ writings as genuine representations of history (John 5:46), even warning, “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (vs. 47).
• Jesus spoke of the “days of Noah” and the Flood as an actual historical event that has many parallels to the future coming of the Son of Man in terms of what people will be doing with their time (Matthew 24:37-39).
• Jesus compared Capernaum to Sodom (Genesis 18-19), saying, “for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matthew 11:23-24). Sodom would have had to have been an actual city for it to “have remained until this day” and for it to fare more tolerably in the Day of Judgment (cf. 10:15).
• The genealogical lists of Jesus’ physical lineage identify actual historical persons in the first century all the way back to persons originally named in Genesis, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Tamar (Matthew 1:1-2), as well as Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah (Luke 3:36-37).

Paul

Paul, likewise, treated persons, places, and incidents in Genesis as if historically real. Here is a sampling of some of his allusions:

• He quoted Genesis 1:3 to note how God caused light to shine out of darkness (2 Corinthians 4:6).
• Quoting Genesis 2:7, Paul said Adam was the first human being on Earth (1 Corinthians 15:45).
• He claimed that Adam was made from dust (1 Corinthians 15:47)—as Genesis records.
• He noted how the woman is “from” (ek—“out of”) man (1 Corinthians 11:8,12), referring to the fact that Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s body.
• Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 to verify how a man and woman “become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16), comparing marriage to the church (Ephesians 5:31).
• Adam was as historically real as Christ and Moses, having introduced sin into the world, causing death to reign during the historical interval “from Adam to Moses” (Romans 5:14-15).
• Paul identified Adam and Eve by name, noting that Adam was created before the woman was created, and also noting the deception to which Eve succumbed (1 Timothy 2:13-14), which occurred via the “serpent” (2 Corinthians 11:3).
• Paul claimed that God’s deity and attributes have been evident “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20).
• Paul said that Jesus fulfilled the promises that had been made to “the fathers,” i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Romans 15:8).
• Paul quoted the promise God made to Abraham concerning Sarah giving birth to Isaac (Romans 9:9), and also mentions Jacob, Esau, and Rebecca by name (vss. 9-10).

Peter

Peter, too, endorsed the historicity of Genesis:

• He alluded to the watery mass at Creation from Genesis 1:12,6-7,9 (2 Peter 3:5).
• He regarded the Flood as an actual historical event, mentioning Noah by name and specifying the number of survivors as eight, and the Flood’s extent being global (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6).
• Peter believed in the historical personage of Lot (Genesis 11-14,19) and that God actually turned “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes” to make them “an example to those who afterward would live ungodly.” The incident also serves the purpose of demonstrating how God “knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations” (2 Peter 2:6-9). If the incident was not historical, it would serve no legitimate parallel purpose.
• Peter also noted the actual, historical relationship sustained by Sarah and Abraham (1 Peter 3:6).

Hebrews

The writer of the Hebrews letter bases his entire argument on the historicity of Genesis and the Old Testament system:

• His quotation of Psalm 102 includes the fact that even as God created the heavens and the Earth, so they will perish (1:10). Both circumstances require literal historicity.
• Alluding to the fact that God “finished” His creative activities—a direct allusion to Genesis 2:1—he then quotes Genesis 2:2 to call attention to the literal cessation of God’s actions on the seventh day of the week (4:3-4; cf. vs. 10—“as God did from His”).
• The comparison of Christ to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) in contrast with Aaron demands that both of these figures were actual historical personages (5:1-10; 6:20; 7:1-21).
• God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 was a literal promise to a literal person (6:13-14).
• God’s creation of the Universe was by His “word” (11:3)—even as the Genesis record indicates that God spoke the created order into existence (“God said…”—1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26).
• Hebrews chapter 11 is a veritable “Who’s Who” of historical personalities from Genesis whose historicity is assumed: Cain and Abel (vs. 4), Enoch (vs. 5), Noah (vs. 7), Abraham (vss. 8-10), Sarah (vss. 11-12, who literally produced a multitude of descendants), Isaac (vss. 17-20), Jacob (vss. 20-21), and Joseph (vs. 22).
• Esau sold his birthright for food (12:16).
• Abel’s shed blood is as historically real as Christ’s (12:24).

