Christmas Relic Returned

Fourteen hundred years after it was sent to Rome, a relic from the manger of baby Jesus was returned to Bethlehem last week. Sheathed in an ornate case, cheerful crowds greeted the thumb-sized wooden relic with much fanfare before it entered the Franciscan Church of St Catherine, next to the Church of the Nativity.

The custodian of the Franciscan order in the Holy Land, said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had asked Pope Francis to borrow the entire manger, but the pope decided to send a tiny portion of it to stay permanently in Bethlehem.

One journalist believes that the return of the relic by the Vatican was a spirit-lifting moment for the Palestinians. Actually, young Palestinian scouts played bagpipes and the crowd snapped pictures as a clergyman held the silver reliquary (container for relics) and marched toward the church.

Personally, I would not be so naive to believe that the interest of President Abbas and the Palestinians in the alleged wooden relic from the manger of Bethlehem is a display of any personal interest in Jesus Christ. This is nothing but a business opportunity. Christmas is big business in Palestine.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims from around the world are expected to visit Bethlehem this Christmas. What is hoped, is that the large number of pilgrims that visited Rome to see the relic on display in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, would now visit Bethlehem.

Last year, more than 10,000 tourists visited Bethlehem around the Christmas season. Hotels were fully booked, and business thrived, the best many had seen in years. With the return of the relic from Rome, it is believed that business will be much brighter this Christmas.

The City of Bethlehem was once dominated by Christians. Today however, there are fewer than 10% of Christians in the Muslim dominated city of approximately 225,000 residents. Violence and economic hardships have contributed to this major demographic shift.

With that backdrop, one can now understand the sentiments of Amira Hanania, a member of Palestine’s Higher Committee of Churches Affairs:

"To celebrate Christmas with the presence of part of the manger in which Jesus Christ was born will be a magnificent and huge event." 

If an alleged relic of the manger could make such a difference to one nation, try to imagine what a difference the person of Jesus Christ could make. Actually, the relic is deemed important, only because of the importance of Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, the relic would have no value.

The process of finding relics or artifacts in the Middle East has piqued much interest in the last century. Much of this curiosity is because of Jesus Christ. Archaeologists continue to study where he was born, where he grew-up and every place where he allegedly preached.

In 1986, after a drought depleted water levels in the Sea of Galilee, two brothers walking along the shore found a submerged first-century fishing vessel. The wooden boat made headlines around the world as an example of the type Jesus and his disciples would have used to cross the lake. The Jesus Boat is on display at a Kibbutz on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and is viewed by tens of thousands of pilgrims each year. Like with the manger relic, people want to identify with Jesus.

Agreed, Jesus encouraged people to identify with Him, but did he encourage the use of relics to accomplish this? Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize believers. In addition, he encouraged the practice of communion. Both ordinances relate directly to Jesus.

However, some historians contend, because of the rapid spread of Christianity among semi-literate people groups, relics and icons were used to aid communication. Relics were the basic and often complex artistic forms and gestures used as a kind of key to convey religious concepts and the visual, auditory, and kinetic representations of religious ideas and events.

As in so many cases though, we run the risk of studying and adoring the relics and ignoring the Person who the relics represent. There are branches of Christianity that defend the adoration of relics. Such Christians believe relics aid worship. Other Christians believe relics undermine the exercise of faith. These Christians believe relics are among the images forbidden in the Ten Commandments.

Miraculous Babies?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that its founder was born miraculously. Actually, similar claims were made long before Jesus was born.
For instance, a Buddhist legend claims that Buddha’s mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that the Buddha was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
Honestly though, in light of this backdrop, is it possible that the story of the birth of Jesus could be mythical or even legendary? Here are four responses to this question:

1) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT MYTHOLOGICAL

Myths are cultural and religious tales of a specific community. These tales or stories reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance Greek myths included fantastic creatures such as Centaurs – half-human, half-horse creatures. Greek mythology and later Roman mythology also entertained ideas of Cyclopes, giant one-eyed creatures. Then there were the sphinxes carrying the head of a woman, the haunches of a lion, and the wings of a bird.
In the first place, the birth of Jesus does not include fictional characters. Specific persons were named, specific locations were identified, and specific roles were performed. Those are literary features, not associated with mythological or apocalyptic literature. 
As mentioned earlier, mythology reflects the beliefs of a community. Interestingly, Jews communities in the Bible never practiced observing birthdays. Hence, a mythological belief of the birth of Jesus would not have been possible. Before an angelic appearance, the father of Jesus was appalled by the idea that Mary could be impregnated by a deity. Such beliefs were not a part of their culture.

2) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT LEGENDARY
A legend is a story from within a community that evolved over a long period of time. Legends require decades and sometimes centuries to be accepted as stories or tales of a community. Like with myths, these beliefs are not rooted in facts. The primary criterion is that they reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance, there are communities that believe that spirits live in trees. Trees display life, in that they grow, send seasonal messages, provide fruits for sustenance. In other words, trees are alive and benevolent. Therefore, spirits live in trees. Such views evolve from within communities and are considered believable with time – that is consistent with the birthing of a legend.

So unlike the birth of Jesus. The story began to emerge from eyewitnesses. In his letter to Theophilus, Luke was careful to mention that he interviewed eyewitnesses and “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-4). Luke was contending that his report was verifiable. That presentation of evidence is never characteristic of mythology or legend.

3. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT
History is descriptive of a past event that could be verified. It is based on information of events that actually happened. Hence, history is interested in artifacts, records and circumstantial evidence that can be verified.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke relied on ancestral support or genealogies. This historical catalog confirms family identity and connects events to reality.
Furthermore, in reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke talked about the political leadership at the time and decrees that were ordered. These details placed the birth within an historical setting and not within the vagueness of mythology or legend.Also, unlike any other claim of miraculous birth, the birth of Jesus was predicted.

4. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS A PREDICTED EVENT
Other claims of miraculous births always followed the birth. The birth of Jesus was predicted and recorded before his birth. King Herod depended on these records when he wanted to know where Jesus would be born.
Matthew quoted the prophet Isaiah as referring to Jesus, more than 700 years before His birth. He had no doubt that the birth of Jesus signaled the arrival of the promised Messiah.
Unlike any other claim, the miraculous birth of Jesus was consistent with the miraculous life of Jesus. Unlike any other claimant, the greatness of Jesus preceded His birth. His birth was unique. It was not an accident; His arrival was planned. The same can be said of His pending return.

Tampering with Dead Bodies

To tamper with a dead body is a crime. In Florida for example, the law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years.

From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead.
In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
                          
Therefore, according to the New Testament record, the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).

The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence, the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.
In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. Here is the edict that was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:

“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”

That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.

The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of tampering with the dead in that area, to warrant such an edict?

Could the presumed incident be related to the empty tomb where Jesus was placed? For Jewish authorities, the fact of the empty tomb was more embarrassing than the likelihood of theft of the body of Jesus.

Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime. As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?

In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from their Nazareth home. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!

What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.

The New Testament writers further contend that for 40 days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.

Logically, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for tampering with a dead body? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.

Ironically, if it were a crime, the disciples would have been guilty of handling Someone who was dead and is alive forevermore. Was it not Jesus who said, “I am the Living One, I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever?” (Revelation 1:18)

The Virgin Birth: UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. It is believed that some
pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions.

One Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.

Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.

At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.” 

This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.

Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.

History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.

That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.

Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).

Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).

Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to boost the person born.

Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).

Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.

In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).

As a careful historian, Luke anticipates the skepticism that would arise in telling the story, hence the inclusion of Mary’s question: “how will this be, since I am a virgin?” In addition, he quotes the angel as saying, “for nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:34,37).

To merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”

Is Christmas Christian?

Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities.

Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”

The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.

The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.

Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.

In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.

Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.

By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”

As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.

At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.

Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia. 

Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.

In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.

Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!

In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.

For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.

(This commentary first appeared in December 2014)

Good Friday?

A number of studies confirm that crucifixion is one of the worst forms of capital punishment in history. The only thing worse than crucifixion was what the British called, Hanged, Drawn and Quartered. This barbaric act was introduced in 1351 and was used for men convicted of high treason.

It is believed that crucifixion began among the Persians. Alexander the Great introduced the practice to Egypt and Carthage, and the Romans appear to have learned of it from the Carthaginians. Although the Romans did not invent crucifixion, they perfected it as a form of torture and capital punishment.

Crucifixion was designed to produce a slow death, with maximum pain and suffering. Historians agree that it was one of the most disgraceful and cruel methods of execution and usually was reserved for slaves, foreigners and the vilest of criminals. For this reason, Roman law protected Roman citizens from crucifixion, except in the case of desertion by soldiers.

Prior to crucifixion, Roman law required victims to be flogged. The usual instrument for flogging was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths. For scourging, the victim was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The severity of the scourging was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death.

