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.

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.

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.

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.

Because of His influence, the life and teachings of Jesus have been more closely scrutinized than any life in human history. This scrutiny has resulted in a number of different reactions. Some have concluded that Jesus was a liar who deceived countless thousands of people in the time in which He lived, and billions since. Some have approached a study of His life with an attitude of skepticism, only to arrive on the other side of their spiritual and intellectual journey as firm believers in the deity of Christ. A number of people have chosen the middle ground, in which they acknowledge that Jesus was an amazing teacher and a good man, but they deny that He was the Son of God.

Though Jesus has been the most analyzed Person ever to walk the Earth, still the most common response to the life of Jesus is simply apathy. It seems the majority of the billions of people who have lived since the early first century have approached the Person of Jesus neither intently nor earnestly. They have given little attention to the details of His life. Sadly, if most people who have lived since the death of Jesus Christ were asked what they thought about Him, they would have to respond, “I don’t know. I’ve never really given Him much thought.”

What about you? Have you given the Person of Jesus serious thought? If not, we humbly ask you to look carefully at the evidence for Jesus’ divine nature. If you are a follower of Jesus and call yourself a Christian, do you know why? What do you say to others when they ask you why you call yourself after Jesus Christ and live according to His will? What proof can you offer that demonstrates Jesus was God incarnate?

Two Primary Reasons for unbelief in Jesus

People have rejected Jesus as the Heaven-sent, virgin-born, prophesied Messiah ever since He walked the Earth. Recall, for example, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry how He entered the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth and read publicly from the Old Testament book of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; Hehas sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18-19, emp. added).

Following this reading, Jesus closed the book, sat down, and “began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’” (4:21). Though the Jews initially marveled and questioned how the promised Messiah could actually be the son of a carpenter in Nazareth, upon further hearing, they “rose up and thrust Him out of the city…that they might throw Him down over the cliff” (4:29). This encounter was only the beginning of instances in which countless individuals rejected Jesus. Though some would come to believe in Him, most did not.

The majority of people in the world today reject Jesus as Lord and God for two primary reasons. First, millions refuse to accept Jesus as God-incarnate because they reject the notion of God altogether. If God does not exist then Jesus never existed as “the Word…God” Who stepped out of eternity and “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14). It makes no sense to contend that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16, emp. added), if God is dead. If a supernatural, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, living spirit Being is merely a figment of the imagination of man, the first-century Jesus of Nazareth was delusional at best and a liar at worst. In considering this fundamental reason for the rejection of Jesus, Christians must prepare themselves to defend the primary proposition that “We believe Jesus is God-Incarnate, which is possible because we know God exists.” We are not suggesting using circular reasoning to defend the deity of Christ; rather we are acknowledging the basic fact that Christ could not be God, if God does not exist. Therefore, a person can ultimately come to the conclusion that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28) only if he first knows that God, indeed, exists. [NOTE: See our article titled “7 Reasons to Believe in God” (2014) for a discussion of why mankind can (and should) come to the logical conclusion that God exists. See also the “Existence of God” category at apologeticspress.org.]

Second, it would be futile to defend the supernatural nature of Jesus as depicted in the Bible without first recognizing the fact that many reject the Bible altogether as a supernatural revelation from God to man. Billions of non-Christians around the world may believe in some sort of god, but they still discount the Bible as being inspired by the Creator. Most unbelievers admit that Jesus of Nazareth lived, but they reject Jesus, the Christ, as He is revealed in both the Old and New Testaments. The fact is, however, if an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists (and there is ample proof that He does; cf. Romans 1:20), then such a God could easily inspire a book that would help mankind come to know “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). So what is the proof that the Bible is of supernatural origin? Why should an honest truth-seeker come to the conclusion that the Bible is the special revelation from the God of the Universe? In short, the main, overarching reason that the Bible can be demonstrated to be of divine origin is because the Bible writers were correct in everything they wrote—about the past, the present, and even the future—which is humanly impossible. [For more information on the inspiration of the Bible, see our article titled “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God” (2015). See also the “Inspiration of the Bible” category at apologeticspress.org.]

The two primary reasons for the rejection of Jesus as the Son of God are thus shown to be false. By taking these criticisms and turning them on their heads, they actually provide the first two foundational pillars for belief in Christ—(1) God exists and (2) the Bible is His Word. The next sensible question to ask is, “What evidence does the Bible give for the deity of Jesus?”

Jesus Fulfilled the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

While it is true that most people’s lives can only be chronicled after they have lived them, the life of Jesus was miraculously chronicled (by divine inspiration) long before He arrived on Earth. Such Messianic prophecies are proof of both the divine inspiration of the Bible as well as the divine nature of Jesus. The reason that Jesus, the apostles, and the New Testament prophets spent so much of their time teaching and preaching from the Old Testament Messianic prophecies is because Jesus was proven to be the Christ by His fulfillment of these prophecies (cf. Luke 24:25-27,44; Acts 8:30-39).

Jesus fulfilled in minute detail over 300 prophecies that relate to the coming of the Messiah. Space prohibits a listing of all of these prophecies, but a representative sampling is appropriate. The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem in Judea (Micah 5:2) of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; cf. Genesis 3:15—“her Seed”). He would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah (Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 49:10; Numbers 24:17). He was to be a regal monarch (Psalm 89:3-4; Isaiah 9:6-7; Psalm 110:1) and at the same time a suffering servant (Isaiah 53). He was to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9) for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:13). The Lord’s Ruler would come into Jerusalem riding on the foal of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9). He would be buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9). During His suffering, His clothes would be distributed to those who cast lots for them (Psalm 22:18). His attackers would pierce Him (Zechariah 12:10). Even though His physical suffering would be severe, His bones would not be broken (Psalm 34:20). And in spite of His death, His physical body would not experience decay (Psalm 16:10). This small sampling of precise prophetic details is only a fraction of the many Old Testament prophecies that exist. The prophecies were specifically designed to be an efficient mechanism by which the Jewish community could recognize the Messiah when He arrived.

When all of the pieces of the Messianic puzzle are put together, one individual stands out as the only person who fulfilled every single prophecy in minute detail—Jesus Christ. The life and activities of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament documents brilliantly blend the theme of a regal monarch and a suffering servant into one magnificent portrait of the triumphant Jesus Who was the sacrificial Lamb at His death on the cross, and Who became the triumphant Lion of Judah in His resurrection from the grave. The lineage of Jesus Christ is meticulously traced in order to show that He qualified as the Seed of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Judah, and of David (Matthew 1; Luke 3:23-38). The narrative detailing His birth verifies that He was indeed born in Bethlehem of Judea, from which city the Messiah would arise (Luke 2:1-7). The birth narrative also intricately portrays the pre-existence of Jesus before time began, fulfilling the prophecy that the Messiah existed before King David (Matthew 1:18-25; cf. 22:41-46; John 1:1-5,14). Furthermore, Jesus did, in fact, enter Jerusalem riding on the foal of a donkey (Matthew 21:1-11).

The New Testament narratives depicting the death of Jesus Christ verify that Jesus was betrayed by His friend and sold for exactly 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-16). At His death His bones were not broken, soldiers cast lots for His garments, and His side was pierced with a spear (John 19:33-37; Matthew 27:35). During His suffering, He was numbered with the transgressors as Isaiah 53 predicted by being crucified between two thieves, and at His death He was buried in the tomb of a wealthy man as was also foretold (Matthew 27:57). This type of verification could continue for many pages. The life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, as depicted in the New Testament documents, was designed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

Due to this overwhelming congruence of the life of Jesus Christ with the predictive Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament, some have suggested that Jesus was an imposter who was able, by masterful manipulation, to so artificially organize His life as to make it look like He was the Messiah. Such a contention cannot be reasonably maintained in light of the fact that many of the prophecies were far beyond His control. Obviously, it would be impossible for a person to arrange who his ancestors were or where he would be born. Furthermore, it would be near impossible to coordinate events so that He could make sure that He was crucified among thieves, while also buried in the tomb of a rich man. How could the betrayal price of Judas be manipulated by Jesus? And how, pray tell, would Jesus have managed to arrange it so that soldiers cast lots for His clothing? The idea that Jesus manipulated all of these events to make it appear as if He was the Messiah not only is indefensible, but it also speaks to the fact that Jesus obviously was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Messianic prophecies.