Other New Testament Writers

The other writers show the same respect for bona fide history portrayed in Genesis. James refers to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (2:21). Jude mentions Cain, Enoch, and Sodom and Gomorrah (vss. 7,11,14). He draws a comparison between the physical destruction of the cities with “the vengeance of eternal fire” that awaits the disobedient at the Judgment. John notes that Cain murdered his brother because of his own sinful actions (1 John 3:12). Even the book of Revelation, though highly figurative, nevertheless contains numerous allusions to Genesis that indicate an historical understanding of the book (e.g., 5:5; 10:6; 20:2; 22:2). To suggest that the book of Genesis is a compilation of interesting fables, myths, folklore, popular anecdotes, and stories, rather than actual history, is to suggest that the doctrines of Christianity are rooted in and dependent on fairytales and imaginary stories. Indeed, if the events of Genesis did not historically occur, the New Testament writers—and Jesus Himself—were either in error or flat out liars, since they unquestionably referred to the events of Genesis as being historically true.

Linguistic Proof that Genesis is Literal History

In addition to the New Testament’s inspired treatment of Genesis as an actual account of history, one could also simply examine the literary genre of Genesis. Many in our day insist that Genesis should not be read as literal history because it is written in poetic form and is not a literal description of actual events. But such a claim is, itself, linguistic gobbledygook. Written language, whether from man or God, can be deciphered in terms of its genre. One can identify the author’s use of linguistic elements and extract intended meaning from the words that are used. In other words, though the 50 chapters of Genesis contain figurative language—as does the entire Bible—nevertheless, one can easily distinguish between the literal and the figurative.

Entire volumes have been written on human communication, how human language functions, and how to derive meaning from written language. Many books have been produced that expound the discipline of hermeneutics—the process of interpreting language. These volumes provide self-evident, easily discernible rules and procedures for detecting figurative language. D.R. Dungan’s classic work, Hermeneutics, written in 1888, contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “The Various Figures of the Bible,” and “Figures of Thought.”⁸ Clinton Lockhart’s 1901 volume Principles of Interpretation contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “Poetry,” and “Types.”⁹ Christendom has produced many books that demonstrate the means by which biblical language may be understood, including Bernard Ramm’s Hermeneutics and Milton Terry’s 1883 volume Biblical Hermeneutics.¹⁰ Ascertaining whether Genesis and, specifically, the Creation account are “poetic,” “hymn,” or “myth” is not a matter of confusion or uncertainty—except for those who have an agenda and wish to concoct an elaborate smokescreen to avoid the obvious import of God’s Word.

Does Genesis 1 contain any figurative language? Certainly. But not anything that makes the chapter non-literal in its basic import. For example, the term “face” in Genesis 1:2, which is actually plural in the Hebrew (pah-neem—“faces”), is an idiomatic instance of pleonasm, a form of amplificatio, in which more words are used than the grammar requires: “And darkness was upon the faces of the deep.” The noun “deep” (which, itself, is a figurative term for the sea or ocean) is enhanced or emphasized by means of a second, redundant noun “faces.” Instead of simply saying, “darkness was upon the deep,” adding “faces” makes the statement “much more forcible and emphatic.”¹¹ The use of “saw” in Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25 is the figure of speech known as anthropopatheia in which human attributes are ascribed to God—specifically in this text, human actions.¹² The expression in 1:9,10, “Let the dry appear,” is the figure of speech known as antimereia, the exchange of one part of speech for another, in this case, an adjective for a noun. “Dry” in the verses refers to the “land.”¹³ Genesis 1:11 uses polyptoton in which the same part of speech is repeated in a different inflection. Specifically, the verb “seeding” is repeated by means of its cognate noun “seed”: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,” literally, “seeding seed.”¹⁴ In other words, vegetation was created by God in a state of bearing seed, and not vice versa—which militates against the notion of evolution and underscores the instantaneous nature of the Creation. Indeed, this figurative language testifies to the literal nature of the Creation week.