Although the severity of Jesus’ scourging was not mentioned in the gospels, Peter’s use of the word wounds, would suggest the result of harsh scourging (1 Peter 2:24). The Roman soldiers, amused that this weakened man had claimed to be a king, began to mock Jesus by placing a robe on His shoulders, a crown of thorns on His head, and wooden staff, as a scepter in His right hand.

According to an extensive study done in 1986 On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, it is believed that the severe scourging, with its intense pain and appreciable blood loss, most probably left Jesus in a pre-shock state. The physical and mental abuse meted out by the Jews and the Romans, as well as the lack of food, water and sleep, contributed to Jesus’ generally weakened state.

After the scourging and the mocking, at about 9:00 o’clock on Friday morning, Jesus was so weak that He could not carry His cross for the 600 yard-trip to the place of crucifixion. Throughout this ordeal, the Roman soldiers and civilian crowd taunted Jesus. 

At about 3:00 o’clock that Friday afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, bowed His head and died. Because of the Sabbath in a few hours, the Jews did not want His body to remain on the cross. In order to verify His death, one of the soldiers pierced the side of Jesus with an infantry spear. This piercing produced a sudden flow of blood and water.

How could such barbarity lead Christians to call this day Good Friday? The use of the adjective good does not describe the barbarity of crucifixion. Rather, it describes the outcome of what was intended to bring disgrace and shame.

Christians believe that the barbarity of the crucifixion was consistent with the severity of the punishment Jesus was undergoing. When one considers that that punishment was commensurate with the crime, one is prone to ask what crime could warrant such severe punishment.

According to the apostle Paul, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures/Hebrew Bible” (1 Corinthians 15:3). In another letter to the Corinthians, Paul contended, “God made Him/Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us...” (2 Corinthians 5:21. Even Peter, a close buddy of Jesus said, “Jesus Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree...” (1 Peter 2:24).

Jesus’ contemporaries knew that His cruel death was not because of wrongs He did – He was dying for others. Paul indicated that he got that information from the Hebrew Bible, written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Paul was very likely thinking of Isaiah who wrote, “But he (Christ) 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).

Paul was confident that the death of Jesus affected his way of life. His preaching focus was on the death of Christ. His lifestyle was shaped by his understanding and appropriating the death of Christ. In his letter to Christians from Galatia, he said, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

Does the death of Jesus mean anything to you? Do you understand that He did not die because He was overpowered by the Romans? He died as a sacrifice and not as a victim – that is the message of Easter. And that is why it is appropriate to say Good Friday.

THE CROSS: Embarrassing?

In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”

Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Similar discomfort was experienced in the first century. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul noted that the cross was “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services.

In her book, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, Fleming Rutledge, contends that preaching on the cross has been sidelined. She believes that this is so because “people don’t want to hear about sin, suffering, evil or judgment.”

Instead, we want a happy Christianity. One without the consequences for sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The crucifixion invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on the cross.

As an atheist, Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.

The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.

As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact, for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact.

To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.

In essence, Paul was contending that our natural understanding of power was different from God’s. In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning of new life. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life?

Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one is able to bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. In essence, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort. It is unmerited.

The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In his letter to the Ephesians Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).

But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.

If we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Now, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!

For this reason, I would argue like Paul, there is no user-friendly version of new life in Christ. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks it.

The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.”

Was Jesus White?

Usually around Christmas and Easter, many in the media feature something about Jesus. This year, many chose His appearance, based on a professional study done in 2001.

That study was attempting to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the British Broadcasting Corporation, France Three and Discovery Channel, used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel.

A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.
The face that Neave constructed was a model of a Galilean man. If Jesus looked like that man, He would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.

In another study, the National Police in Italy created a digital image of what they believe Jesus Christ looked like as a young child, based on computer forensics and the world’s most famous relic, The Shroud of Turin.

Using the Shroud, the supposed burial cloth of Jesus, police investigators generated a photo-fit image from the negative facial image on the material. And from this they reversed the ageing process to create an image of a young Jesus, by reducing the size of the jaw, raising the chin and straightening the nose.

The technique effectively reverses the method that Italian police use to generate current likenesses of criminals, including senior mob bosses, for whom new photo-fit images are needed when they have been on the run for decades.

Like you, I am asking, why this insatiable interest in Jesus? Why not in Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus? Why not in Herod the Great? For centuries, scholars want to know more and more about Jesus. What is it about Jesus that generates this interest?

According to the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, “some people have made transformational changes in one department of human learning or in one aspect of human life. But Jesus Christ changed virtually every aspect of human life.” Exploring such claims would be much more profitable than trying to determine the appearance of Jesus.

