History records a few standout messianic hopefuls. Luke, for example, records the following statements of the great Rabbinic teacher, Gamaliel:

Acts 5:35-39 (ESV) And [Gamaliel] said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”

Note two important details. First, Jesus of Nazareth was not the first person to claim to be Messiah. Other well documented cases were apparent to Gamaliel and his audience, specifically Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Second, notice that dead messiahs were understood to be false messiahs. Any Anointed One was expected to fulfill three requirements: (1) win decisive victory over the pagans, (2) rebuild or cleanse the temple, and (3) bring true divine justice into the world (in the sense of a kingdom).¹ A failure to accomplish these three tasks was a failure in the absolute sense to fulfill the role of the Messiah.

Likewise, history records a few interesting potential messiahs after the life of Jesus (a fact anticipated by Jesus himself, Matthew 24:23-25). Simon bar-Giora (AD 67-70) for example is discussed in the works of Josephus in The Wars of the Jews 7.153-154:

Now the last part of this pompous show was at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, whither when they were come, they stood still; for it was the Romans’ ancient custom to stay till somebody brought the news that the general of the enemy was slain. This general was Simon, the son of Gioras, who had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum, and had withal been tormented by those that drew him along; and the law of the Romans required that malefactors condemned to die should be slain there.²

Like many before him, Simon is executed by the Gentile authorities and ultimately dismissed from any messianic discussion.

What are the options when a “messiah” dies? What was the common reaction when all the hope of Israel was poured into one man only to be crushed in shame? One option was to simply give up. After the death of Simeon ben Kosiba (AD 132-135), the rabbinic tradition took a very critical look back at the entire messianic enterprise. “Simon ben Kosiba went from bar kokhba (“son of hestar”) to bar kozeba (‘son of the lie/disappointment’).”³ Wright claims that the rabbis after 135 AD “declared that they were finished with dreams of revolution, and that from henceforth they would find a different way of being loyal to Israel’s god.”⁴

But Christians did not do this. Nor did they go about seeking a new Messiah to replace the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. Eleazar, who led the fatal stand at Masada, was part of a family that had been leading Jewish rebellions for over a hundred years, one potential messiah following the next.⁵ Christians did not do this either … though they could have!  Why not James for example? James is a prominent Christian leader who is identified in the New Testament and in history as the “brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19; Antiquities 20.9.1). He may have been the author of the book of James. Why don’t they make him the new leader of this religious movement? Eusebius offers us the following as James’ own explanation of why not (he also quotes Hegesippus immediately after this section, HE 2.23.10-18):

But the Jews, after Paul had appeal to Caesar, and had been sent by Festus to Rome, frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares they had laid, turn themselves against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem was committed by the apostles. The following were their nefarious measures also against him. Conducting him into a public place, they demanded that he should renounce the faith of Christ before all the people; but contrary to the sentiments of all, with a firm voice, and much beyond their expectation, he declared himself fully before the whole multitude, and confessed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, our Saviour and Lord. Unable to hear any longer the testimony of the man, who, on account of his elevated virtue and piety was deemed the most just of men, they seized the opportunity of licentiousness afforded by the prevailing anarchy, and slew him..⁶

This scene brings us powerfully to our own point. Why is there a religion concerned with Jesus of Nazareth but not his brother James? Why is there no religion of Simon bar-Giora or Simeon ben Kosiba? Those that have studied this period and concluded that Jesus is just another “messiah” in a time of Jewish desperation have missed this profound historical point. Jesus changed the world, while others claiming the same title he claimed have been left behind in dusty historical obscurity. As Wright again explains,

“The crucifixion of Jesus, understood from the point of view of any onlooker, whether sympathetic or not, was bound to have appeared as the complete destruction of any messianic pretensions of possibilities he or his followers might have hinted at. The violent execution of a prophet (which, uncontroversially, was how Jesus was regarded by many), still more of a would-be Messiah, did not say to any Jewish onlooker that he really was the Messiah after all, or that YHWH’s kingdom had come through his work. It said, powerfully and irresistibly, that he wasn’t and that it hadn’t.”⁷

But that isn’t how it was received by his disciples or the 3000 baptized believers on Pentecost. As Josephus explained, “those that loved him at the first did not forsake him … and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Antiquities 18.3.3). What makes Jesus stand out to this day as the only potential messiah who was deemed vanquished by his own ignoble death?