So, yes, Genesis 1 (and perhaps every other chapter in the Bible) contains figurative language, as does our everyday language.¹⁵ But that language is detectable, discernible, and decipherable—and does not necessarily imply that the overall message being conveyed is not to be taken literally. None of the language of Genesis 1 even hints that the events described were imaginary as opposed to being actual historical occurrences. In fact, simply take your Bible and turn to Genesis chapter 1 and notice how many terms are used that have an obvious, undisputable literal import, including “earth,” “darkness,” “Spirit of God,” “waters,” “light,” “day,” “night,” “evening,” “morning,” “first,” “seas,” “grass,” “herb,” “seed,” “fruit,” “tree,” “seasons,” “years,” “stars,” “fowl,” “fish,” “cattle,” etc. Distinguishing between figurative and literal language is not that difficult. As a side note, Steven Boyd conducted a statistical analysis using logistic regression, in order to ascertain whether Genesis 1:1-2:3 is Hebrew poetry or historical narrative. He concluded: “The biblical creation account clearly is not poetry but instead is a literal description in real time of supernatural events.”¹⁶

Corroboration by Other Bible Passages

If the events described in the book of Genesis were not intended to be understood as literal history, one would expect the rest of the Bible to give some indication of that fact. Yet, on the contrary, several passages scattered from the Old Testament to the New Testament allude to the events in such a way that their historicity is assumed. Take, for example, specific verses regarding the creation of the Universe by God. The distinct impression is given in Genesis chapter 1 that God orally spoke everything into existence, rather than using some naturalistic, time-laden process. In what is obviously an actual historical setting, reported to us in a literal context of Scripture, Moses informs the Israelites situated at the base of Mt. Sinai—

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work…. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11).

No Israelite listening to this declaration in 1500 B.C. would have ever conceived the notion that God created everything in the Universe over a period of millions and billions of years. The correlation between the days of Genesis 1 and the six-day work week enjoined upon people under the Law of Moses would have been unmistakable and could have been understood in no other way but literally.

Another example is seen in Psalm 33—which is certainly written in standard Hebrew metrical verse—but poetry that conveys literal truth. Speaking of God’s creative powers, David declared:

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6-9).

The figurative elements of this poetic passage are seen in the notions of “breath” and “mouth”—physical attributes that would not literally, physically characterize God Who is “spirit” (John 4:24; cf. Luke 24:39). But the oral aspect of God speaking the physical realm into existence is literal, even as God literally and audibly spoke to people throughout history (e.g., Genesis 12:1ff.; 22:12; Exodus 3:4ff.; Matthew 3:17; 17:5).

Still another example is seen in the psalmist’s call for praise by inanimate creation:

Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! (Psalm 148:1-4).

Here is an excellent instance of figurative language. Obviously, the Sun, Moon, stars, and waters cannot literally, audibly praise God. Yet, having been created by God, they reflect their Maker. They manifest attributes that demonstrate their divine origin (cf. Psalm 19:1ff.). Hence, the next verse declares: “Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created” (vs. 5). Here is yet another forthright indication that the impression projected by the Genesis account, that God literally spoke the Universe into existence, is an accurate impression, in spite of the fact that in Psalm 148 this truth is couched in figurative language.

We must ever remember that the Bible is unlike any other book on the planet. It reflects its own divine origin by the attributes that it possesses. It does not divulge its divine message in a sterile vacuum in which a writer expounds lofty ideals, or by means of a listing of ethical “do’s and don’ts.” Rather, by means of the Bible, God conveys His message to mankind in history.¹⁷ We are introduced to the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of the human race, and thereafter we are treated to a sequential, historical narrative that guides us through 4,000 years of human history, climaxing with God’s own personal visit to the Earth. This is all history! And it is clearly intended to be understood literally.

Conclusion

The book of Genesis explains the Creation of the Universe, the corruption of humanity by sin, the catastrophe of the global Flood, and the confusion at Babel. Amazingly, it provides the foundation for anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, and a host of other disciplines. Critical doctrines that impact all of humanity are rooted in the events described in Genesis, including the necessity of clothing—human modesty—and why we organize our lives in terms of a seven-day week. More crucial doctrines that pertain to eternity are also approached early on, including why humans sin, why humans die, and why Jesus would have to die on the cross. The very meaning of human existence is clarified by examining the book of Genesis.

Read carefully to Charles Darwin’s autobiographical statement regarding the shift that occurred in his thinking that led to his belief in evolution: “I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”¹⁸ The integrity of the entire Bible is seriously undermined when anyone compromises the literal, historical nature of the book of Genesis, with its critical teaching on origins. Obstinately clinging to evolution, theistic or otherwise, and stubbornly insisting on a relaxed, devalued interpretation of Genesis, can only end in a diluted religion.