Others have objected to Jesus as the Messiah based on the idea that the New Testament documents are not reliable, and were artificially concocted to describe things that Jesus never really did. This objection also falls flat in light of the actual evidence. It cannot be denied that the New Testament has proven itself to be the most reliable book in ancient history (along with the books of the Old Testament). When it records people, places, and events that are checkable using archaeological means, those people, places, and events invariably prove to be factual and historic. Again, the abundant evidence verifies that the New Testament is accurate and factual. Many of the Messianic prophecies documented in the New Testament do not describe anything inherently miraculous. There was nothing miraculous about Jesus being buried in a rich man’s tomb. Nor was there anything miraculous about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey, or being betrayed by His friend for 30 pieces of silver. These events are, if not ordinary, at least very plausible, everyday events that theoretically could have happened to anybody. And yet, due to the fact that such everyday events had been predicted about the Messiah hundreds of years before the arrivalof Jesus, the fulfillment of the events becomes one of the most amazing miracles recorded in the Bible. It is no wonder that Jesus, the apostles, and the early church used fulfilled Messianic prophecy as one of their foundational pillars of proof for the deity of Christ.

Jesus Worked Miracles

In view of the fact that miracles have served as a confirmation of God’s revelation since time began (Exodus 4:1-9; 1 Kings 18:36-39; Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4), it should be no surprise that “when the fullness of the time had come” (Galatians 4:4), and the promised Messiah, the Son of God, came to Earth for the purpose of saving the world from sin (Luke 19:10), that He would confirm His identity and message by performing miracles. Centuries before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah foretold of a time when “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped…. [T]he lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing” (35:5-6). Although this language has a figurative element to it, it literally is true of the coming of the Messiah. When John the Baptizer heard about the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples to Jesus asking if He was “the Coming One” of Whom the prophets spoke. Jesus responded to John’s disciples by pointing to the people whom He had miraculously healed (thus fulfilling Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy), saying, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: the blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matthew 11:4-5; cf. Mark 7:37). Jesus wanted them to know that He was doing exactly what “the Coming One” was supposed to do (cf. Isaiah 53:4; Matthew 8:17), and what the Jews expected Him to do—perform miracles (John 7:31; cf. John 4:48; 1 Corinthians 1:22).

In a sense, Jesus’ miracles served a different purpose than those wrought by Moses, Elijah, or one of the New Testament apostles or prophets. Unlike all other miracle workers recorded in Scripture, Jesus actually claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, the Son of God, and His miracles were performed to prove both the truthfulness of His message and His divine nature. Whereas the apostles and prophets of the New Testament worked miracles to confirm their message that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus performed miracles to bear witness that He was, in fact, the Son of God. In response to a group of Jews who inquired about whether or not He was the Christ, Jesus replied,

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me…. I and My Father are one.… 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 10:25,30,37-38).

Similarly, on another occasion Jesus defended His deity, saying, “[T]he works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36). While on Earth, Jesus was “attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him” (Acts 2:22, NASB). And, according to the apostle John, “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31, emp. added). As would be expected from the One Who claimed to be God incarnate (cf. John 1:1-3,14; 10:30), Scripture records that Jesus performed miracles throughout His ministry in an effort to provide sufficient proof of His divine message andnature.

Jesus’ Signs Were Many and Varied

Mankind is expected to believe that Jesus is the Son of God not because He performed one or two marvelous deeds during His lifetime. To the contrary, the Gospel accounts are saturated with a variety of miracles that Christ performed, not for wealth or political power, but that the world may be convinced that He was sent by the Father to bring salvation to mankind. As Isaiah prophesied, Jesus performed miracles of healing (Matthew 8:16-17). He cleansed a leper with the touch of His hand (Matthew 8:1-4) and healed all manner of sickness and disease with the word of His mouth (cf. John 4:46-54). One woman who had a hemorrhage for 12 years was healed immediately simply by touching the fringe of His garment (Luke 8:43-48). Similarly, on one occasion after Jesus came into the land of Gennesaret, all who were sick in all of the surrounding region came to Him, “and begged Him that they might only touch the hem of His garment. And as many as touched it were made perfectly well” (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 3:10). Generally speaking, “great multitudes came to Him, having with them the lame, blind, mute, maimed, and many others; and they laid them down at Jesus’ feet, and He healed them” (Matthew 15:30, emp. added). “He cured many of infirmities, afflictions…and to many blind He gave sight” (Luke 7:21, emp. added). Even Jesus’ enemies confessed to His “many signs” (John 11:47).

Jesus not only exhibited power over the sick and afflicted, He also showed His superiority over nature more than once. Whereas God’s prophet Moses turned water into blood by striking water with his rod (Exodus 7:20), Jesus simply willed water into wine/grape juice (oinos) at a wedding feast (John 2:1-11). He further exercised His power over the natural world by calming the Sea of Galilee during a turbulent storm (Matthew 8:23-27), by walking on water for a considerable distance to reach His disciples (Matthew 14:25-33), and by causing a fig tree to wither away at His command (Matthew 21:18-22). Jesus’ supernatural superiority over the physical world (which He created—Colossians 1:16) is exactly what we would expect from One Who claimed to be the Son of God.

Jesus performed miracles that demonstrated His power even over death. Recall that when John the Baptizer’s disciples came to Jesus inquiring about His identity, Jesus instructed them to tell John that “the dead are raised” (Matthew 11:5). The widow of Nain’s son had already been declared dead and placed in a casket when Jesus touched the open coffin and told him to “arise.” Immediately, “he who was dead sat up and began to speak” (Luke 7:14-15). Lazarus had already been dead and buried for four days by the time Jesus raised him from the dead (John 11:1-44). Such a great demonstration of power over death caused “many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did” to believe in Him (John 11:45).

Jesus Rose from the Dead!

Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead was the climax of all of His miracles, and serves as perhaps the most convincing miracle of all. Indeed,Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4, emp. added). The New Testament book of Acts stresses the fact of Jesus’ resurrection almost to the point of redundancy. Acts 1:22, as one example, finds Peter and the other apostles choosing an apostle who was to “become a witness” of the resurrection of Christ. Then, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter insisted in his sermon to the multitude that had assembled to hear him that “God raised up” Jesus and thus loosed Him from the pangs of death (Acts 2:24). And to make sure that his audience understood that it was a physical resurrection, Peter stated specifically that Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:31). His point was clear: Jesus had been physically raised from the dead and the apostles had witnessed the resurrected Christ. [Other passages in Acts which document that the central theme of the apostles’ preaching was the bodily resurrection of Christ include Acts 3:15; 3:26; 4:2,10,33; 5:30; 10:40-43; 13:30-37; 17:3,31-32.] Furthermore, the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 (especially verse 14) verifies that the preaching of the apostle Paul centered on the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus Worked Wonders that are Not Being Duplicated Today

What’s more, neither the modern alleged “faith healer” nor the 21^st-century scientist is duplicating the miracles that Jesus worked while on Earth 2,000 years ago. Pseudo-wonder workers today stage seemingly endless events where willing participants with supposed sicknesses appear and act as if they are being healed of their diseases by the laying on of hands. Nebulous aches and pains and dubious illnesses that defy medical substantiation are supposedly cured by prominent “faith healers” who simultaneously are building financial empires with the funds they receive from gullible followers. Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, and a host of others have made many millions of dollars off of viewers who naively send them money without stopping to consider the real differences between the miracles that Jesus worked and what they observe these men do today.

Jesus went about “healing every sickness and every disease” (Matthew 9:35). His miraculous wonders knew no limitations. He could cure anything. Luke, the learned physician (Colossians 4:14), recorded how He could restore a shriveled hand in the midst of His enemies (Luke 6:6-10) and heal a severed ear with the touch of His hand (Luke 22:51). He healed “many” of their blindness (Luke 7:21), including one man who had been born blind (John 9:1-7). He even raised the dead simply by calling out to them (John 11:43). What modern-day “spiritualist,” magician, or scientist has come close to doing these sorts of things that defy natural explanations? Who is going into schools for the blind and giving children their sight? Who is going to funerals or graveyards to raise the dead? These are the kinds of miracles that Jesus worked—supernatural feats that testify to His identity as the Heaven-sent Savior of the world.

Other Proofs of Jesus’ Deity

Jesus Never Sinned

When God instructed the Israelites to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, He explained that the animal must be without spot or blemish. The lamb could not be lame, have a disease, or be too old. Only a “perfect” sacrifice would be acceptable. As our Passover Lamb, Jesus provided the perfect sacrifice (1 Corinthians 5:7). His perfection was not outward in His flesh, but was the inward perfection of a sinless life. Peter, one of Jesus’ closest followers, wrote that Christians have not been redeemed “with corruptible things, like silver or gold…but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18-19). The Hebrews writer explains that Jesus was tempted in every point just as we are, yet Jesus remained “without sin” (4:15).