When you find a credible answer to that question, a light illuminates your mind that cannot be easily extinguished. I’ll leave you to think about … with a glimpse of the answer contained in the words of Paul.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (Romans 1:1-4, ESV)

REFERENCES:

1. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 557.
2. All Josephus quotations are taken from William Whiston, trans., Josephus: The Complete Works, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998).
3. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Boston: Brill, 2001), 196.
4. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 560.
5. Ibid.
6. Eusebius, Christian Frederic Crusé, and Isaac Boyle. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981).
7. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 557-558.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)? Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize…” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved…” and “For Christ did not send me to save…” That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make.

These are fine questions (well, most of them) and deserve an answer.

An interesting case to compare is given in the sixth chapter of Acts:

Acts 6:1-2 (ESV) Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.”

Given that attention to widows and orphans is important to God (cf. James 1:27 or almost any Old Testament book), how can the Apostles say that it is not “right” (from αρεστός, meaning pleasing or fitting) for them to serve the need of these widows? A closer reading of this passage shows that the visitation of widows is not being forsaken (in fact, several outstanding Christians are assigned to the task in the following verses). Instead, the Apostles are demonstrating that they viewed preaching as their principle work. The Apostles, especially in a world without gold-trimmed New Testament pages, were indispensable to the spreading of the Gospel. This is a fact that would make a lot of New Testament statements ring more clearly. “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14, ESV) Is Paul trying to tell us that the written word is incapable of producing faith without a preacher to explain it? Not so! Instead, Paul is stating the simple fact that in a world without transcribed New Testaments, there was no preaching without preachers!

Thus, the Apostles viewed preaching as their primary work. Not their only work, but their primary work. To this agrees the mandate of the Apostolic Commission. Matthew calls it “disciple making,” Mark calls it “preaching,” and Luke calls it “being a witness.” However, in each case, the Commission clearly indicates that the Apostles were sent with the unique priority to preach the living gospel that they had witnessed with their own eyes. While others might think twice before even considering such a formidable work (James 3:1), the Apostles saw it as their primary and indispensable task. Thus, Paul can rightly say that he was sent to preach, not so much to baptize (more on that in a moment). Any other able-bodied person could submerse another person in water, but only a select few could preach and personally testify of the resurrected Christ as the Apostle’s could (those select few are apparently named for us in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). While the entire church was to follow the spirit of the Apostle’s Commission, only the Apostles could truly fulfill it.

However, it should not be overlooked that baptizing was a mandate attached to the Commission as well. While the physical act of baptizing another is secondary for the Apostles and their primary work of preaching, it is not unimportant to their work. Matthew describes baptism as part of the disciple-making process, using a present participle to demonstrate that it takes place simultaneous to the act of making a disciple, not before or after. Wallace’s grammar explains: “The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb.”¹ Furthermore, Wallace expands on the participles in this particular passage, “they obviously make good sense as participles of means; i.e., the means by which the disciples were to make disciples was to baptize and then to teach.”² Mark’s account is still more plain, stating preaching as the imperative in ch. 16:15, then following with an explanatory statement connecting baptism and salvation in v. 16. Luke doesn’t mention baptism in his commission, but he follows it with Luke Part 2, the book of Acts, wherein the living Commission is shown with examples of baptism in Acts 2:41; 8:16, 36-39; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15; 18:8; 19:5. The Biblical data allows no debate: the Apostles understood baptism as an essential by-product  of their primary and indispensable work of preaching.

Furthermore, the Bible points us to events wherein Paul himself who was “sent not to baptize” did in fact baptize. In the cases of the baptism of Lydia and the men of Ephesus, he was at least present (Acts 16:15; 19:4-6). Even specifically in Corinth, the city to which this epistle in question is addressed, we read the following: “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8, ESV) Paul in the immediate context of our text confirms Luke’s inspired account. “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” (1 Corinthians 1:14-16, ESV). The fact that Paul admits that he did “not know” for certain whether he baptized others that might remain in Corinth confirms that Paul was in the habit of baptizing. Yes, Paul did baptize, even in Corinth.