May we love God. May we love His Word. May we defend it against all efforts to destroy its integrity and message. May we pore over its contents—as if our lives, the lives of our family, and the lives of those we influence depend upon it. For, indeed, they do.

Endnotes

The post Genesis: Myth or History? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“I heard a preacher on television say he can ‘prophesy’ using his trumpet. Is that possible?”

A:

An example of this activity is seen on the charismatic website New Zealand Prophetic Network in an article that asserts the following:

Holy Spirit ministry functions through many and varied means. One of the not so common today is that of musicians prophesying on their instruments: that is, the ability to play prophetically on their instruments in such a way as to release the anointing to the people…. This is the realm where musicians can play prophetically, whereby the anointed tune—even a new tune—can actually enable the Holy Spirit to interpret the feeling and/or message of the tune to our hearts. As we listen intently while the musician plays (can be singular or plural), we “pick-up” the heartbeat of God, and the theme of that heart beat is interpreted to us in the realm of our understanding. When that happens we can experience deep peace, joy, inspiration, even tears, as the Holy Spirit speaks. Yet no words have been spoken; only the playing of an anointed tune on an instrument.¹

Those who make this claim seek justification for the practice in 1 Chronicles 25:1 which reads: “Moreover David and the captains of the army separated for the service some of the sons of Asaph, of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, stringed instruments, and cymbals.” However, this claim is a misconception based on a faulty exegesis of the text. Even on the face of it, a trumpet or other mechanical instrument cannot “prophesy” since the word “prophesy” in Hebrew refers to speaking, i.e., articulating meaningful concepts via oral or written words.² The only way a musical instrument can convey specific meanings is if it is used as a signaling device with a prearranged, mutually understood meaning attached to a specific tune or tones. Historically, armies have used trumpets and bugles to sound a particular movement by the troops—whether “charge,” “retreat,” “call to quarters,” etc. But the instrument itself has no intellectual content, meaning, or message inherent in the sound it is capable of making. Paul made this very point when he chided the Corinthian Christians for their failure to make certain that their tongue-speaking and prophesying was comprehended by the assembly. Noting that instruments are “without life,” even they must make sounds that are understood by those intended to be the recipients of the pre-decided message being conveyed (1 Corinthians 14:7).

When the Bible speaks of “prophesying with harps, etc.,” it is not suggesting that a harp can prophesy. Rather, the grammar of the passage makes clear that the prophesying is done by the human prophet who, in turn, is merely accompanied by the instrument. The word “with” in the NKJV flags this fact.³ It is made even clearer by a quick consideration of other English translations:

So why accompany a prophet’s message from God with musical instruments? History does not answer this question definitively. However, consider a couple of possibilities that do not contradict other plainly established biblical realities. First, perhaps the instruments were intended to capture the attention of the Israelites, who would have constituted a large assembled crowd, in an effort to announce the commencement of the proclamation of the prophet’s divine message. This circumstance would have been analogous to court musicians who herald the arrival of the king or queen—a “fanfare”—defined as “a short ceremonial tune or flourish played on brass instruments, typically to introduce something or someone important.”⁴ Second, since prophetic messages throughout the Old Testament are typically couched in standard Hebrew metrical verse, perhaps the instrumental accompaniment was intended to reinforce the rhythmic nature of Hebrew poetry. The Bible does not inform us as to the activities of scores of prophets that we know ministered to Israel by prophesying. Keep in mind that the predictive element of our English word “prophesy” is secondary and sometimes even nonexistent in Hebrew prophecy. The majority of Hebrew prophecy was simply inspired preaching in which the prophet instructed, rebuked, corrected, and challenged his hearers with regard to their misbehavior/misconduct. In such a case, the prophets were something like the roving minstrels of the Middle Ages who traveled around the countryside and from town-to-town conveying messages via poetry accompanied by their strumming on a lute.⁵ In this way, Hebrew prophets would have permeated Israelite society on a daily basis, reminding the people of their spiritual and moral responsibility to conform every day to God’s will. This very scenario seems to be what we find in 1 Samuel 10:5.⁶

In any case, when a televangelist in our day claims to “prophesy” simply by playing a tune on a trumpet or other instrument, he does so without biblical precedent for such claims. After all, instruments are “without life.”