Though many of Jesus’ enemies who attacked Him while He was on Earth, and many who attack Him still today, have accused Jesus of sinning, they have failed miserably to give a single instance of wrong doing. Jesus’ bold and unanswered challenge continues to ring across the centuries: “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46). The answer to that question for almost 2,000 years has been a resounding, “No one!” Every honest-hearted person who looks at the personality of Jesus, and compares it to his or her own, must admit that the Christ possesses a confidence in His own sinlessness that is beyond that of any mere human. While it may be true that cult leaders or other arrogant humans claim to be sinless, having never made a moral misstep, it is rather easy to show actions in their lives that prove them to be wrong. In fact, is it not the moral leaders who admit their own weaknesses who are the most admired? Yet, Jesus could not admit any moral failings, because He had none. He explained to His enemies, “Yet you have not known Him [God], 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” (John 8:55). Jesus’ moral perfection speaks volumes about His divinity.

Jesus Forgave Sins

Suppose a man who murdered his neighbor had lived a guilt-ridden life for years. Finally, he decided to tell one of his friends what he had done so many years before. The friend listened carefully and said, “You are a murderer, but I forgive you, don’t worry any more about it.” What good would it do for the man’s friend to forgive him? For a person who was unrelated to the crime, and has no official authority to forgive the crime, means nothing. We understand that forgiveness can only be offered by a person who has been wronged, or who has the official authority to forgive others. That is why the fact that Jesus presumed to forgive sins is so amazing.

In Mark 2, we find the story of a paralyzed man who was lowered into a room in front of Jesus. Jesus looked at the man and said, “Son, your sins are forgiven you” (Mark 2:5). Many of those within earshot of Jesus’ statement were appalled at His pronouncement. They demanded (byway of rhetorical question): “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7, emp. added). And they were right: no one but God can forgive sins, which was Jesus’ point. If He had the power to cause the paralyzed man to walk, He also had the power to forgive his sins. And if He had the power to forgive his sins, and no one can forgive sins but God, then Jesus must be God. The fact that Jesus demanded (and demonstrated) that He had the power personally to forgive any person of all sins, sets Him apart from any other character in human history.

Jesus Accepted Worship

The Bible reveals time and again that God alone is to be worshiped (Exodus 20:3-5; 2 Kings 17:34-36; Acts 14:8-18). The Bible also reveals that man must refrain from worshipping angels. When the apostle John fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who had revealed to him the message of Revelation, the angel responded, saying, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God” (Revelation 22:9, emp. added; cf. Revelation 19:10). Angels, idols, and humans are all unworthy of the reverent worship that is due only to God. As Jesus reminded Satan: “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matthew 4:10, emp. added).

Unlike good men and good angels who have always rejected worship from humanity, Jesus accepted worship. If worship is to be reserved only for God, and Jesus, the One “who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21), accepted worship, then the logical conclusion is that Jesus believed that He was Deity. Numerous times the Bible mentions that Jesus accepted worship from mankind. Matthew 14:33 indicates that those who saw Jesus walk on water “worshiped Him.” John 9:38 reveals that the blind man whom Jesus had healed, later confessed his belief in Jesus as the Son of God and “worshiped him.” After Mary Magdalene and the other women visited the empty tomb of Jesus, and the risen Christ appeared to them, “they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him” (Matthew 28:9). When Thomas first witnessed the resurrected Christ, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Later, when Jesus appeared to the apostles in Galilee, “they worshiped Him” on a mountain (Matthew 28:17). A few days after that, his disciples “worshiped Him” in Bethany (Luke 24:52). Time and again Jesus accepted the kind of praise from men that is due only to God. He never sought to correct His followers and redirect the worship away from Himself, as did the angel in Revelation or the apostle Paul in Acts 14. Nor did God strike Jesus with deadly worms for not redirecting the praise He received from men as He did Herod, who, when being hailed as a god, “did not give glory to God” (Acts 12:23).

Jesus once stated during His earthly ministry, “[A]ll should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23; cf. 5:18; 10:19-39). While on Earth, Jesus was honored on several occasions. His followers worshiped Him. They even worshiped Him after His ascension into heaven (Luke 24:52). Unlike good men and angels in Bible times who rejected worship, Jesus unhesitatingly received glory, honor, and praise from His creation. Truly, such worship is one of the powerful proofs of Jesus’ deity (cf. Revelation 5).

Did Jesus Deny He Was God?

In spite of all the evidence presented thus far, some have suggested that Jesus did not claim to be divine. They contend that He simply believed He was a prophet, but not the Messiah who was the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6). They rest their case on passages that, simply put, they have misinterpreted. Briefly notice the following two examples.

On one occasion, a wealthy young man ran to see Jesus and asked Him, “Good teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus responded by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:17-18). According to the skeptical view, Jesus is denying that He is God. But a closer look at Jesus’ comment reveals just the opposite to be the case. Notice that Jesus never denies that He is the “good teacher.” He simply makes the comment that there is only one Who is truly good, and that is God. Thus, if the young man’s statement is true that Jesus is the “good teacher,” and there is only one Who is “good” and that is God, then Jesus must be God.

On another occasion, Jesus prayed to the Father: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). Supposedly, by calling the Father, “the only true God,” Jesus excluded Himself from being Deity. There are at least two main problems with this interpretation of Jesus’ statement. First, it would contradict numerous other passages in the Gospel of John. In fact, the primary point of the book is to testify to Jesus’ deity. Second, the verse can be better understood in light of the fact that Jesus was not contrasting Himself with the Father; He was contrasting the many false, pagan gods with Jehovah, the only true God. Furthermore, if Jesus’ reference to the Father being “the only true God” somehow excludes Jesus from being Deity, then (to be consistent) Jesus also must be disqualified from being man’s Savior. Jehovah said: “Besides me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:11; cf. Hosea 13:4; Jude 25). Yet, Paul and Peter referred to Jesus as our “Savior” several times in their inspired writings (Ephesians 5:23; Philippians 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1,11; 2:20; etc.). Also, if Jesus is excluded from Godhood (based on a misinterpretation of John 17:3), then, pray tell, must God the Father be excluded from being man’s Lord? To the church at Ephesus, Paul wrote that there is “one Lord” (4:5), and, according to Jude 4 “our only Owner and Lord” is “Jesus Christ.” Yet, in addition to Jesus being called Lord throughout the New Testament, so is God the Father (Matthew 11:25; Luke 1:32) and the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). Obviously, when the Bible reveals that there is only one God, one Savior, one Lord, one Creator (Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3), etc., reason and revelation demand that we understand the inspired writers to be excluding everyone and everything—other than the members of the Godhead.

Conclusion

Almost 2,000 years ago, a zealous Jew by the name of Saul fought against Christianity with all his might. He believed Jesus Christ to be a fraud and His followers to be deluded. He chased them from city to city, imprisoning them, and participating in their deaths. Then Saul saw “the light.” Jesus appeared to Him and Saul realized the horrible mistake He had made. Saul’s honest heart was so impressed by the evidence available to him that he converted to Christianity and became a powerful force in spreading the Gospel.

And so today, those who come to the person of Jesus Christ with open and honest hearts find powerful evidence to believe He is God. He fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. He performed many different kinds of miracles to validate His message. He predicted His own death and resurrection. He accepted worship. He lived a morally perfect, sinless life. And he boldly demanded that He had the power on Earth to forgive sins. When a person follows all of this evidence to its correct conclusion, he or she will bow before Jesus the Christ and proclaim, just as the apostle Thomas did, “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28).

[NOTE: For more information about the nature of Christ, see our book Behold! The Lamb of God or visit the “Deity of Christ” section of our Web site www.apologeticspress.org. Also, to learn what the Bible teaches regarding how to receive the free, gracious gift of salvation that Jesus made possible, see our free e-book Receiving the Gift of Salvation at apologeticspress.org/PDF-books.aspx.]

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2015), “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God,” Reason & Revelation, 35(1):1-5,8-11, January, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5089&topic=102.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Reason & Revelation, 34[10]:110-113,116-119, October, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1175.

The post Reasons to Believe in Jesus appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Jesus is preeminent for countless reasons. He is Divine and thus worthy of worship (Hebrews 1:5-9). He is the creator and sustainer of the Universe (1:2-3). His reign is “forever and ever” (1:12,8). He is without blemish (4:15; 9:14). He defeated death (13:20). He alone is the “author of eternal salvation” (5:9).

Jesus’ excellency is further established in Hebrews by appealing to the Lord’s amazing immutability. Near the end of the epistle, after an exhortation to remember one’s spiritual leaders (13:7), and prior to giving a warning against “strange doctrines” (13:9), the Hebrews writer reminds his readers of the precious, faith-building truth that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8).

