Thinking-Christianly

When an individual or culture ignores the historic data of the New Testament, it moves toward a distorted picture of Christ. In the absence of facts, we tend to build our image around imagination and speculation. We reconstruct a portrait build around a Western, Freudian model rather than on the facts as revealed in the contemporary sources from authors like Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John.

The modern palate from which we create our picture of Jesus often produces an image of a man who was a humble itinerant preacher, adverse to publicity and attention. He is sometimes depicted as a man who made no pretension to divinity or status. It is argued that his followers and those who came after them inserted such wild claims into the documents in order to add weight to the emerging faith called Christianity.

Beyond the fact that the manuscript evidence gives us no room for such fanciful speculation, there are occasions in the text where this portrayal of Jesus is as unlikely a fit as trying to squeeze a cow through an opening in a back door designed for a dog.

For example, in Matthew 12 Jesus responds to a charge by the Pharisees that his disciples had desecrated the Sabbath. They noticed that when Jesus and his disciples traveled on a particular Sabbath, some of them picked heads of grain and ate them. In the mind of the legalists, this action was equivalent to harvesting and threshing, which was a violation of the laws of Moses. In response, Jesus points out two occasions where individuals ate or worked on the Sabbath without condemnation. The first precedent he notes was King David’s eating of the consecrated bread when fleeing from the murderous intentions of Saul. (See Matthew 12:3-4.) Both David and his men were given this bread to eat out of necessity. Jesus then points to the priests themselves, who labor on the Sabbath without condemnation. Having looked at one of the most respected kings in Israel’s history, and the elevated role of Levitical temple priests, Jesus states, “One greater than the temple is here.” He adds, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (See Matthew 12:6 and 12:8.)

Jesus claims to be superior to the holiest place on earth and the holiest day of the week. He is not subject to the restrictions—real or artificial—that the Pharisees would put on his behavior. Because of his nature, he can override such things with impunity because they are not as important as he is.

Though Jesus demonstrated amazing humility in his incarnation, he was not the modest teacher who eschewed extravagant claims that some portray him to be. We live in a relational age that stresses his humanity and his immanence. Jesus breaks through that one-dimensional image and repeatedly speaks of his transcendence. All law, all moral categories, all rights and privileges flow from him. Because they derive from him they do not define him. He defines them. Any gospel declaration that sacrifices the supremacy of Christ impoverishes the church, because it replaces a Lord who has the authority to direct creation and mankind with an administrator who is restricted in the same way we are.

When you read a modern biography, there are certain components you expect to find. Modern biographers give a cradle to grave account of their subject. They may even go back a generation or two to describe the family roots of the person they write about. A biography would seem deficient if it left out certain segments of the life of an individual. Modern biographies are often psychological. They attempt to probe the mind of their subject. The writer attempts to tell us what motivated their subject, what formative events happened in his or her life, and what circumstances helped shape them to become a notable person. There is a lot in the modern biography about the personal journey of the person in question that offers insight into what makes them tick. Modern biographies contain visual descriptions of their subject. We often get a three dimensional description, plus pictures if possible, of the person described in the pages of the book.

If we use these standards to read the gospel accounts of Jesus, we will be gravely disappointed. Outside of a bit about Jesus’ birth and an incident in the temple as a young teen, we know nothing about him until the beginning of his public ministry. We know nothing about his appearance. His father disappears from the narrative completely. We have only hints about his relationship with his siblings. There is little said about his preferences, tastes, political leanings, or casual social interaction with others. Anecdotal stories are absent. What is left are snapshots of Jesus’ interaction with his disciples, crowds, and his opponents, along with records of some of his verbal teaching.

But applying modern standards to first century Greco-Roman biography is anachronistic. It imposes modern expectations that were not in force in the first century. Greco-Roman biography had some of the following characteristics:

• It commonly skipped over major parts of the character’s life.
• It limited the discussion to key events and speeches.
• It used deeds and words chosen to make a moral statement for the reader.
• It focused on certain virtues which the subject of the biography exemplified.
• It could arrange the material either thematically or chronologically, or using a blend of both.
• It measured the quality of someone’s life by how it ended and how they died.

For more details, I recommend Mark D. Robert’s book Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007). These characteristics mark the product of the gospel writers as they blended Jesus teaching and his interaction with others into accounts that focus on the theme of the kingdom of God. They remind us that we must be careful not to impose a 21^st Century grid when looking at the texts of scripture.