Endnotes

The post Prophesying With Instruments? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How can we know the Bible is from a supernatural source? Consider the fact that the historical evidence demonstrates that the canon of the Old Testament was completed long before the first century A.D. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, was executed over two centuries before Christ came to Earth. Hence, when the New Testament, which arose in the 1^st-century A.D., possesses specificity with regard to fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the unbiased person will inevitably “sit up and pay attention.” Unlike the productions of mere men unguided by Deity, the Bible contains scores of prophetic utterances—separated from their fulfillment by hundreds of years—that verify its divine origin.

Hebrew Prophecy and The Messianic Age

Hebrew prophecy is a multi-faceted, fascinating form of divine communication. Each of the Hebrew prophets possessed as central to their purpose the necessity of delivering to their contemporaries hard-hitting, penetrating messages from God Who was displeased with His people’s behavior. Yet, frequently embedded in these powerful proclamations were the anticipations and eventualities that emanated from the Mind of an infinite, eternal God Who exists above and beyond time itself. As the “Ancient of Days” (Daniel 7:9,13,22), God’s omniscience, eternality, and timeless infinitude enable Him to transcend time; His self-existence spans the ages. Consequently, His revelations to the prophets are riddled with messianic era anticipations and “types and shadows”¹ of the things that were to come in the working out of God’s scheme of redemption. One example of this divine methodology is seen in the prophecy uttered by God in 2 Samuel 7:12-16—

When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.

This prophecy has been widely considered to be messianic in nature in that it anticipates the coming of Jesus, the Son of God, whose physical body would descend genetically from David, and Who would establish His kingdom, i.e., the church/house of God (Matthew 1:1; 4:17; 16:18; Acts 2:30; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 1:8; 10:5; et al.). However, observe that additional details are fused among the messianic foreshadowing that do not refer to Christ. For example, Solomon also came from David’s body. Jesus committed no iniquity (2 Corinthians 5:21), while Solomon did. While Jesus established a spiritual kingdom/house, Solomon replaced his father over the physical kingdom of Israel, not being rejected as was Saul. Such intertwining and intermixing is typical of Hebrew prophecy in the way it juxtaposes the immediate conditions within ancient Israel with future events and expectations.²

Isaiah 62

One such remarkable prediction was offered by the 8^th-century B.C. prophet Isaiah.³ Often referred to as the “messianic prophet,” due to his prolific allusion to the coming Messiah, Isaiah also anticipated many other features pertaining to the establishment of Christianity and the arrival of the kingdom of Christ. One particularly eye-opening prophecy mentioned by Isaiah is his⁴ reference to the name that would characterize the citizens of the kingdom of Christ. It reads:

For Zion’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,

Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns.

The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory.

You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name.

You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.

You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married.

For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you (62:1-5).

More than any other Old Testament prophet, Isaiah’s prophetic oracles are saturated with anticipations of the coming of Christ and the Christian era. Hence, we would particularly expect his writing to be characterized by an intertwining of events and occurrences, some of which pertained to his own day and some of which referred to events several centuries removed from his day. We would expect him to direct the attention of his contemporaries to the return from Babylonian Captivity, while simultaneously foreshadowing the coming of the Christ centuries later. This circumstance is precisely what we find in Isaiah 62. God had forsaken the Israelites due to their iniquity—graphically realized in the foreign invasions and subsequent captivities inflicted by the Assyrians and Babylonians (2 Kings 17:23; 24:1-25:1ff.; 2 Chronicles 6).⁵ In His providential orchestrations, God arranged for their return from captivity, which enabled them no longer to be “forsaken.” Yet such reassurance is pregnant with meaning pertaining to the Christian era. The Church which Jesus established is His bride.⁶ The ingathering of souls into Christ’s Church enables them no longer to be “forsaken,” having been “sought out” for redemption. British scholar, historian, and Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford, George Rawlinson, well said: “Israel’s ‘salvation’ would be made manifest; primarily by her triumphant return from Babylon, and more completely by her position in the final kingdom of the Redeemer.”⁷ F. Delitzsch made the same point in his discussion of Isaiah 62: “The whole history of salvation is the history of the taking of the kingdom, and the perfecting of the kingdom by Jehovah.”⁸ As the Hebrews writer explained to his Christianized Jewish audience: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22).