Jesus’ Consistent Character

Society benefits greatly from the dependable and consistent character of its citizens. The steady marriage of a faithful husband and wife will only strengthen the foundation of civilization. The stable, strong, and reliable father gives his family a backbone upon which to lean that will not easily degenerate in difficult times. Faithful, spiritual leaders help keep churches grounded in the Truth, rather than led astray by false doctrine. But such dependable leadership is only found among those who genuinely strive to imitate the consistency of Christ (Hebrews 13:7-9).

By the very fact that Jesus is Divine, He is changeless. God said, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). With the Father of lights, “there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Though the material universe will grow old and be changed, God said to Jesus, “You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Hebrews 1:10-12; Psalm 102:25-27).

Christians should rejoice in the fact that, though “time is filled with swift transition,” our High Priest is perpetually dependable. Our Savior is endlessly steadfast. Christ revealed Himself as the perfectly consistent One. Though He “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus never once broke the old law, nor was His purpose to destroy it. He came to fulfill it perfectly and completely (Matthew 5:17-19), and through His unblemished sacrifice He established the new covenant (Hebrews 9:14-15).

Even the most difficult of circumstances never caused Jesus’ perfect character to change. Neither 40 days of fasting nor a face-to-face confrontation with the deceitful devil broke His resolve to live consistently with the Will of God. He did not use hunger, homelessness, or weariness as an excuse to become bitter and fickle. Jesus is the perfect foundation of the church because nothing could break His will to build her. Not torture or tears, not the betrayal of friends or the shadow of death, could shake Jesus’ resolve to offer salvation to a fallen world in desperate need of a steadfast Savior.

Jesus’ Consistent Teachings

Jesus’ preeminence is further seen in His perfectly reliable instruction. Unlike the father of lies in whom “there is no truth” (John 8:44), Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Unlike the contradictory and “strange doctrines” of false teachers, Jesus’ teachings are beautifully and powerfully dependable. His witness is true. His judgments are true. His counsel is perfectly consistent.

Though the Herodians and the disciples of the Pharisees came to Jesus with phony flattery in hopes of entangling Him in His talk, truer words could actually never be spoken of Jesus: “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men” (Matthew 22:16). Proof of Christ’s genuineness and consistency on this occasion is seen in the fact that He immediately called out their hypocrisy before briefly and powerfully answering their question (22:18-22).

Jesus preached a consistent message that was so often about the importance of being consistent. The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on authentic righteousness in which Jesus gets to the heart of the matter. Praying, fasting, making judgments, doing charitable deeds, etc. are important, but without the proper attitudes and motivations behind these actions—without being righteous on the inside—they profit us nothing (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Jesus would later rebuke the scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you…, ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matthew 15:7-8). Outwardly many of the scribes and Pharisees appeared righteous, yet inwardly they were “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:28). Jesus refused to overlook the inconsistency among the religious leaders of His day. His unchanging nature and consistent message were then, and are today, the greatest tools to fight the “various and strange doctrines” that so often carry men away from the Truth (Hebrews 13:9).

Conclusion

Meditating upon the magnificence of the Messiah is faith building and inspiring. In the book of Hebrews, the Holy Spirit has given us a gold mine of motivation to lift up and serve Jesus as the Son of God. He reigns supreme, and His unwavering, unchangeable nature and message are to be loved and lauded. Praise God that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!”

*Originally published in Gospel Advocate, December 2014, 156[12]:17-19.

The post Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Additionally, the New Testament has much to say about the divine nature of Christ. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62; John 4:25-26), Whom Isaiah prophesied would be “Mighty God” and “Jehovah” (Isaiah 9:6; 40:3). Jesus accepted worship while in the form of a man (John 9:38)—implying that He, too, was Deity (Matthew 4:10; cf. Acts 12:21-23; 14:14-15). Jesus forgave sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:5-10). The apostle John said that Jesus “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus claimed to be “one” with God (John 10:30), leading His hearers to believe that He made Himself “God” (10:33). And, after the apostle Thomas called Jesus “Lord” and “God” (John 20:28), Jesus immediately acknowledged Thomas’ faith, rather than deny the deity that Thomas had just professed. In his letter to the Philippians Paul wrote that Christ Jesus “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). In fact, “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

In light of the fact that the Bible claims repeatedly that Jesus was both “good” and “God,” some contend that in Mark 10:18 (and Matthew 19:17) Jesus said just the opposite. In an article titled “New Testament Contradictions,” Paul Carlson stated that Mark 10:18 (among other passages) is “an embarrassment to the church,” as it indicates “Jesus did not consider himself sinless” (1995). By saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18), allegedly “Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God,” and, according to Muslims, Matthew and Mark “believed that Jesus was not God” (“The Bible Denies…,” 2014, emp. added). According to skeptic Dennis McKinsey, in Mark 10:18, “Jesus is not only admitting that he is not perfectly moral but that he is not God” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 247).

Does Jesus actually admit not being “good” and “God” in Mark 10:18? How did Jesus respond to the wealthy young ruler who asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Did He deny being perfectly moral and Divine? The simple fact is, Jesus never denied being good or God.

So what did Jesus mean? Before answering this question, one must keep in mind that Jesus often responded to questions in unexpected, masterful ways. He offered thought-provoking, soul-searching answers (often in the form of questions) that, unfortunately, many people have misinterpreted. [Consider, for example, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about why His disciples allegedly broke the law of Moses and plucked heads of grain as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath. Rather than explicitly deny that the apostles were disregarding the Law of Moses, Jesus asked His accusers two very appropriate (and very perceptive) questions:

Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? (Matthew 12:3-5).

Although many have misinterpreted Jesus’ response on this occasion to justify situation ethics, Jesus did nothing of the sort. The only “law” that Jesus’ disciples broke while going through the grain fields (Matthew 12:1-8) was the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law (see Lyons, 2003 for more information; see also Miller, 2004).]

The rich young ruler was confident in his keeping of various commandments (Mark 10:20), but he surely never thought that Jesus would instruct him to sell whatever he had and give it to the poor—to leave everything and follow Him (10:21). Similarly, when the young ruler initially came to Jesus, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” he never expected Jesus to say, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (10:17-18).

The young man seems to have regarded himself as “good” (since he professed to have kept all of the commandments that Jesus mentioned—Mark 10:20). Perhaps the gentleman simply wanted to know—from one good man to another good man (a “good teacher”)—what do I need to do to inherit eternal life. Rather than immediately answer the young man’s question, however, it seems Jesus first wanted (1) to humble him, by highlighting that he was not as “good” as he considered himself to be, and (2) for him to realize Who exactly he was questioning. He wasn’t merely petitioning a “good” (Greek agathos) man.

The Bible records various (mere) human beings who were called “good” (agathos). Luke recorded that “Barnabas was a good man” (Acts 11:24). Paul indicated that Christians are to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10). (Are Christians who do good, “good” Christians?) Even Jesus stated previous to His encounter with the rich young ruler that “a good man out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things” (Matthew 12:35). Thus, clearly when Jesus spoke to the wealthy ruler He was not using “good” in the sense of a man being “good.” Rather, He was using it in the sense of God being absolutely, supremely good. The kind of goodness to which He referred belonged only to God. The only way man can objectively call someone “good” is if there is an ultimate standard for goodness—the supreme, unblemished, good God.

Jesus never said what skeptics, Muslims, and others allege He said—that He was not good, or that He was not God. Instead, Jesus attempted to get the rich young ruler to see the implications of calling Him “good teacher.” Do good (merely) human teachers claim to be the Messiah? Do good men accept worship and honor due only to God (John 5:23)? Do good men claim to have the power to forgive sins? Absolutely not! But Jesus had the power to forgive sins. He actually claimed to be the Messiah and accepted worship. So what was Jesus implying when He asked the young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God”? As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed:

Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”… Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination (1992, p. 350).

To contend that Mark 10:18 proves that Jesus thought Himself to be neither morally perfect nor God is (1) to disregard the overall context of the Bible, (2) to twist the Scriptures like untaught and unstable people do—“to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16), and (3) to take a superficial reading of the text. Far from denying the deity of Christ, Mark 10:17-22 actually affirms it. The young ruler “called Christ a ‘good teacher,’ with no indication that he understood Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus seized on the word ‘good,’ pointed out that if the man thought He was good, then He must be God” (Roper, 2:203), because only God is innately and supremely good.

REFERENCES

“The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus” (2014), A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm.

Carlson, Paul (1995), “New Testament Contradictions,” The Secular Web, http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html.

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “Did Jesus Condone Law-Breaking?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1064.

Roper, David (2003), The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).