The advent of Jesus Christ brought radical changes to the beliefs of his followers. Jesus declared all foods clean. (See Mark 7:19.) He called himself the “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:8) He declared that he was the revelation of the Father to man. (John 14:9) He instructed his followers to think beyond the narrow legalism that characterized the Pharisees of his day. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly corrected the misinterpretations of the religious leaders. He contrasted “You have heard it said…” with “I say to you.” Jesus’ words challenged the manipulative rituals that focused on external methods but neglected the nurture of a living relationship with God.

In our rush to celebrate the freedom we have in Christ from the bondage of legalism, we sometimes pit the teachings of the New Testament against those of the Old Testament. Jesus never does that. He rejects the false dichotomy that puts his teaching against that of the Old Testament.

In Matthew 23 Jesus condemns the artificial practices of the teachers of the law, the scribes, and the Pharisees. One of his criticisms targets what these religious experts give to God. Jesus says, “You give a tenth of your spices…but you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Some interpreters maintain that Jesus is discounting tithing (10% giving) in favor of showing compassion and kindness. We don’t need to be legalistic and consider what we give to God, the argument goes. Instead we should focus on being more loving.

This reasoning creates a false dichotomy by ignoring the next statement Jesus makes. He adds, “You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” For Christ, the issue of giving to God is a both/and proposition. It is not an either/or. Being generous toward God does not stop with giving him 10% of massive crops. It can include giving him 10% of a spice garden, since he is Lord over small things as well as big things. But it doesn’t stop there. Giving the Father what he deserves also means that we mimic his moral character, demonstrating justice, love, and mercy. In context, Jesus does not choose between the two. He calls us to both.

There is a harmony between the directives of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Christ fulfilled some of the prophecies and was the culmination of some of the promises. (See Matthew 5:170 He is the new Adam, the ultimate sacrifice, the great mediator. But portraying his teaching as antagonistic to the directives God gave in the Old Testament era misunderstands his relationship to the law and the prophets.

In the last century there was significant speculation that the religion we call Christianity was basically a deviation of a movement started by the Essenes. That community spoke of a “Teacher of Righteousness” and looked forward to a messianic hope. They recoiled against the hypocrisy of the day and created an isolated community with their own customs and an extensive library. The Dead Sea Scrolls were apparently part of the religious records of this community.

On the surface, the parallels between the Essenes and the early Christian community could indicate a strong link between the two. But the content of the documents found at Qumran reveal the contrasts between the two groups. The Essenes called on their followers to hate their enemies. Jesus commanded his disciples to love them. The Essenes were legalistic about the observance of the Sabbath. Jesus was repeatedly criticized for breaking the Sabbath. Jesus attacked the reliance on purification laws and rituals. The Essenes strongly embraced them. The Essenes had no room in their thinking for women, outsiders, and others who were branded as ‘sinners.’ Jesus welcomed those who were regarded as outcasts and unclean—from lepers to women to tax collectors. The Essenes anticipated the advent of two messiahs. Christianity regards Jesus as the sole messiah.

The idea of Christianity as a faith built on extensive borrowing from other traditions of the time erodes its message because it paints Christianity as a conglomeration of ideas that were pieced together to form a mongrel religion. As attractive as that concept might be for people eager to discredit the claims of the New Testament, the evidence we have in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archaeology related to the Essenes points in a different direction. The marked differences between other groups and the Christian teaching point to a uniqueness that cannot be dismissed.

We tend to think of Christ as unique in the sense that many of the things he did were never done before. That is certainly true of his resurrection from the dead and acquisition of a glorified body. But many of his pronoucements and even his miracles are prefigured in the Old Testament. Christ deliberately fulfulled in a supreme way much of what transpired centuries earlier.

For example, we think of the feeding of the 5,000 men, where Jesus reproduced fish and bread for those who were too busy feeding on his spiritual teaching to eat. When you look at 2 Kings 4:42-44, you find an amazing parallel. The account starts out with a man bringing 20 loaves of bread into an assembly of about 100 men. It isn’t nearly enough to go around. (These loves were relatively small compared to some available at the supermarket today, perhaps a bit larger than a biscuit.) Elisha commands those present to distribute the bread. He promises that there will be some left over. That’s exactly what happend.

Critics will accuse the gospel writers of adding this story about Elisha into their account of the  life of Jesus. They will claim it never occurred in the ministry of Christ, but that it simply was a device used by the early church to elevate Jesus’ status.

The problem with this claim is that there were too many witness around to test the veracity of the gospel records. Jesus’ miracle was not done in a closed room. On both occasions multiple thousands of men were present–not counting any women and children. To make a claim that could so easily be falsified would be extremelty foolish.