So what is Paul saying in v. 17? First, that Paul has his apostolic role in full view is evident even from his word choice. He says that he is discussing what Christ “sent” him to do, translated from αποστέλλω (APOSTELLO), the verb form of the same word that forms the English noun “Apostle.” Second, Paul is addressing the dreadful Corinthian practice of bragging about who had baptized them (1 Corinthians 1:11-13). In view of that particular conflict and ONLY in view of that conflict, Paul expresses relief that he had not baptized any more than he had of the Corinthian Christians. The last thing he would want is his name drug into a conflict that divides brethren and diminishes the saving power of the name of Christ. Instead, he states the fact that we have already seen demonstrated, that he was sent with the primary task of preaching and that many others have done the actual baptizing. This is not a dismissal of baptism, as baptism is the very act under discussion. Paul is holding up the role of Christ in baptism as supreme above whatever person might administer the act. In truth, the fact that all of the people in question at Corinth had been baptized and that they valued the act to the point of fighting over the various prominent men who administered it further enhances the argument in favor of the significance of baptism. Their corruption after the fact does not change this point: they understood that baptism is important.

And now, for what it is worth and for any who care, is the great litany of commentators from days gone by who said essentially the same thing I just said, regardless of their own views of baptism (view them all online from this great resource):

Barnes: “For Christ sent me not to baptize – That is, not to baptize as my main business. Baptism was not his principal employment, though be had a commission in common with others to administer the ordinance, and occasionally did it. The same thing was true of the Saviour, that he did not personally baptize, John 4:2. It is probable that the business of baptism was entrusted to the ministers of the church of inferior talents, or to those who were connected with the churches permanently, and not to those who were engaged chiefly in traveling from place to place.”

Clarke: “It appears sufficiently evident that baptizing was considered to be an inferior office, and though every minister of Christ might administer it, yet apostles had more important work. Preparing these adult heathens for baptism by the continual preaching of the word was of much greater consequence than baptizing them when thus prepared to receive and profit by it.” Clarke always makes me laugh! “Adult heathens” indeed!

Gill: “Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, Acts 26:16 in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent about; this was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word who travelled with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so much about this work, but to preach the Gospel; for which he was most eminently qualified, had peculiar gifts for the discharge of it, and was greatly useful in it.”

People’s New Testament: “Paul does not intend to disparage baptism, but to say that, in the division of labor, the work assigned him was to preach, while others did the baptizing.”

REFERENCES:

1. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. (p. 625) I would add for honesty’s sake that Wallace goes on to make a discussion of loopholes to that general rule, but they would not seem to apply here, as seen in his further comments on the passage.
2. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. (p. 645)

The audio below is from the Gospel meeting that I conducted in April of 2012 at the Cleveland church of Christ. The lessons are an apologetic argument on the validity of faith, the shortcomings of science, and the scientific evidences that support the faith of the Bible. Audio CDs of the event can be ordered from the Cleveland congregation.

(The static noise at the beginning of the audio is the noise of me walking. Sorry! It goes away quickly.)

Rather than clean the chalk board and start from scratch, modern astronomers and astrophysicists (the same guys who find it strange that you might believe in an invisible God) have gone out searching for invisible matter. The same guys who claim to only believe in things that they can empirically prove believe adamantly in these troublesome and undetectable particles. So how is the search going? Just ask the team leader of a project that just finished a survey of 400 stars spread out over 13 000 light-years away from our Sun.

“The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun,” says team leader Christian Moni Bidin (Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Concepción, Chile). “But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”¹

An empirical study was performed, and the dark matter isn’t there. Doesn’t that settle the matter? Apparently not. Even the press release issued by ESO was only willing to vaguely assert the significance of this survey, titling their review, “Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?” The question mark at the end of the title calls the reader to think that maybe finding absolutely nothing in a project that was supposed to find a whole lot of something is a problem, but just maybe. Is this survey going to make scientists and researchers abandon or at least rethink this issue?

“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found. Our results contradict the currently accepted models. The mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious. Future surveys, such as the ESA Gaia mission, will be crucial to move beyond this point.” concludes Christian Moni Bidin. ((“ESO – Eso1217 – Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?” www.eso.org. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/>.))

Again, maybe. Or maybe we just need to look harder! The irony is startling. Bertrand Russell compared belief in God to belief in a teapot floating through space.² Carl Sagan compared religion to believing in a fire-breathing dragon in your garage.³ Richard Dawkins and others liken it to the belief in an invisible, inaudible unicorn.⁴ The problem is that science DOES believe in things it cannot see. We do it all the time. Science will spend millions searching for Dark Matter, and when they find that it isn’t there, they will keep looking! Why is that allowed, but faith in an intelligent designer is unreasonable superstition?