The post Did Jesus Deny Deity and Moral Perfection in Mark 10:18? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Many Christians and non-Christians fail to grasp the fact that the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity does not finally depend on archaeological discovery. If the Bible can be proven to possess the attributes of inspiration, demonstrating its divine origin, then no artifact will ever be discovered that will contradict that truth. If any manuscript or artifact appears to do so, it is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. Since we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a careful and thorough analysis of its internal attributes—see the category “Inspiration of the Bible” at apologeticspress.org), then we know that Jesus never married just as the New Testament represents. [NOTE: That is not to say that the Catholic notion of celibacy finds biblical support—it does not. See Pinedo, 2008, pp. 60ff.]

Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the textual basis of the New Testament was settled and fully authenticated many years ago. The longstanding discipline of Textual Criticism has yielded abundant evidence for the trustworthiness of the text of the New Testament. Over the last two centuries, the manuscript evidence has been thoroughly examined, resulting in complete exoneration for the integrity, genuineness, and accuracy of the Bible. Prejudiced university professors refrain from divulging to their students that the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect salvation nor alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the Bible as God intended.

The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:

Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).

Noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).

Think of it. Men who literally spent their lives poring over ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, devoting their lives to meticulous, tedious analysis of the evidence, conversant with the original languages, without peer in their expertise and qualifications, have concluded that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. No scrap of papyrus written 200+ years after the fact can overturn the last two centuries of scholarly investigation and validation—let alone the Bible’s own inspired testimony to the contrary.

REFERENCES

Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1962 reprint).

Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Goodstein, Laurie (2012), “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife,” The New York Times, September 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120919&moc.semityn.www.

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York, NY: Harper).

McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible says about the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.

Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan).

The post Was Jesus Married? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The nineteenth century was the seedbed of comparative religion, which sought to analyze and discover the connections between various world religions. Critics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were guilty of glossing over important differences for the sake of making connections between different religious traditions, including Christianity. Usually these connections were highly dubious in nature, and no real scholar uses this approach today. While it can be shown that some ancient pagan religions migrated, developed, and influenced others over time, Christianity is a different matter altogether.

Critics today—who almost universally have no training in ancient religion, philosophy, or languages—can be quite adamant that Christianity plagiarized ancient mythology when constructing the Bible and its supposed mythological traditions about Jesus. This idea is found in documentaries such as Bill Maher’s Religulous, Brian Flemming’s The God Who Wasn’t There, Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist, the Movie, as well as in publications such as those by Dorothy M. Murdock’s The Sons of God, The Christ Conspiracy, and Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. All of these promote the idea of the “mythic Christ.”

Where did the idea of the mythic Christ originate? Much of it began in the writings of two amateur Egyptologists named Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833) and Gerald Massey (1829-1907). Both wrote extensively on the idea of the mythic Christ. They claimed one parallel after another between the Bible and pagan mythology, making it appear as if the biblical writers borrowed stories wholesale from ancient tales. Almost all scholars today recognize that this approach is fundamentally flawed. For nearly all of the supposed parallels these two men discovered, scholars today say without hesitation that no genetic connection exists between the Bible and the myths these two men examined.

Neither Higgins nor Massey was a scholar or academician, and both were self-taught religious enthusiasts (this generally holds true for all proponents of the Christ myth theory). More importantly, neither is remembered in the history of scholarship today. Writers such as Dorothy Murdock—a vocal proponent of the Christ myth theory—laments that these supposed intellectual titans have been forgotten. She heaps effusive praise upon Massey in particular (2009, pp. 13-26), calling him a “pioneer.” In truth, neither one of them had any ideas worth remembering. They are virtually unknown in modern Egyptology.

The work of Higgins and Massey was picked up and continued most famously by Kersey Graves, who authored the book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (1919). This woefully outdated book is still standard reading for militant atheists. Unfortunately, Graves’ fans do not appear to realize that his book was based on the work of our two error-prone amateurs. To make matters worse, Graves did not appear to consult the original myths himself. It appears that he may have even falsified some of his work. In all of the cases of his “crucified saviors,” unlike Jesus, none were actually crucified, and none of them died salvific deaths, that is in behalf of the salvation of others. Indeed, some of them never died.

The chart below gives the names of the gods that Graves and others traditionally claim were crucified saviors. The problems become apparent rather quickly:

Upon even a cursory inspection, it becomes clear that none of the so-called “crucified saviors” were actually crucified. Indeed, none of them are saviors, dying for the sins of humanity. Self-sacrifice was not involved. Instead, many did not die at all, or died an accidental death, or were murdered. Worse yet, none of them resurrected from a tomb. A few of the divine figures on the list were revived (or deified), but in a different manner than the Christian concept of resurrection. In short, this list consists purely of non-crucified non-saviors. Why are these connections made if they never truly existed? In short, it is due to careless research and preconceived biases that are immune to evidence.

While the idea of the pagan or mythic Christ draws from a variety of ancient mythologies, it is heavily influenced by Egyptian mythology, perhaps because the early proponents of this theory worked primarily with myths from Egypt. They also made connections based on preposterously thin evidence. Some examples of the typical connections include the following from Gerald Massey’s book Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ:

• Jesus’ casting of a group of demons  calling themselves “Legion” into a group of pigs, which is equated with a story in which Horus turns someone into a pig (1996, pp. 62-63).
• Jesus and Horus are each claimed to have had two mothers—two Marys for Jesus, and the goddesses Isis and Nephthys for Horus (p. 118).
• Herod the Great, despite being a well-known figure to historians, is equated with Herrut, the Typhonian Serpent (p. 95).

In their book Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Porter and Bedard summarize Massey’s position this way:

[H]is conclusions rely on exaggerations and forced parallels that too often used later interpretations o the Gospels, rather than the primary texts themselves. To make matters worse, Massey cites numerous parallels without any indication of the original references in the Egyptian texts. Massey also begins the practice…of describing Egyptian myths with biblical language in an attempt to find a causal link (Porter and Bedard 2006, p. 30).

If the idea of a “crucified savior” had been as common as the critics allege, then it would not have been included among the criticisms leveled against the early Christians. The apostle Paul stated that the cross was a stumbling block to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23), which would have been quite strange if the Greeks recognized any of the so-called “crucified saviors” mentioned by Graves and others. Justin Martyr admitted that preaching a crucified Christ appeared to be madness: “[The opponents of the church] say that our madness lies in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place to the unchangeable and eternal God, the creator of the world” (Apology I, 13.4). If everyone had crucified gods, then they would not have criticized the Christians for having one, too.

The picture that quickly emerges when looking at the original sources is one of exceedingly poor research on the part of the critics. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, but their litany of errors is academically unacceptable. At times, even other skeptics and atheists chide their fellow unbelievers for their careless work. Writing a review of Zeitgeist, the Movie in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, leading skeptic Tim Callahan is highly critical of the “sloppy assumptions” in the documentary, concluding, “Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids” (Callahan, 2009, p. 67).

Some of this sloppy work includes failing to cite sources properly. Graves was not the only one guilty of failing to cite his sources or inventing material out of whole cloth. Of the pseudo-scholars in the 19^th and early 20^th century who promoted the Christy myth theory, apologist J.P. Holding says,

Kersey Graves…assures the reader that he has before him plenty of original documentation for his claims of crucifixion parallels, but…doesn’t have room to include any. And this is the rule, not the exception. Lundy, Higgins, Inman, Graves, Doane, etc., they all claim they have read or heard this or that, but none of them can site [sic]a single source document (Holding, 2008, p. 376, italics in orig.).

Because of its manifold problems, the idea of the mythic Christ is difficult even for many atheists to swallow. On the anti-Christian website fidels.org, historian and atheist Richard Carrier lists ten major problems with Graves’ work, the last of which is that “Graves’ scholarship is obsolete, having been vastly improved upon by new methods, materials, discoveries, and textual criticism in the century since he worked” (Carrier, 2003). Scholars see Graves’ work as worthless. Critics find it absolutely indispensible, perhaps because there are no scholarly treatments that agree with their presuppositions.

The Christ myth theory has not been answered by many scholars, simply because they choose not to waste their time debunking fringe theories. Experts are usually preoccupied with teaching and research, with a few of them engaged in archaeology and other academic pursuits as well. This leaves little time for answering the preposterous claims of the “Christ mythers.” (In personal e-mails to three leading New Testament scholars, each noted that the Christ myth theory holds no place of respect in modern scholarship. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary said, “[T]his whole discussion is considered beyond the pale and beyond belief, even with liberals.” When asked whether the paucity of scholarly material on the pagan Christ was because scholars do not waste their time on “crackpot theories,” Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary said, “I think you have got the reason you cannot find stuff.” Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary confessed, “I do not know anything about this issue…. I am tempted to think it is the lunatic fringe.” The issue is so intellectually bankrupt that liberal scholarship does not endorse it, and other scholars may not even be familiar with it).