The link is not one of borrowing, but part of what is called progressive revelation. The work of God in the prophets Elijah and Elisha prefigured the ministry of the Messiah. As Jesus followed the direction of the Father, he demonstrated to the world that he was the anointed one, the prophet, priest, and king who offered reconciliation to a fallen race as the God-man.

The other day someone who visits this blog asked me if demons have their own language. The Bible is silent on the issue, but may give us some hints.

In Acts chapter 16 Paul is in Philippi. He and Silas are shadowed by a slave girl “who had a spirit by which she predicted the future.” She harassed Paul and Silas proclaiming, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” (See verse 17.) We presume the spirit was evil because Paul cast it out in verse 18. If the spirit was speaking directly through the slave girl, it spoke in the native language. This does not mean that there cannot be a demonic language. It simply means there does not have to be one because the evil spirit could communicate in a way that those around Paul and Silas would understand.

In Mark 1:34 Jesus prohibits the demons from speaking “because they knew who he was.” The assumption behind Christ’s action is that they would have revealed his identity prematurely to those around him. This reinforces that they can communicate in the languages of men. We see this in Mark 3:11, where they cry out, “You are the Son of God,” and he silences them.

Another text to consider is Paul’s statement about the priority of love in 1 Corinthians 13:1. He writes, “If I speak in the tongues/languages of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol.” Some conclude from that verse that there are angel languages and then embrace the corollary that there are demonic languages. Even if the assumption is granted that there may be angelic languages, that premise does not prove anything about demon communication. Paul’s point here is not to teach about angelic language. He’s arguing for the primacy of love. The first part of this statement is hypothetical. We have to be careful about proving too much by the hypothetical assertion about the breadth of his speaking ability because it’s part of the phrase, “If I speak…” Elsewhere, for example, Paul argues, “If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then your faith is in vain.” We clearly understand the first part of the statement is not true; but the logic of the statement still makes a point. So it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from a hypothetical.

My conclusion is that since there is no clear evidence that there is a special language spoken by or between demons, it would be wrong to affirm that such a language exists. It might, but God has chosen not to tell us about it if it does because it is not germane to our role in his kingdom plan for followers of Christ.

The book of Enoch was not considered to be part of the canon by the Jews in Old Testament times, or by the New Testament writers. Some would argue that the book must be biblical since it is quoted in the New Testament. But this is a logical fallacy. When a biblical writer quotes a non-biblical source, that quotation does automatically elevate the source to the level of divine scripture. 

For example, in Acts 17:28, Paul takes the quote, “For in him we live and move and have our being,” from Aratus’s Phaenomena 5. He quotes this to make a point to his Athenian audience. Another example is Titus 1:12, where Paul quotes a line from Epimenides (6th-5th century B.C.) who was held in honor on Create as a poet, prophet, and religious reformer. The Old Testament also refers to documents that are not part of scripture but were useful for the compiler of books like Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel. 

Jude 14 refers to a quotation made by antidiluvian (before the flood) patriarch Enoch. We do not have the Book of Enoch in any extant (existing) translation around the first century when Jude was written. Most copies of the Book of Enoch are from the medieval period. Many commentators believe that the quote in Jude comes from oral tradition that was accessible in the first century. 

Another logical fallacy critics sometimes fall into when describing this book and others is that it was “left out” of the canon. This is a common argument for those who would put the 2nd and 3rd Century Gnostic gospels in the canon. But the Gnostic writings came much later than the other documents in the New Testament canon and these Gnostic works were rejected from the beginning by contemporaries like Origen. That statement that a book was “left out” also assumes it was in there in the first place. That is circular reasoning. It assumes what needs to be proven. (It’s like wondering why the BMW on the street was left out of my garage. It was never mine in the first place, but belonged to my neighbor.) 

See Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels and Norman Geisler From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible.    

Grace is a wonderful gift from God. It offers us hope that we can be reconciled with God despite our inability to match the moral perfection that is part of God’s character. Grace empowers God to extend to us favor despite what we deserve. It’s a dimension of the character of the God of the Bible that distinguishes him from man-made deities.

Grace itself is not problematic, but our use of the concept often is. I’ve often interacted with Christians who are living in disobedience or indifference to God’s commands, who believe that God will bless them regardless because of his grace. (I’ve defended my own stubbornness on the same grounds at times.) When we justify our own defiance this way, we pretend that grace handcuffs God in a way that he is obligated to bless us no matter what. This kind of faulty reasoning creates the illusion that we can give lip service to God as we refuse to submit to his lordship over our lives.