The fact is simple. The universe and our existence in it is more complicated than can be explained by empirical data. If you limit your world view to scientific data, then you live in a world of contradiction, where what must be often is not and what can’t be occasionally is. Faith on the other hand is happy to accept the knowable and the unknowable all at once. We believe that the evidence that we have seen points to a Creator we have not seen. This is not ignorance. It is a different and actually more consistent method for dealing with the same questions with which science also struggles. To reuse my favorite Robert Jastrow quote:

It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.⁵

REFERENCES:

1. “ESO – Eso1217 – Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?” www.eso.org. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/>.
2. See the article: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html
3. Sagan, Carl. The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House, 1996.
4. See the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html
5. Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: Norton, 1978.

As Craig Blomberg has written, “Dan Wallace has clearly become evangelical Christianity’s premier active textual critic today.” In addition to teaching New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, he serves as executive director of the cutting-edge Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM). He recently made quite a stir when he announced that next year an academic publication will reveal the discovery of a first-century fragment from the Gospel of Mark. (See, for example, this interview with Hugh Hewitt.)

He was kind enough to answer some questions about the discipline of textual criticism, the number of manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts (including the soon-to-be famous fragment), why the process of copying is nothing like the “telephone game,” and other questions.

It is a great interview and highlights the strength of New Testament manuscript evidence.

Read The Rest of the Interview Here

Like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told His disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.” He fell to his knees, pleading with His Father, saying, “If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” And yet, in the end, He confronted His fear with words of humble surrender, saying, “If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” So it is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we’re able to celebrate the resurrection …

Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, posted on his website a critical response.

I appreciate that the President wants to highlight the courage of Jesus. But does it not diminish Jesus’ achievement to say that He experienced “doubt” and “fear” as He approached His crucifixion? Does the Bible really teach that Christ had doubts and fears on the same order as our own? The Bible in fact never teaches such a thing, and it diminishes Christ’s achievement to suggest otherwise. Here’s why. In the Bible, doubt and fear are sins.

The doubt question is an admittedly sticky one, especially if considered in view of the supernatural knowledge of Jesus. I think an equally tricky question is to ask in what sense Jesus had faith, since His divine form had “seen” Heaven. Can an all-knowing Being doubt … or have faith for that matter? That is a tough question that I will leave for another day. However, fear is a simpler human issue that I think the Bible speaks to more plainly. Jesus felt fear. Having read both the President’s remarks and Professor Burk’s rejoinder, I now find myself now in the unexpected position of defending the comments of a liberal, secular president against an attack from a conservative preacher! About Jesus no less! How unfortunate for me! Truth it turns out is not always in the expected places, but should be defended nonetheless.

Dr. Burk’s main argument on fear is as follows:

In very explicit terms, Jesus himself commands his disciples not to “fear” those who persecute them (Matt. 10:26, 28, 31). No less than seven times, Jesus himself commands his disciples not to be “anxious” about their lives (Matt. 6:25, 31, 34; Mark 10:19; 13:11; Luke 12:11, 22). … To say that Jesus had doubts and fears is to make him into a transgressor.

These passages certainly condemn doubt and fear. However, the Bible often uses a technique called relative negation, wherein something is condemned in hyperbole. An example here will be more helpful to explain this concept.

1 Peter 3:3 (ESV) Do not let your adorning be external — the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear — but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

A literal reading of this beautiful text would have Peter forbidding the wearing of clothes (specifically to women) for the sake of modesty. Hardly an acceptable conclusion! What is much more likely an interpretation is that Peter is using relative negation. Paraphrased: “Spend more time in adorning the inner person and less time putting on clothes.”

The discussion of “lust” is carried out in the Bible in much the same way.

Romans 13:14 (ESV) But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires [lusts, KJV].

Literally, this passage says to make no (as in none, zero, nada, zilch) provision for the flesh or its desires (lusts). “Are you making plans for dinner tonight? Then you are a sinner! How dare you provide for your fleshly desire!” Another unacceptable interpretation. Instead, we should see Paul as using relative negation. Do not allow your life to be piloted by human desires, but rather restrain them in order to fully serve Christ. The Bible affirms that all people have desires and lusts.

James 1:14-15 (ESV) But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Of course, you have desires and lusts! But these desires are not sinful in and of themselves, though they certainly can lead to sin if unbridled or allowed to “conceive” sin. This point brings us closer to the discussion of Jesus and whether or not He felt the same human motivations that we do.

Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

If we argue that Jesus had no desires or lusts, then by James’ definition of temptation, Jesus was not tempted like we are. If he does not feel hunger, then in what sense is he tempted when asked to turn stones into bread during a fast? If he was incapable of pride or desiring what he sees, what is happening in the wilderness in Matthew 4?

Furthermore, if we assume that all those who have desires/lusts have sinned, we must face the fact that Jesus was tempted through His desires/lusts, “yet without sin.” Therefore, the better understanding of these desire/lust passages and the fear passages that are so much like them is that God is telling us to bridle or control all of our desires and fear.

Titus 2:11-12 (ESV) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,

In the garden we see Jesus doing exactly this as our perfect example. He asks that the “cup” of pain and misery He is about to drink at the cross pass from Him. Why? You might respond, because of the pain and misery of the cross, but pain and misery are not reasons. Fear of pain and misery is a reason. Jesus fears the sensation of pain. He desires not to feel it. His mortal flesh begs to have its way, but Jesus does not relent. “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Burk’s final conclusion on this passage is actually correct:

He never gave up, never lost heart, never flagged in zeal. And neither must we. We can take heart. Where you and I have failed, Jesus has overcome. Indeed Jesus has overcome the world! (John 16:33)

But this conclusion is emasculated if not seen in the presence of real fear and real mortal desire. “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” That is the victory of the spiritual mind over the carnal mind that each of us is supposed to imitate. That is how we know that Jesus can be touched and can sympathize with our struggles. That is how we know that the battle over desire and fear can be won. That Jesus feared does not make Him less. It makes Him more.

{{Editor’s Note: I’m being lazy this week! Instead of writing up something new for you, I am giving you an excerpt out of my almost finished term paper for my Apologetics class. Expect the paper in its entirety to end up on the blog eventually, or possibly piecemeal. For those of you unfamiliar with the Talmud: “In addition to the written scriptures we have an ‘Oral Torah,’ a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe God taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century AD, when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah. Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century AD. There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean if they just say “the Talmud” without specifying which one.¹ }}

The reader is predisposed to expect negativity toward Jesus in the Talmud² and is not disappointed. In the Talmud, Jesus is a man who “spoils his food/dish”³or “publicly burns his food,” a crime that Blomberg suggests is equal to defiling your master’s teaching.⁴ Schäfer suggests it is connected to sexual uncleanness, and he interprets this Talmudic commentary on Psalm 91:10 as meaning that “the worst plague is a son or disciple who publically leads a licentious life by which he compromises himself and his poor wife.”⁵ Jesus is thrown into this discussion either by the Jewish tradition of the infidelity of his mother Mary or by Jesus’ known association with sinners and prostitutes.⁶ Furthermore, as a teacher, Jesus is made to look absurd and profane. He is associated with all sorts of blasphemy and even shown as he weighs in on a discussion of whether or not the fee of a whore may be used to purchase a toilet for the high priest.⁷ However, these more condescending passages are sprinkled with other statements that, even while continuing to express a poor opinion of Jesus, nevertheless confirm that Jesus was a man both associated with and a worker of wonders.

The first hint of Gospel correlation in the Talmud deals with Gospel accounts of the death of Christ and peculiar, even miraculous events that surrounded that event. Matthew records the following as events that immediately followed the death of Christ:

⁵¹And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. ⁵²The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, ⁵³and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. ⁵⁴When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:51-54, ESV)

Plummer suggests that this passage has a strong connection to what is written in Jerusalem Talmud:

It has been taught: Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open. Said [to the Temple] Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, “O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that you will end up destroyed. For it has been said, ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars!” (Zech. 11:1).⁸

The passages are vastly different in detail. However, three central themes are consistent. First, strange and inexplicable events take place in the temple. Second, these events are seen by observers as divine portents. Third, the events take place at or near the year of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, forty years before the fall of Jerusalem.⁹

Elsewhere in the Talmud, the reader finds more direct statements. In Sanhedrin 107b, “Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray”. Likewise in the account of Jesus’s death in Sanhedrin 43a, Jesus is denounced “because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.” This unnecessary admission by an unfavorable source that Jesus worked some type of extraordinary wonder is powerful evidence for the historical fact of Jesus’ miracles. No reason can be imagined for a rabbinic writer to concede the notion of a wonder-working Jesus rather than make a stern denial, except perhaps that facts are stubborn things. “Again the Christian claims are not denied but simply given a different interpretation.”¹⁰ Rather than dismiss the miraculous power of Christ, they interpret it as sorcery. The fierceness of the denial of the divine origin of Jesus’s miracles demands exploration of whether this “sorcery” has a better interpretation than his enemies would allow.

