WHY DID THEY KILL HIM?

 The death of Jesus was no accident. The New Testament cites a number of instances when attempts were made to assassinate Him. On each of those occasions Jesus eluded the plots of His enemies. How then was He killed in Jerusalem? Was He caught off-guard?

Off-guard? No, not Jesus. He spoke and lived with a plan. At times He used the words, “mine hour has not yet come” (John 2:3-4). The statement implied that He was living with a plan. The statement also implied that He was looking forward to a specific event. On more than one occasion the authorities seized Jesus, with intent to harm Him, and they could not. John contends, “because his time had not yet come” (John 7:30 and 8:20).

The sense of anticipation changed when Jesus prayed, “Father, the time/hour has come” (John 17:1) – meaning that the high-point of His ministry was about to take place. During an earlier confrontation, not even King Herod could kill Jesus as an infant – it was not His time to die as yet. With clarity, Jesus anticipated the timing and purpose of His death.

Unfortunately, the disciples did not get the message. Had they got the message, Peter would not have used his sword in an attempt to defend Jesus. “Put your sword away,” Jesus replied. “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than 72,000 angels?” In essence, Jesus was saying, “my time has come to die” (Matthew 26:50-54).

If Jesus had the resources to defend himself and he did not, one must then ask the question, why didn’t He? He could also have cooperated with the Roman trial judge and request a mistrial. He could have complained of the bogus Jewish trial that alleged his guilt. Instead, “for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame…” (Hebrews 12:2).

Jesus was fully aware of his mission – to save sinners. That assignment came with a price tag – the death of the Savior. Speaking prophetically, Isaiah said some 700 years earlier – “but he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

Agreed, historians will contend that that is a theological conclusion. But without such a conclusion, we would not be able to explain why Jesus refused to challenge the corrupt legal process and succumb to his death. In essence, his death was a historical fact, but the cause of his death was theological. The apostle Paul got it correct when he said, “… Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Some argue that Jesus died for a noble cause. It is believed that he died to model sacrificial leadership. However, like Paul, I contend that Jesus died voluntarily, because he was paying a price for sin. Since his death on the cross, millions have accepted the death of Jesus as a personal sacrifice. Such an acknowledgement is more than reciting a religious creed. It is a statement of commitment and the beginning of a new relationship with Jesus.

This week marks fifty-nine years since I acknowledged the death of Jesus as his sacrifice for me. That simple affirmation of faith in San Juan, Trinidad has literally changed my worldview. With delight I affirm Jesus as my Lord. My trust in him gives me hope, greater than any other worldview or religious leader. Because of that confidence, I have chosen Paul’s words as my life verse – “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).

Rejoice with me if you too have appropriated the death of Jesus to your life.

 

DID JESUS REALLY DIE?

 After almost 2,000 years of observing Easter, some in our communities still question the death of Jesus as described in the New Testament. If the no-death argument is plausible, then the historical credibility of the New Testament is in question. Simply put, is there evidence that Jesus died when and how the New Testament said He did?

 

Second century Gnostic, Basilides would say no. Basilides taught that at the crucifixion Jesus changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carried the cross. The Jews mistaking Simon for Jesus nailed him to the cross. Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven. In the third century, Mani of Persia taught that the son of the widow of Nain whom Jesus raised from the dead was put to death in His place.

 

Many Muslim scholars cite the Gospel of Barnabas to support the Qur’anic teaching that Jesus did not die as told in the New Testament. Ironically, those who cite this sixteenth-century source, think they are quoting from the Letter of Barnabas, written in the first half of the second century. Whereas the Letter of Barnabas affirmed the death of Jesus and was considered to be among the most important post-New Testament writings, the same cannot be said of the Gospel of Barnabas.

 

Instead, this book contends that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus (Section 217). This view has been adopted by many Muslims, since so many of them believe that someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus. According to one scholar, “scholarly research has proved absolutely that this ‘gospel’ is a fake.”

 

Another view, the swoon theory, contends that Jesus got to the cross, but did not die. He fainted or swooned. For this reason Jesus was not resurrected, he was resuscitated. He regained consciousness having rested in the coolness of the tomb.