The chapters leading up to chapter 62 are laced with messianic overtones. For example, when Jesus visited the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:16), He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2 (Luke 4:18-19) and declared in no uncertain terms: “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:12). The prophecy of the “name” in Isaiah 62 commences only nine verses later. Commentators generally identify the surrounding chapters as depictions of Christian era events.⁹

Intimate acquaintance with the events and circumstances under which Christianity commenced its existence on Earth facilitates a proper interpretation of Isaiah’s remarks. This fascinating prophecy contains four features that merit close consideration: (1) righteousness/salvation would go forth from Jerusalem; (2) the Gentiles would see this righteousness/salvation; (3) a new name would be given; and (4) the Lord Himself would bestow that new name. As is often the case with Old Testament prediction, one must go to the New Testament to find fulfillment and clarification of such marvelous assertions.

Salvation Goes Forth From Jerusalem

In accordance with the inner workings of Hebrew parallelism—so prominent and characteristic of Hebrew poetry—“Zion” and “Jerusalem” refer to the same location.¹⁰ The city had a spiritually and morally checkered history throughout the Old Testament. However, the New Testament’s clarification of the scheme of redemption—formulated in the mind of God from eternity (Ephesians 3:11; Revelation 13:8)—pinpoints the moment in time when Isaiah’s graphic depiction was fulfilled. After some 4,000 years of human history, the Gospel was announced in its fullness as a bright, burning light¹¹ for the entire world to see. This momentous event transpired in Jerusalem in A.D. 30 as reported by Luke in Acts 2.

Jesus had specifically instructed the apostles “not to depart from Jerusalem” (Acts 1:4), since “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). From that very location, they would be Christ’s witnesses “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8; cf. Luke 24:48). Indeed, Isaiah earlier predicted that it would be “out of Zion” and “from Jerusalem” that “the law,” the “word of the Lord,” would “go forth” (2:3). Many royal decrees went forth from Jerusalem through the centuries of kingly occupation of the throne of Israel. Likewise, many decrees of God via His prophets sprang forth from this city as well as a host of other geographical locations of the world throughout biblical history. But this prophecy pinpoints a monumental event in redemptive history in which God’s ultimate, eternal intentions commenced to climax. In fact, the events on the day of Pentecost described in Acts 2 have caused perceptive students of the Word to describe the chapter and the occasion as “the hub of the Bible.”¹²

The term “righteousness,” given in parallel position with “salvation,” refers to the means by which humans could finally and ultimately be made righteous in order to stand redeemed before God.¹³ Indeed, for the first time in human history, the Gospel in its fullness and climactic culmination was announced.¹⁴ The long concealed “mystery” was now being revealed.¹⁵ No one, this side of the cross, can be approved by God who does not embrace the religion of Jesus Christ.¹⁶ Hence, for the first time in human history, the terms of entrance into the kingdom of Christ were publicly proclaimed and, thereafter, it was from that location that the proclamation of the Gospel emanated (Acts 8:4; 11:19). The first feature of Isaiah’s prophecy received spectacular fulfillment.

Gentiles Included

Interestingly, only Jews were assembled on the day of Pentecost when the Gospel went forth—though “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). But no Gentiles were present. Indeed, Luke goes out of his way to clarify the fact that the initial proclaimers of the Gospel of Christ, stimulated by the persecution that arose surrounding Stephen’s death, went forth “preaching the word to no one but the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). Peter explained the background and divine rationale for this circumstance to Jerusalem Jews:

You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, “And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities (Acts 3:25-26).

By divine design, only Jews were recipients of the Gospel message at the beginning.¹⁷

But Isaiah proceeds to state that the Gentiles would likewise “see,” i.e., experience and receive the salvation.¹⁸ He had already declared: “The Gentiles shall come to your light” (60:3). In the unfathomable plan of God, a time lag occurred between the initial presentation of the Gospel to the Jews and its presentation to Gentiles. The Jews were given the privilege to encounter the message of salvation first—not due to their superiority over non-Jews—but due to their ongoing, long-standing involvement in the grand scheme of redemption that brought Jesus into the world.¹⁹ However, within a few short years,²⁰ the Gentiles were likewise treated to contact with the Gospel. The encounter was precipitated by a Roman centurion’s reception of an angelic vision urging him to get into contact with Simon Peter. In the meantime, Peter experienced his own vision which left him perplexed, even as the representatives of the military commander arrived at the gate of the house where Peter was lodging. He accompanied the men to Caesarea where he met Cornelius and many others who had gathered to hear God’s instructions. The resistance by Jews to Gentile inclusion could only be overcome by direct intervention by God by means of Holy Spirit baptism—a powerful demonstration of God’s redemptive intentions (Acts 10:44). After hearing the Gospel, the Gentiles were obedient to the message and became Christians (Acts 10:48). Paul later explained this earthshaking event in the following words: “it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:5-6). The second feature of Isaiah’s prophecy had been dramatically fulfilled.²¹