Clearly, sorcery is not the only category in which to place Jesus’s miracles. As John records, at least one leader among the Pharisees came to very different conclusion. “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (John 3:2, ESV) Nicodemus, and apparently a silent number among the Jewish leadership, understood that the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth lent themselves more naturally to a favorable interpretation. They may have been confounded by his doctrine, but the spectacle of his wonders were not only impossible to deny, but also unlikely the work of pagan power or magic. Likewise, his disciples came to a similar conclusion. After the stilling of the sea, they marveled and asked, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” (Matthew 8:27, ESV) Without doubt, he has demonstrated power beyond mortal bounds. He could be a practitioner of sorcery, though it seems evident that the authority over nature this miracle displays passed beyond any sort of parlor trick or illusion. He could be favored by some pagan deity, but such a view would have been anathema to any first century Jew. Finally, Jesus could be favored by the one true God, whose power over nature stood as an absolute fact in the Jewish tradition. “Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.” (Psalm 107:28-29, ESV) Their continued discipleship demonstrates their answer.

Likewise, even the modern and enlightened thinker must wrestle with these ancient facts. Jesus of Nazareth worked miracles. His disciples wrote that he did. The writers of the Talmud wrote that he did. If there is any honest method to the pursuit of historical facts, then surely the testimony of such hostile witnesses commends this undeniable fact. The challenge then remains to answer the same simple and humbling question that the disciples asked long ago upon the sea, “What manner of man is this?”

REFERENCES:

1. http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
2. I consulted Jacob Neusner, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: a Translation And Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
3. Bavli Sanhedrin 103a. As cited in Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 26.
4. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd ed., (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, USA, 2007) 253.
5. Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007) 26-29.
6. Ibid., 29.
7. Kalmin references this passage (b. ‘Aboda Zar. 16b-17a) and argues that it is actually complementary of Jesus, but I find this hard to believe; Richard Kalmin, “Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 2 [1994]: 155-58.
8. Tractate Yoma 6:3 as cited in Robert Plummer, “Something Awry In the Temple? The Rending of the Temple Veil and Early Jewish Sources That Report Unusual Phenomena In the Temple Around AD 30,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46, no. 2 [June 2005]: 306.
9. For further reading on this topic, see H. W. Montefiore, “Josephus and the New Testament,” Novum Testamentum 4, no. 2 [December 1960]: 148-154.
10. Blomberg, 253.

To accomplish this purpose, I try to write articles that demonstrate three principles.

1) The Universe Is a Big Place

I think one of the major failings of the common man’s understanding of astrophysical concepts is not in the minute detail of physics, but in the enormity of the universe in which we live. It is a concept nearly impossible to convey with words, though I often try. About a year ago I wrote two articles discussing the scale of the universe using the best illustrations of comparative scale that I could find (read them here and here). Ultimately, you are a speck sized being on a speck-sized planet circling a speck-sized star in a speck-sized galaxy that itself is like a grain of sand on a beach compared to the number of other galaxies in our field of vision.

To add a little to your insight on this principle, allow me to tell you a little about some of the exciting dull spots in our night sky. When we look around the obviously visible stars, they act like a streetlight that obscures any other bright objects behind them. Now, with the advent of far more advanced telescopes, we have found that the really exciting regions in space are found by looking deeply into a dark “boring” regions where no close, bright objects obscure our view. The video below is a look into a deep space field that might help you realize just how big the universe really is. As you get toward the end of the video, most of the little “specks” are galaxies as large as our own.

2) Science Has Not Explained Everything, Nor Will It

When you get a better sense of the scale of the universe, you start to realize that it is unreasonable to believe that a man standing on earth could use his physical perception to understand everything in that universe. Our civilization has never traveled any further than our own solar system. We have barely dipped our toe in the pool (that is actually an ocean!) but we are certain that we know it all. Scientists speak with unheard of confidence of things so far out of our experiential knowledge that we have to wonder, how certain can we reasonably be? When NASA claims to know the age of the universe to within a range of 1% based on the background radiation that saturates our field of vision, are we being rational if we don’t doubt such a proclamation?