Critics will always “discover” parallels between Christianity and pagan religions in the attempt to make believers look foolish. Ironically, this quest only demonstrates their own academic shortcomings. Time and time again Christianity demonstrates its uniqueness among the world religions. It is the hallmark of truth for a world in desperate need of history’s one and only crucified Savior.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim (2009), “Greatest Story Ever Garbled: A Critique of ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’—Part I of the Internet Film Zeitgeist,” Skeptic, 15[1]:61-67.

Carrier, Richard (2003), “Kersey Graves and the World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors,” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html.

Graves, Kersey (1919), The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Christianity Before Christ (New York: Peter Eckler Publishing), sixth edition.

Holding, James P. (2008), Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press).

Massey, Gerald (1996), Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (Whitefish, MT: Kessenger).

Murdock, Dorothy M. (2009), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Seattle, WA: Stellar House).

Porter, Stanley E. and Stephen J. Bedard (2006), Unmasking the Pagan Christ (Toronto, ON: Clements Publishing).

The post The Non-Crucified Non-Saviors of the World appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Unfortunately, the prevailing interpretation of the Law of Moses at the time, at least among the Jewish leaders, was that the Sabbath law enjoined total inactivity—as if everyone was to sit down for 24 hours and do nothing. This view was a distortion of God’s law on the matter. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities (that could rightly be designated “work”) that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. On this occasion, Jesus pinpointed one such instance: “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (vs. 11). Jesus was recalling a directive from the Law of Moses:

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself. You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; cf. Exodus 23:4-5).

Such passages give insight into the nature of God, and provide tremendous assistance in making proper application of God’s laws to everyday circumstances.

Observe that God’s laws never contradict or countermand each other. Unlike manmade laws which often manifest inconsistency and contradiction, God’s laws function in perfect harmony with each other. The Mosaic passage to which Jesus alluded demonstrates that the general principle of the cessation of usual work on the Sabbath did not conflict with any number of specific circumstances in which benevolence and compassion were to be expressed. In an agriculturally-based society, a family’s survival depends on its farm animals. If a sheep, ox, or donkey were to break out of its stall, flee the premises, and then fall into a pit from which it would be unable to extricate itself, the animal would most likely die or become seriously ill if left in its predicament for 24 hours. To expend the necessary effort (i.e., “work”) to retrieve the animal from danger was not considered by God to be included in the Sabbath prohibition. Hence, Jesus stated the logical conclusion: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (vs. 12). If action could be exerted to see to the well-being of a dumb animal, then obviously, God would approve of action taken to see to the physical care of a human being! The logic is penetrating and decisive. Far from suggesting that law is unimportant and may be ignored under the guise of “human need,” or implying that humans can break the “letter of the law” in order to keep the “spirit of the law” (see Miller, 2003), Jesus demonstrated that inherently built into God’s laws are all concerns deemed by Deity to be necessary. The benevolent, loving thing to do will always harmonize with God’s laws, since “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10), i.e., every truly loving action has already been defined by God in His legal admonitions.

The religion of Christ surpasses all human religion. It is rooted in the very essence of Deity. When Jesus took on human form on Earth, He showed Himself to be the Master logician Who always conducted Himself in a rational manner. May we do likewise.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225.

The post Jesus Was Rational appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Take, for example, the occasion in John 7 when the Jews were critical of Jesus for having healed on the Sabbath a man who suffered from a 38-year-old ailment (John 5:2-9). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful conformity to the Law. They would assume that Jesus would chide the Jews for their nit-picky, legalistic approach to religion, and that He would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. Unfortunately, this viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs 29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves divinely-intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’ handling of His persecutors on this occasion illustrates the high regard He had for law, the necessity of carefully conforming to it, and the critical importance of applying it accurately.

Calling attention to the miracle He performed, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:

1. If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8^th day after birth—even when the 8^th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
2. The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8^th day after birth—even when the 8^th day falls on the Sabbath.
3. Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally.

This one incident in the life of Christ is typical of His behavior on other occasions, proving that Jesus was logical in His approach to life. It demonstrates the high respect He had for law. It spotlights Deity’s concern for careful compliance with law. All who desire to be like Christ must emulate these same concerns. As Jesus Himself stated: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The post Jesus Was Logical appeared first on Apologetics Press.

So Jesus pressed the point again very forthrightly by stating emphatically, “I and My Father are one.” Observe that Jesus was never evasive. He never showed fear or hesitation in the face of threats or danger. Instead, He gave them yet another explicit declaration of His divine identity, thereby rekindling their desire to execute Him for blasphemy (as per Leviticus 24:14-16; cf. 1 Kings 21:10). But Jesus short-circuited their intention to stone Him by posing a penetrating question: “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” Since the Son and the Father are one, and the miraculous actions that Jesus performed were every bit as much from the Father as the Son who performed them, which sign evoked this violent intention to execute Him? Of course, Jesus knew that they did not desire to execute Him for His miraculous signs. But by calling attention to His ability to perform miracles, He was again “gigging” them with their failure to accept the evidence of His divine identity. Dismissing the obvious conclusion that would be drawn by any unbiased, honest person, they insisted that He was deserving of execution for the very fact that He claimed to be God: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God” (John 10:33, emp. added).

Such occasions illustrate vividly that Jesus unhesitatingly claimed to be God in the flesh. If not, here was the perfect time for Him to correct the Jews’ misconception by declaring to them that they had misunderstood Him. He could have explained that He was not, in any way, claiming to be God. On the contrary, consistent with His entire time on Earth, He proceeded to prove the point to them.

As was so often the case with His handling of His contemporaries, He drew their attention back to the Bible, back to the Word of God (which He, Himself, authored, cf. John 12:48; Miller, 2007; Miller, 2009). The Word of God is the only authority for deciding what to believe and how to act (Colossians 3:17). Jesus reminded them of Psalm 82:6—

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34-37).

Why did Jesus allude to Psalm 82? Some suggest that His point was that since God could refer to mere humans as “gods,” Jesus’ accusers had no grounds to condemn Him for applying such language to Himself. But this line of reasoning would make it appear as if Jesus was being evasive to avoid being stoned, and that He likened His claim to godhood with other mere humans. A more convincing, alternative interpretation is apparent.

The context of Psalm 82 is a scathing indictment of the unjust judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God’s justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; 2 Chronicles 19:6). Such a magistrate was “God’s minister” (diakonos—Romans 13:4) who acted in the place of God, wielding His authority, and who was responsible for mediating God’s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). God had “given them a position that was analogous to His in that He had made them administrators of justice, His justice” (Leupold, 1969, p. 595). In this sense, they were “gods” (elohim)—acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High’” (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share divinity with God—but merely delegated jurisdiction. They still were mere humans—although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God’s behalf.

This point is apparent throughout the Pentateuch, where the term translated “judges” or “ruler” is sometimes elohim (e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Moses is one example. Moses was not a “god.” Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to orchestrate the release of the Israelites, he would be “God” to his brother Aaron and to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though admittedly a rather rare use of elohim, nevertheless “it shows that the word translated ‘god’ in that place might be applied to man” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, italics in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: “Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High” (n.d., 3:479, italics in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome responsibility to represent God’s will fairly and accurately, and because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God Himself, He decreed that they would die (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not “gods,” since God could and would execute them!

A somewhat analogous mode of expression is seen in Nathan’s denunciation of David: “You have killed Uriah the Hittite” (2 Samuel 12:9)—though it was an enemy archer who had done so (2 Samuel 11:24; 12:9). No one would accuse the archer of being David, or David of being the archer. Paul said Jesus preached to the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:17)—though Jesus did so through human agency (Acts 10). Peter said Jesus preached to spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), when, in fact, He did so through Noah (Genesis 6; 2 Peter 2:5). Noah was not Jesus and Jesus was not Noah. If Paul and Noah could be described as functioning in the capacity of Jesus, judges in Israel could be described as functioning as God.

JESUS’ POINT

Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm (referring to it as “law” to accentuate its legal authority) to thwart His opponents’ attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central feature of the book of John—20:30-31). He made shrewd use of syllogistic argumentation by reasoning a minori ad majus (see Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). “Jesus is here arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a ‘how much more’ argument very popular among the rabbis” (Pack, 1975, 1:178). In fact, “it is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found most unanswerable” (Barclay, 1956, 2:90).

Using argumentum ad hominem (Robertson, 1916, p. 89), Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35). That is, they had been “appointed judges by Divine commission” (Butler, 1961, p. 127)—by “the command of God; his commission to them to do justice” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, italics in orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the ensuing argument of Jesus: “If it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger” (n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:

By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed office, could be called “gods,” in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God, to call himself “the Son of God” (1922, pp. 95-96, emp. added).