A New Name

The Gospel having gone forth from Jerusalem, and the Gentiles having been incorporated into the same body of Christ as the Jews, Isaiah asserts that the Lord Himself would instigate the use of a new name. It is notable that God’s people throughout Bible history were designated by several names that characterized their relationship with God and with one another. For example, both Old and New Testament devotees of God were known among themselves as “believers” (pistoi) or those who “believed” (episteusin; e.g., Exodus 4:31 [LXX]; Acts 5:14), “brethren/brothers” (adelphoi; Psalm 133:1; Acts 15:23), “disciples” (mathetai; e.g., Isaiah 8:16 [Hebrew]; John 9:28), “saints” (hagioi; e.g., Psalm 34:9 [LXX]; Romans 1:7), “servants” (Isaiah 56:6 [LXX]; Acts 4:29; 16:17), “the elect” (eklektoi; Isaiah 45:4 [LXX]; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10), and simply “the Church” (e.g., Acts 14:27). They were also identified as those of “the Way” (Acts 19:9,23; 24:14,22). Those more hostile to Christianity labeled them a “sect” (Acts 28:22; cf. 24:14) and “the sect of the Nazarenes (Nazoraion)” (Acts 24:5), and even “Galileans” (Acts 2:7). Yet in this prophecy Isaiah seems to anticipate a new name that had not been characteristic of God’s people in either testament.²²

Despite the fact that Isaiah’s allusion is to a single name,²³ some have suggested that the “new name” is to be equated with one or more of the names delineated in the context of Isaiah, i.e., “Hephzibah” (“My delight is in her”) and “Beulah” (“married”) in verse 4, or “The Holy People,” “The Redeemed of the Lord,” and “Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken” in verse 12. Apart from the fact that verse 2 specifies “name” in the singular, Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord challenges these suggestions, in light of Isaiah 62’s clear application, contextually, to the time of the establishment of Christ’s Church:

That the “new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name” (Isaiah 62:2) was the name Hephzibah (Isaiah 62:4) is erroneous. Hephzibah was a girl’s name in use long before the establishment of the New Testament church. Manasseh’s mother was named Hephzibah (II Kings 21:1). That the “new name”…was the name Beulah (Isaiah 62:4) is likewise erroneous. The word Beulah was already in use when Isaiah made his prediction (cf. Isaiah 54:1 in the Hebrew: the English word Married translates Beulah).²⁴

These appellations certainly fit the circumstances of Israel’s restoration following the cataclysmic national upheaval she experienced, but they are not the “new name” to which Isaiah referred. There is more to consider.

Given by the Lord

Isaiah was insistent: the new name that would arise would, in fact, be given by God Himself. The terminology that the Holy Spirit selected to inform us of the arrival of the name Christian is significant: “And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The words “were called” are a rendering of the Greek verbchrematidzo.

Chrematidzo

An examination of this term in the original sources reveals that the lexical evidence is fairly uniform. However, keep in mind that lexicographers, like those who compile dictionaries that describe how words in that particular language are currently being used, must rely on an accurate grasp of contextual usage to establish the meaning of a word, thereby risking misunderstanding of the meaning of a word due to bias or misapprehension. Once the usual meaning of a word is ascertained, one must seek to recognize that primary meaning in all of its occurrences—unless forced to do otherwise due to a figurative use or a clearly established secondary meaning that arose in that linguistic climate. One must most certainly take into consideration the Bible’s own inspired use of a term—even if that use does not fully conform to secular usage at the time (cf. agape).²⁵ The fact of the matter is that the term chrematidzo manifests a uniform, consistent use throughout the New Testament. No existing textual factor necessitates imposing multiple separate or unrelated meanings onto the word.