Furthermore, we know as a matter of fact, that these certain verities constantly flung at us by scientific articles change from time to time and often are based on a “please allow me to ignore the glaring questions” type of interpretation. Take for example a recent article written about gravity, General Relativity, and the unexpected “clumpiness” of the universe:

“Maybe on very large scales, Einstein’s general relativity is slightly wrong,” said cosmologist Shaun Thomas of University College London. “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on.”

When viewed close up, the matter in the universe bunches up into stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters. But as you zoom out, cosmologists expect the universe to look more and more smooth, sort of the way details in an earthly landscape blend together when viewed from an airplane. …

Thomas and colleagues looked at the most zoomed-out view of the universe yet acquired, and found more lumpiness than models predict …

“These are scales which are starting to approach a reasonable fraction of the size of the universe, and they haven’t really been measured before,” said ” physicist Michael Hudson of the University of Waterloo in Canada, who was not involved in the work. …

“General relativity has proved right time and time again, but it’s been tested over the same scales,” Thomas said. “These are new scales, so it could be that something breaks down. And then you need some new theory.”

How can we claim to know the age of the universe to within 1% when we are always just one experiment or observation away from needing to overhaul the most basic theories of physics? The models are in a constant state of flux, and always on the verge of being capsized entirely. We must ultimately come to the realization that science is a mutable thing, if history has taught us anything, and it is irrational to believe that our generation of scientists finally have it all figured out.

3) Atheists Do Not Own Reason

If you have come this far down the rabbit hole with me, then you will quickly understand the third and final principle of the Dark Canopy apologetic. Atheism is based on a purely naturalistic view of the universe. Science is their religion and the very “facts” that we have called into question above are their creed. If those facts themselves are suspect due to nothing other than the enormity of the question they seek to answer, then we need to get out of our thinking the idea that atheists are the “reasonable” enlightened people and any Bible-toting Creationists are lost in the darkness of ignorance. Atheists do not own reason. For every “unanswerable dilemma” they propose to Christians, they themselves face a dozen like it. They assert the problem of evil, “How can evil exist in a world sustained by a perfectly good God?” We assert the problem of good, “How can virtue and beauty exist in a universe without God?”  As world famous astrophysicist S. Chandrasekhar discussed,

We have evidence, then, that a theory developed by a scientist, with an exceptionally well-developed aesthetic sensibility, can turn out to be true even if, at the time of its formulation, it appeared not to be so. As Keats wrote a long time ago, “what the imagination seizes as beauty must be truth – whether it existed before or not.”

It is indeed an incredible fact that what the human mind, at its deepest and most profound, perceives as beautiful finds its realization in external nature.

What is intelligible is also beautiful.

We may well ask: how does it happen that beauty in the exact sciences becomes recognizable even before it is understood in detail and before it can be rationally demonstrated? In what does this power of illumination consist?

He goes on to quote Kepler,

Now, it might be asked how this faculty of the soul, which does not engage in conceptual thinking and can therefore have no prior knowledge of harmonic relations, should be capable of recognizing what is given in the outward world. … To this, I answer that all pure Ideas, or archetypal patterns of harmony, such as we are speaking of, are inherently present in those who are capable of apprehending them. But they are not first received into the mind by a conceptual process, being the product rather, of a sort of instinctive intuition and innate to those individuals.

Chandrasekhar was not asserting a Christian apologetic. He is simply wrestling with a stubborn truth. Those formulations and explanations of the universe that are both beautiful and elegant turn out to be true. It is not merely a by-product of our perception of the universe, but a functional reality. The universe is a beautiful, rational place. I suggest to you that atheists have a terrible time explaining that persistent truth. Until they do, let us not concede the point that atheists “own reason” or that any other worldview but theirs is inherently flawed.

The universe is too big and scientific perception too limited to concede this battle to atheists. At Dark Canopy, we will continue to demonstrate these truths in the hope that they will ultimately lead you to He who alone is able to explain the persistent good and beauty of this incredible universe He created for us.

The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies. The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me. In my distress I called upon the LORD; to my God I cried for help. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry to him reached his ears. Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked, because he was angry. … He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew; he came swiftly on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him, thick clouds dark with water. Out of the brightness before him hailstones and coals of fire broke through his clouds. The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Most High uttered his voice … Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at your rebuke, O LORD … He sent from on high, he took me; he drew me out of many waters. He rescued me from my strong enemy and from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me. They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the LORD was my support. He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me. (from Psalm 18, ESV)

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!