Morris agrees: “If in any sense the Psalm may apply this term to men, then much more may it be applied to Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (1971, pp. 527-528, emp. added). Indeed, “if the divine name had been applied by God to mere men, there could be neither blasphemy nor folly in its application to the incarnate Son of God himself” (Alexander, 1873, p. 351, emp. added).

This verse brings into stark contrast the deity—the Godhood—of Christ (and His Father Who “sanctified and sent” Him—vs. 36) with the absence of deity for all others. Jesus verified this very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the “works” that He performed (vss. 37-38). These “works” (i.e., miraculous signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other alleged deities. Archer concluded: “By no means, then, does our Lord imply here that we are sons of God just as He is—except for a lower level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more wrongheaded than that” (1982, p. 374).

So Jesus was not attempting to dodge His critics or deny their charge. The entire context has Jesus asserting His deity, and He immediately reaffirms it by referring to Himself as the One “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (vs. 36). Jesus spotlighted yet another manifestation of the Jews’ hypocrisy, bias, and ulterior agenda—their failure to recognize and accept the Messiah. Even if they were sincere, they were wrong in their thinking; but in truth they were doubly wrong in that they were not even sincere—a fact that Jesus repeatedly spotlighted (cf. Matthew 12:7; 15:3-6).

CONCLUSION

The central doctrine of the New Testament is the deity of Christ. Indeed, with very little exaggeration, one could say that the doctrine appears on nearly every page. This foundational, life-saving doctrine is denied by the majority of the world’s population (e.g., one billion Hindus, one billion skeptics, one billion Muslims, etc.). Since sufficient evidence exists to know that the Bible is of divine origin (e.g., Butt, 2007; “The Inspiration…,” 2001; et al.), one can also know with certainty that Jesus Christ

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. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:6-11, emp. added).

Having completed His task to atone for humanity, He has returned to heaven and is seated at the Father’s “right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come” (Ephesians 1:20-21; cf. Hebrews 8:1). No other avenue exists by which human beings can be acceptable to deity (Acts 4:12). Indeed, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). May all people humbly bow before Him.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Joseph A. (1873), The Psalms Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975 reprint).

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Barclay, William (1956), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.

Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Butler, Paul (1961), The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).

Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

“The Inspiration of the Bible” (2001), Apologetics Press Introductory Christian Evidences Correspondence Course Lesson 8, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0108.pdf.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg).

Leupold, H.C. (1969), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker).

McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Miller, Dave (2007), “Jesus’ Hermeneutical Principles,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2307&topic=75.

Miller, Dave (2009), “Christianity is Rational,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=684.

Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Robertson, A.T. (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revell).

The post Did Jesus Dodge His Enemies' Challenge Regarding His Deity? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Teachers test their students in a variety of ways. Good parents prove their children early on in life in hopes that they learn the virtues of honesty, compassion, and obedience. Coaches may try their players in attempts to instill in them the value of being disciplined in all phases of their game. Bosses test and challenge their employees in hopes of assembling the best team of workers who put out the best products possible. Indeed, mankind has understood the value of tests for millennia.

It should come as no surprise that God has used this same teaching technique various times throughout history. He tested Abraham on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:1-2; Hebrews 11:17), and hundreds of years later He repeatedly tested the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2; Psalm 81:7). King David declared how the Lord “tested” and “tried” him (Psalm 17:3), while his son Solomon wrote: “The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests the hearts” (Proverbs 17:3). Roughly 1,000 years later, the apostle Paul declared the same inspired truth—“God…tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Even when God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, He tested man. For example, once when Jesus saw “a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?’” John revealed, however, that Jesus asked this question to “test” Philip (John 6:5-6).

There are certain tests administered by God that some find cold and heartless, partly because they fail to recognize that a test is underway. One such event is recorded in Matthew 15:21-28.

Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He [Jesus] answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

In this passage, the reader learns that Jesus: (1) initially remained silent when a Canaanite woman cried out for mercy (vss. 22-23); (2) informed her that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24); and (3) told her that it was not fitting to take that which was meant for the “children” and give it to the “little dogs” (vs. 26). In addition, Jesus’ disciples urged Him to “send her away, for she cries out after us” (vs. 23).

Although Jesus eventually healed the Canaanite woman’s demon-possessed daughter, some believe that Jesus’ overall encounter with the woman indicates that He was unkind and intolerant. For example, the prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 529 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2010).

Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, offensive, or a racial slur. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we would not be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4). Any unkindness on Jesus’ part would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

TO THE JEW FIRST AND ALSO TO THE GREEKS

In order to understand properly Jesus’ statement, one must recognize the divinely appointed order in which the Gospel would spread. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, in his epistle to the church at Rome, the apostle Paul stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

HOW FAR CAN AN ANIMAL ILLUSTRATION BE TAKEN?

To our 21^st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal…. It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews…. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).

A TEST OF FAITH

Given other information in Matthew’s gospel account as well as the overall context of Matthew chapter 15, it appears that more was going on in these verses than Jesus simply wanting the Gentile woman to understand that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added).

If Jesus so willingly responded to a Gentile in Matthew chapter eight by miraculously healing his servant of paralysis, why did He initially resist healing the Gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter in Matthew chapter 15? Consider the immediate context of the chapter. The scribes and Pharisees had once again come to criticize and badger Jesus (15:1-2). The Son of God responded with a hard-hitting truth: that His enemies were hypocrites who treasured tradition more than the Word of God, and whose religion was heartless (vss. 3-9). What was the reaction of the Pharisees? Matthew gives no indication that their hearts were pricked by the Truth. Instead, Jesus’ disciples reported to Him that “the Pharisees were offended” by Jesus’ teachings (vs. 12, emp. added), to which Jesus responded: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (vss. 13-14). Unlike many modern-day preachers who water down the Gospel and apologize for the Truth, Jesus did not sugar coat it. It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but sincere truth-seekers will respond in all humility, regardless of being offended.

Being offended is exactly what many people would have been had they initially been turned down by Jesus as was the Canaanite woman. While she pled for mercy, at first Jesus remained silent. Then, after being informed that Jesus “was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24), she worshiped Him and begged Him for help (vs. 25). Even after being told, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (vs. 26), this persistent, humble woman did not allow potentially offensive remarks to harden her heart. Unlike the hypocritical Jewish scribes and Pharisees who responded to Jesus with hard-heartedness, this Gentile acknowledged her unworthiness, while persistently pursuing the Holy One for help (15:27). Ultimately, her faith resulted in the healing of her daughter and served as an admonition to those witnessing the event about the nature of true faith.

What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. The fact is, the truth can hurt (cf. Acts 2:36-37). However, we must remember to respond to God’s tests and teachings of truth with all humility, rather than haughtiness (James 4:6,10).

Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

REFERENCES

Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Breidenthal, Dean (2003), “The Children’s Bread,” http://web.princeton.edu/sites/chapel/Sermon%20Files/2003_sermons/090703.htm.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Wells, Steve (2010), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html.

The post Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If I told you I was President of the United States, you would know (simply by using common sense) that I was a liar, I was a lunatic, or I was telling the truth. Likewise, there are only three explanations that one can give as to Who Christ was: (1) He was the “greatest” liar and phony the world has ever known; (2) He was a lunatic who really thought He was God, but wasn’t; or (3) He was Who He claimed to be—the Son of God. No other choices exist.

The view that Christ was a mad man rarely has been considered by anyone aware of Christ’s life. No lunatic could answer questions with such wisdom and authority. What crazy man would teach that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? The fact is, few have ever been bold (or insane) enough to call Christ a lunatic.

Perhaps Jesus was a liar and imposter. Again, not even the most famous unbelievers have been willing to put Jesus into this category. Well-known atheist Henri Rousseau once wrote: “If the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God.” Another famous enemy of Christianity, Joseph Renan, called Jesus a “sublime person” and declared that in Him “is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature.” The fact is, relatively very few people throughout history ever have claimed that Christ was a liar or a lunatic.

But, if Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic, then He must have been Who He said He was—the Son of God. Logically, one cannot say that Christ was a good man and yet was not the Son of God. Either He was both, or He was neither. Christ was a lunatic, a liar, or the Lord. The evidence shows beyond a doubt that He was, and is, our Lord! 

The post Take Your Pick appeared first on Apologetics Press.

This may come as a shock, but the phrase is used only once in the entire Bible, and it does not refer to Jesus. In Song of Solomon 2:1, Solomon’s wife describes herself as the “rose of Sharon.” From her description, we can see that it is a complimentary term that expresses beauty.