 

But how could this be? Apart from the clear and frequent references to the death of Jesus in the New Testament, extra-biblical Jewish and Roman testimonies affirm that Jesus died. For instance, Tacitus’ Annals speak of “Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”

 

In the second century Justin Martyr referred to the “Acts of Pontius Pilate” under whom “nails were fixed in Jesus’ hands and feet on the cross...” Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote that “there was a wise man who was called Jesus...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.”

 

We can discuss the circumstances surrounding the death of Jesus as much as we want. However, to deny that He died is ludicrous – it is historically untenable. The death of Jesus is both historic and historical – the specific details of time and space can all be verified. The biblical and extra-biblical evidence corroborating the death of Jesus is overwhelming.

 

In addition, Jesus announced many times during His ministry that He was going to die. One such reference reads: “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised” (Matthew 17:22-23).

 

A number of renowned medical experts have carefully examined available data and have confirmed in writing that Jesus died. One such article appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986 – Volume 255, Number 11). This JAMA report originated from the Department of Pathology at Mayo Clinic (Minnesota). The researchers concluded that “the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to His side was inflicted...thrust between His right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured His death.”

 

If Jesus did not die as assumed by some sources, then the story of the resurrection is a hoax in that resurrection presupposes death. In addition, the entire New Testament is unreliable, in that every writer alluded to His death. Even the prophecies of some Old Testament prophets would be false, in that they spoke specifically about the tragic death of the Messiah.

 

Because Christian theology is based on historical foundations, concepts of sacrifice and redemption have been rooted in the death of Christ. To dismiss or even to trivialize the crucifixion of Jesus would be to undermine the core of Christian beliefs.

 

Having established the certainty of His death, we can proceed to the theological significance of His death. That we hope to provide in an upcoming commentary.

 

 

A MOTHER'S CHOICE

 

She did not want to have children. From her assessment of evil in the world, she did not want to expose her own children to such devastation. It was the casual meeting of a friend and my own theological challenge that caused her to change her thinking.

That change of thinking captured our attention for the first three years of our marriage. It was during a routine doctor’s visit in Trinidad, my wife was diagnosed with a tumour. Surgery was scheduled, following which her gynaecologist uttered, “now go and have your babies”.

The doctor was correct. The first arrived fifteen months later, with her brother and sister joining her within the next four years. Because of the closeness of surgery in Trinidad and the succeeding pregnancies, surgery was necessary with each delivery. In summary, this mother continues to carry the physical scars of motherhood.

With time, my wife also carried economic and emotional scars. I vividly recall the invitation that was extended for her to return to commercial banking. Together we carefully weighed the pros and cons, and she chose to become a stay-at-home mom for the next twenty-two years. During that period she pursued graduate studies in Counseling. She also pursued professional certification to be able to hone her skills in Catering.  

She utilized these skills at the fourteen different places we have called home in our 49 years of marriage. She is an excellent home manager. I chuckle whenever I recall an experience when we lived in the mid-west of the United States. High school friends of our son would often call home. She was often the first to answer the phone. “Hello, good afternoon” were often her opening words. The response was often, “Is Warren at home?” “… good afternoon,” was her response. After two or three exchanges in her most formal English, the conversation ended.

Following one such exchange, our son was confronted at school about his mother’s impoliteness. Warren advised that in future they should first respond to her greeting. One friend did, and was surprised with the delightful conversation that ensued. Since that time, my wife became known as the most pleasant mother in town.

That was the pleasant mother who was shouting in support of our daughter as she swam for her high school. Most likely, the cheering fans ignored her because of her complexion. Well, this mother stopped reading her class notes and extended her lungs in support of her daughter as she took her high school to State championships.

When invited to contribute to this blog, the swimming champion replied: “If there is a word to describe Mom, it would be encourager. Thinking about each stage of my life as her daughter, she has been many things, but encourager has always been a constant. I will always cherish her words, written and spoken. They have built me up and made me who I am today.”

Her sister would say the same. Now as an entertainer, she credits her mother for planting the performing seeds. She recalls the times she spent watching The Sound of Music as a child. She viewed that VCR recording until she memorized the songs. Today she is in the Performing Arts as a musician and actress.