This term had as its original and primary meaning the notion of transacting business (from chrema).²⁶ From this primitive meaning came the later variations of the term—what Reicke identifies as “two Hellenistic developments.”²⁷ Current Greek authorities typically specify two central meanings: (1) a divine communication and (2) to be called or named. For example, the most popular lexicon today gives the two meanings first as “impart a divine message, make known a divine injunction/warning,” and second as “to take/bear a name/title, to go under the name of.”²⁸ Similarly, in his Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Gingrich gives the same two meanings, i.e., “of God impart a revelation or injunction or warning” and “bear a name, be called or named.”²⁹ Reicke describes the first meaning in the words, “God instructs someone by revelations… the recipient of revelation being an instrument of divine rule,” which includes “the decree of a sovereign,” and the second sense as “appearing as something,” with Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3 the “two cases” in the New Testament in which the latter meaning applies.³⁰ A host of additional Greek authorities, with little variation, affirm these same two basic usages.³¹ These lexicographers and linguistic experts cite Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3 as the only two instances in the New Testament of the second meaning of the term. But why single out these two from among the others and assign an alternative meaning? And why insist on the simple meaning of “call” when the Greek has several other words that are more suited to conveying the idea of “calling” or “naming”?³²

New Testament Occurrences of Chrematidzo

The term chrematidzo occurs nine times in the New Testament.³³ Consider the Holy Spirit’s own use of this unique term (from the NKJV):

Matthew 2:12—“Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way.”³⁴

Matthew 2:22—“But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee.”

Luke 2:26—“And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”³⁵

Acts 10:22—“And they said, ‘Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.’”³⁶

Acts 11:26—“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”

Romans 7:3—“So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.”

Hebrews 8:5—“…who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’”

Hebrews 11:7—“By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”

Hebrews 12:25—“See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven.”

If the reader will take the time to examine each verse, paying close attention to the bold words, it becomes readily apparent that in each verse, with the possible exception of Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3, the speaking, calling, or warning that is described entails divine activity. In fact, English translators are so confident of this fact that they literally insert words to make certain the English reader recognizes the intended import of chrematidzo. Specifically, the following terms are introduced by translators into five of the above nine verses:

Matthew 2:12—“divinely”

Matthew 2:22—“by God”

Acts 10:22—“divinely”

Hebrews 8:5—“divinely”

Hebrews 11:7—“divinely”

These six words are not in the Greek text; they were added by the NKJV translators in order to aid the English reader in grasping the import of chrematidzo in each instance. Translators did not need to insert a qualifier into Luke 2:26 since the verse already contains its own qualifier (i.e., by the Holy Spirit). Likewise, Hebrews 12:25 has “Him” preceding “who spoke.”³⁷ Hence, seven out of the nine verses in the New Testament, in which the term chrematidzo occurs, clearly and unmistakably use the term to refer to divine communication.

[to be continued]

The post The Name "Christian" and Bible Inspiration (Part I) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Dear Digger Doug,

Do you think it would have been possible to prophesy in medieval times? In the book Joan of Arc, Joan prophesies that the French were losing the battle to England. Then a week later the news came that it was true.

Dear reader,

During Bible times, God spoke directly to His prophets and told them what would happen in the future. However, God said there would be a time when no one would be able to prophesy anymore. In the book of Zechariah, He said there would be a time when the prophets would “depart from the land” (13:2). In the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 13:8, the apostle Paul mentioned a time when prophecies “would fail” (meaning that no one would be able to prophesy). When would the prophets depart from the land and prophecies fail? The apostle Paul said it would happen “when that which is perfect has come” (1 Corinthians 13:10). When we turn to the book of James, we read that the Law of liberty is perfect (1:25). The Law of liberty about which James spoke is the New Testament. Once the New Testament was completed (by A.D. 100), prophecy would soon come to an end. Thus, there would be no way for Joan of Arc to prophesy in Medieval times.

So, how do we explain Joan’s correct prediction about the French? First, she had a fifty-fifty chance—only the French or English could be winning. If I said flipping a coin will land on heads, and it does, would that make me a prophet? No. Second, maybe Joan knew that the French were weaker than the English. If I predict that the Los Angeles Lakers will win the NBA championship, and they do, am I a prophet? Or could it be that I just knew they had a stronger team? For whatever reason, Joan guessed correctly; but it was not because she was
a prophet.

The post Could there have been Prophecy During Medieval Times? appeared first on Apologetics Press.