The word Sharon (also spelled Saron) means a level place or plain, and is found in numerous verses in the Bible, including Acts 9:35 and 1 Chronicles 27:29. In God’s Word, the term is used to describe one of the largest plains in all of the land of Palestine. You can locate this valley by looking just north of the city of Joppa on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

From what we know about the place, the Sharon valley was a fertile plain that was home to many beautiful flowers. Isaiah 35:2 lists Sharon in a context discussing blooming plants and describes the valley as “excellent.” Sharon was renowned for its majesty and beauty, but what about its “rose?”

A true rose, like the one sweethearts exchange on Valentine’s day, is probably not what the Bible calls the “rose of Sharon,” since these flowers are very uncommon in Palestine. In fact, although no one can say for certain which flower is the actual “rose of Sharon,” many scholars think the best guess is the cistus (also known as the rock-rose). The cistus blooms in various parts of the land of Palestine, and in ancient times was known for its soothing aroma and pain-relieving qualities.

No one knows for sure when or why the term “rose of Sharon” was given to Jesus. But some reasons do make good sense. Christ’s healing powers and pain-relieving actions were similar to certain traits of the rock-rose. Is it any wonder that the “Great Physician,” Who came to physically heal the sick and spiritually take away the plague of sin from the world, should be given the name of a flower known for its sweet aroma and pain-relieving qualities?

The post Jesus—Rose of Sharon appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If Jesus never sinned, and specifically never lied, some wonder why Jesus told his brothers, “I do not go up to this feast [the Feast of Tabernacles]” (John 7:8, NASB), if later, “when His brothers had gone…He Himself also went” (7:10, NASB)? Some allege that, in this instance, Jesus “broke his word” and “lied” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 787), and thus was not the Son of God as He claimed. What is the truth of the matter?

First of all, several early manuscripts of the gospel of John, including p66 and p75 (believed to be from as early as the late second and early third centuries), have Jesus saying, “I am not yet [oupo] going up to this feast,” rather than “I do not [ouk] go up to this feast.” Thus, it may be that the correct rendering is found in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV, rather than the ASV, NASB, and RSV.

Second, even if Jesus did say at one point to His brothers, “I do not go up to this feast,” but later He went, that still does not mean that He lied. Suppose a co-worker saw me leaving the office at 2:00 p.m. and asked me, “Are you going home?” and I said, “No,” but later went home that day at 5:00 p.m. Have I lied? Not at all. When I left the office at 2:00 p.m., I went to run a quick errand—I did not go home. When I departed the office at 5:00 p.m., however, I went home. “No” is often truthfully used in a time-sensitive manner. Simply because at 2:00 p.m. I said I was not going home, does not mean I could not go home at 5:00 p.m. My “no” meant “I’m not going home at the present.” Similarly, if Jesus used the term “not” [ouk] rather than “not yet” [oupo], He could just as easily been implying the same thing: “I am not going to the feast at the present.”

At the proper time, after Jesus “remained in Galilee” for a while (7:9), He did go to the feast. The proper time was not when his unbelieving brothers told Him to “depart” (John 7:5), but when the Son of God said it was time—a God-appointed time. Furthermore, His attendance at the feast was not for the purpose that His brothers envisioned (to show Himself to the world—7:3-4), rather Jesus went to the feast “not openly, but as it were in secret” (7:10, emp. added).

Just as we often say, “I am not going,” but mean “I am not going yet,” Jesus had every right to use that same kind of language. Although Jesus embodied truth (John 14:6) and always told the truth (1 Peter 2:22), He still used figures of speech and language men commonly understood—some even today.

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

The post Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, for critics to make such a claim about Mark 5:30, they must assume that all questions are asked solely for the purpose of obtaining information. However, common sense should tell us that questions often are asked for other reasons. Jesus did not ask this question to acquire information. Rather, He asked it so that the woman with the issue of blood would “step forward” and confess to having been healed. In so doing, her deep faith and the greatness of the miracle would be manifested to glorify God. It is outlandish to take this question and claim that Jesus did not know who touched Him. Are we to assume that God was ignorant of Adam’s whereabouts when he asked him, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). In the beginning of God’s first speech to Job, God asked the patriarch, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (38:4). Are we to believe that God did not know where Job was when He created the world? Certainly not! What father, having seen his son break a windowpane, has not asked him, “Who did that?” Obviously, the father did not ask the question to obtain information, but to see if the son would admit to something the father knew all along. On occasion, Jesus used questions for the same purpose. In no way is this some indication of His being less than divine.

Critics also jump to conclusions when they claim that the “ignorance of Jesus is very important, because without ignorance He could not sincerely pray in the Garden of Gethsemane that the cup of suffering pass from Him” (cf. Matthew 26:39). They fail to recognize that Jesus is not only 100% divine (John 1:1-5,14;10:30), but also was 100% human while upon the Earth (Philippians 2:7-8). Oftentimes we get the idea that the suffering Jesus endured was not all that painful because He was God—but Jesus also was a man. When praying in the garden, He knew that within a few short hours He would be mocked, spit upon, struck with the palms of hands, scourged, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. However, this knowledge did not make his suffering any easier. Jesus could (and did) sincerely pray, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me.” This statement intimates no more than that Jesus was really and truly a man, and as a man He could not but be averse to pain and suffering. The law of self-preservation exists in the innocent nature of man, and no doubt existed in Christ. He did not desire a violent death at the hands of angry Jews, but He was willing to endure it to save mankind from the depths of hell. To lift such passages as Matthew 26:39 and Mark 5:30 from the Bible and claim that Jesus did not possess superior knowledge is a gross misuse of Scripture. Such allegations are false to the core, yet, sadly, they are typical of the kind of devices skeptics use to try and strip Jesus of His deity.

The post Was Jesus Ignorant? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Simon, seeing the sinful woman’s behavior, said to himself, “This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). Notice two important aspects of Simon’s response. First, he spoke to himself. There is no indication that his thoughts were verbalized or in any way audible to those around him. Second, the criterion he set to determine whether Christ was a prophet was knowledge of the woman’s sinful lifestyle.

Jesus’ response to Simon proved that He was far more than a prophet. He answered the Pharisee by explaining that those who have sinned much and been forgiven of their sins will love God more than those who feel they have few sins to forgive. Jesus then forgave the woman’s sins. His response exhibited a knowledge, not only of the spiritual condition of the woman, but also of Simon’s inner conversation with himself. Not only did Jesus know the woman was a sinner, but He knew the conversation Simon had with himself about Jesus’ reaction to the woman. What did Jesus’ reaction prove? It should have proved to Simon that Jesus was far more than a prophet. When Jesus forgave the woman’s sins, He proved that He was God in the flesh.

The modern application of this story is profound. Jesus has exhibited far more evidence validating His deity than any reasonable person could demand. His life was prophesied in minute detail hundreds of years before He was born, He accomplished miracles that supported the prophesies, He foretold His own death and resurrection, He showed Himself alive to many witnesses after His resurrection, and ascended to Heaven in the sight of many witnesses as the culmination of His earthly ministry. The honest, reasonable response to Jesus’ personality and power is perfectly summarized in Nathanael’s reaction to Jesus’ miraculous knowledge. After Jesus explained to Nathanael that He had miraculously seen Nathanael under the fig tree, Nathanael exclaimed: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God” (John 1:49)!

The post If He Were a Prophet… appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, it is possible that some differences are due to Jesus having made both statements. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment. In the example of Jesus responding to Satan’s temptation, it may be that Jesus repeated the same thought on the same occasion using different words. After telling Satan, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” Jesus could have re-emphasized the point (especially if Satan repeated the temptation) by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Thus, Jesus could have made both statements.

A second reason why differences exist among the gospel writers’ testimony of Jesus’ teachings is because the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what Jesus said. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), one writer may summarize a person’s (e.g., Jesus’) words, while another writer may quote the exact words.

Consider the variation in notes taken by honest, intelligent college students in the same class on the Civil War. At the close of the class, when the notes of the students are compared and contrasted (as the gospel accounts are) differences are evident. If one student recorded that the teacher said Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address “in November of 1863 to honor those who died in the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg,” and another student wrote that Lincoln’s speech was delivered “on November 19, 1863 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,” their notes would not be considered contradictory. Though there are slight differences in what the students indicate the teacher said, they both are faithful testimonies of what the teacher taught—one student simply chose a less definite style of note-taking (i.e., not mentioning the precise day on which the Gettysburg Address was given).

Throughout the gospel accounts, we find accurate statements that Jesus made, but not necessarily the exact quotations. Inspired summaries of what someone said does not take away from the sacredness of the God-given Scriptures, nor our ability to apply those Scriptures to our lives. What’s more, differences among statements recorded in the gospel accounts also may be the result of the statements being made at different times. In whichever category a difference among the gospel accounts falls, Bible students can be confident of the Bible’s reliability.

The post What Exactly Did Jesus Say? appeared first on Apologetics Press.