Titus 2:11-14 offers a link between the wonderful grace of God and how the reality of that grace is to shape our behavior. As Paul writes to Titus, he pictures grace as a teacher. He reminds us that there are several lessons that grace wants to teach us about how we live under God’s rule and mercy. Note what the text tells us:

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.  It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope– the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,  who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” (NIV)

Scripture links the correct understanding of grace with moral choices. It requires that we say “No” to some things. It calls us to develop self-control through the power of the spirit. It summons us to live godly lives. It invites us to cultivate an eagerness to do good.

Grace, correctly understood, can never be an excuse for indifference or do-as-you-please living. It’s a gift that directs us to something more substantial, more holy, and more worthy of the one whose death offers us undeserved reconciliation with a perfect God.

It’s common to view fear as something undesirable. Each of us have experienced those moments of dread, and uncertainty when something valuable was at risk. The threat might relate to physical safety, financial loss, rejection, verbal assault, embarrassment, or loss of control.

We combat fear in many ways. We can read books and consult specialists to overcome irrational fears and phobias that are products of our imagination. We manage risk (investing in resources like life insurance, trip planning, or skill building) in order to reduce the uncertainties that can lead to fear. We reprogram our minds—through yoga, motivational materials, or religion—to become more fearless in a sometimes frightening world.

When it comes to Christianity, it’s fashionable to view the fear of God as an archaic Old Testament doctrine. It’s a relic that has no place for the New Testament Christian who understands the love of Christ and the promise of life in him. We quote 1 John 4:18 that assures us, “Perfect love casts out fear.” Or we translate the word “fear” into “deep respect.” We avoid the notion that there is something frightening about God, something that rightfully can make us anxious. He becomes powerful, but tame.

This selective approach ignores the full revelation of the Bible. In 1 Peter 2:17 the Spirit through the apostle tells us “Fear God.” It’s an imperative, not a suggestion. Peter understood the mercy of God, being forgiven for his disavowal of Christ at his arrest. But that did not eradicate the need to fear him.

The eternal gospel preached in Revelation 4:17 includes the command, “Fear God.”

The fear of God is not something that our Father uses to terrify us. It’s actually a tool for godly living. After the revelation of God’s character and demands in the Decalogue (ten commandments) in Exodus 20, the Bible adds, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” (Exodus 20:20) The first use of the word “fear” in this text is a verb, the second a noun. The verse describes something we are not to fear and something we are to fear. They are not to fear the natural phenomenon that accompany the revelation (thunder and lightning). They underscore the message but are not precursors to judgment. They are to fear the God who is speaking. But note the byproduct of the fear of God—“to keep you from sinning.”

Sometimes I will not be persuaded to sin because it’s illogical. I know with my mind that sin is wrong and I do it anyway. Sometimes I’m not deterred because sin has consequences. My stubborn nature can decide to accept the consequences or pretend I’m exempt. And I can choose to sin anyway. Exodus 20:20 offers perhaps a better deterrent. It points to my relationship with a God of absolute perfection who hates sin. He fights against it. He will judge it and in some future time exterminate all traces of it. He loves me but he detests any trace of evil. So out of respect for him, and fear too, I have more incentive to battle temptation and win.

We should not be too quick to dismiss this expectation of a holy God.

One of the challenges for those who claim that all religious truth is essentially the same is the use of exclusive language in the major world religions. World religions have the nasty habit of embracing ideas that cannot be true and false at the same time.

For example, Hinduism asserts the existence of many gods. Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, claim that there is but one being who can rightly be called God. The materialist contends that because nothing exists outside the natural order all claims about supernatural beings or activities are fraudulent.  Pantheists believe that God is part of the created order. Orthodox Christianity contends that God is distinct from the universe he created.

The claim that Jesus’ teaching can be reflected in major world religions and contemporary philosophies sounds generous. It feeds the movement toward universalism and the flattening of doctrine to the lowest common denominator. The problem with this approach is that Jesus made too many statements that are exclusive in nature.

Consider John 8:24, for example. Jesus says, “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” Here Jesus charges his audience (comprised mostly of Pharisees) of being sinners who are morally guilty before God. That condition earns them both physical and spiritual death. They will die unreconciled to God unless they accept Jesus’ claims. Jesus insists that their moral status before God is conditioned on their willingness to acknowledge his claim.

This kind of assertion is one of many times where Jesus places himself in a unique category. His radical language does not permit us to place in with a group of vague moralists who can own any faith system as their own. His words simply will not permit it.