I thought I had seen the best of my wife as a mother. Little did I know that the best was yet to come – the grandchildren arrived. She rearranges schedules to display her skills in catering, dressmaking, theatre and counselling. So often the grandchildren have to be reminded that the man next to Grandma is G-Pops. Sometimes I feel like Grandma’s driver.

I thank God that my late mother-in-law made the right choice. After being sexually violated, she chose to carry the person I am honouring on this Mother’s Day 2022. How interesting, my wife began by not wanting children and today she is the proud mother of three adults, their spouses and grandmother to their seven rumbunctious children. It would take another blog for me to comment on the many persons my wife has mothered along the way.

Today I can identify with the writer of Proverbs 31 when he said: “Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all…honour her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.”

JESUS: HISTORY OR MYTHOLOGY?

 

JESUS: HISTORY OR MYTHOLOGY?

Historians study and write about the past. They are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events. The life of Jesus Christ is a past event and is of great interest to some historians.

One such historian is Canadian Earl Doherty. Doherty argues that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. Doherty’s published works strongly promote the “Jesus myth theory.” The theory contends that “the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology”.

Agnostic Professor Bart Ehrman, confronts Earl Doherty in his volume, Did Jesus Exist? Here Dr Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus. Using the most historically reliable sources for best understanding the mission and message of Jesus, Ehrman offers a compelling portrait of the person at the centre of the Christian tradition.

Agreed, non-Christian sources for the historical events of the Gospels are both few and polluted. Here are a few reasons that may explain this scarcity of historical information:

- Roman Palestine had a literacy rate of about 3% and we have almost no secular documents of any kind from Jesus’ lifetime;

- Most of the events of Jesus took place in rural Galilee;

- The Jesus movement was viewed as an insignificant sect of Judaism, a controversial religion;

- On at least three occasions, Jesus instructed His disciples not to tell others who He was and what He did – that does not augur well for historical research; and

- Neither does Mary’s decision to “treasure up all these things and ponder them in her heart.”

These considerations will most likely account for the rarity and the asperity with which Christian events were mentioned by non-Christian authors.

But does minimal mention of Jesus by non-Christian historians disprove His existence? The following first century non-Christian sources provide us with enough information to verify that Jesus was no mythical figure. Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) acknowledged that Jesus was the founder of the Christian religion and had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate, under the reign of Tiberius.

Seutonius (A.D. 75-160), another Roman historian, also showed his acquaintance with the historical Jesus and the movement which continued after His death. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, born shortly after the death of Jesus, also wrote convincingly of Jesus Christ. 

Contemporary historians have tried and tested techniques for assessing evidence. Using these techniques, the overwhelming consensus is that there is ample evidence for the existence of Jesus from both Biblical and extra-Biblical sources.

Thankfully, whereas extra-biblical sources on the life of Jesus Christ seem sparce, the same cannot be said of biblical sources, more specifically, the New Testament. Within the field of ancient literature, the New Testament is by far the most credible.

In a recent newspaper article, my friend and scholar Dr Clinton Chisholm mentioned that “when one is considering the reliability of any ancient document, there are two basic issues to be considered – textual integrity and historical fidelity.”

Chisholm further contends, “that every event or person in ancient history attracts credibility if and only if, the ancient document providing the data purporting to be factual, possesses textual integrity.” Even a cursory examination of the New Testament will prove that the 25,000 manuscripts are far more credible than many other ancient documents.

Chisholm cited historical fidelity as equally critical in determining the reliability of ancient writings. Historical fidelity explores the closeness of the written document and the actual event to which it refers. Interestingly, the time lapse from event to writing in the New Testament is the shortest of all ancient documents except for three writers – Pliny the Younger, Herodotus and Thucydides.

So, when I read my New Testament about the life of Jesus Christ, I know that I am reading from a credible source. I am reading real history and not mythology. Rob Robinson was correct, “there is no myth in the history of the world which has radically changed the lives of billions of people”. The truth is, the message of Jesus Christ is proven both by empirical evidence in the historical record, and by the impact it has had on the lives of people, for more than 2,000 years. This is why I contend that the life of Jesus Christ is history, and not mythology.