The influence of Jesus on the world is immeasurable. Dr. James Allan Francis put it so well in his famous narrative – One Solitary Life.

He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty when public opinion
turned against him

He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself

His friends ran away
One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled                    
for his clothing
The only property he had on earth

When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend

Nineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure                          
of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life.

Since His death and resurrection, the followers of Jesus have made more changes for good than any other movement or system in history. Space would not allow me to expand on the Christian influence on the history of health-care, university education, abolition of slavery, modern science, civil liberties, capitalism and free enterprise.

When asked to arrest Jesus, the Temple guards replied to the chief priests and Pharisees: “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” Now, after almost 2,000 years, that statement is still true.

Who Owns The Western Wall?

Every year, millions of visitors to Jerusalem, visit the Western Wall. A few years ago, my ENT specialist was among those visitors. Like thousands of Jews, he took his son there to mark his Bar Mitzvah. Soldiers serving in the Israel Defense Forces swear loyalty to their nation and homeland at the Western Wall Plaza.  

People from all over the world pay their respects to the Jewish people’s magnificent history by visiting this special site. The ancient, 2,000-year-old stones of the Western Wall have witnessed the Jewish people’s birth, exile, and redemption. This is where the Jewish nation’s past mingles with its hopes for the future.

How then could Muslims claim that the Western Wall is a part of the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in the Old City? The claim was made a few days ago before UNESCO, the United Nations’ Paris-based agency that tries to protect cultural treasures around the world.  

In 2010, the British Advertising Standard Agency ruled that an Israeli tourism advertisement containing a picture of the Western Wall with the Dome of the Rock in the background was misleading. The agency felt that the ad implied that the area in which the Wall was located belonged to Israel – for the agency that was false advertising. 

To whom does the Wall really belong – to the Jews or to the Muslims? What is the Western Wall anyway? 

In the year 37 BCE, Herod was appointed king in Jerusalem by the Romans – shortly after he initiated a huge renovation project for the Temple. He hired many workers who toiled to make the Temple more magnificent. He widened the area of the Temple Mount and built four support walls around it. The Western Wall is the western support wall built during this widening of the Temple Mount Plaza.

Just a few days ago I shared with a group of students what Israeli archaeologists found in 2007. They discovered the source of the huge stones King Herod used to reconstruct the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The stones were found at a quarry, along with coins and pottery, dating back to King Herod. Geological and other tests clearly link the present Western Wall to the quarry.

The Second Temple (which King Herod built) was destroyed in the year 70 CE. Despite the destruction that took place, all four Temple Mount support walls remained standing. Throughout the generations since the Temple’s destruction, the Western Wall was the remnant closest to the site of the Temple’s Holy of Holies that was accessible to Jews. Therefore, it became a place of prayer and yearning for Jews around the world.  

In the year 135 CE, the Romans crushed a Jewish uprising and seized total control of Jerusalem - the Jews lost official links to the region. The Romans renamed the region Palestine. 

The name Palestine was taken from Israel's most hated historical enemy, the Philistines, and was given to the area by the Romans as a means of humiliating the Jews to show them the land no longer belonged to them. With a destroyed Temple and no official homeland, the Jews found much solace in the Western Wall, the only remnant of the destroyed Temple. 

Many of those emotions were shattered when the Muslims invaded the Holy Lands in 638. By 691, at the order of Ymayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik, the Dome of the Rock was completed on the site where the Jewish Temple was destroyed. As is evident today, the Western Wall was retained as the foundation.  

The Muslim presence remained unchallenged until the Crusades in the eleventh century. The Western Wall never seemed important to Muslims because they were in control and the Jews were not strong enough to challenge them. However, the Jewish interest in the Wall never died.

That ongoing interest was evident again in 1929 when violence erupted because a divider was placed at the Wall. In 1948, in keeping with a UN decision, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, including the Western Wall, fell to Jordanian hands. Jewish homes were destroyed and among those killed was the Western Wall’s first rabbi who refused to leave the Wall or his home - he was killed in the bombings.

The Old City of Jerusalem, and the Western Wall within it, were not in Jewish hands from the War of Independence in 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967. During those 19 years of Jordanian rule, Jews were not able to reach the Wall and prayed in front of its ancient stones. 

During the more than one thousand years Jerusalem was under Muslim rule, the Wall was often used as a garbage dump, so as to humiliate the Jews who visited it. However, following the Six Day War of 1967, The Western Wall and Temple Mount were liberated, the city of Jerusalem was reunified, and the Jewish people were again able to come to the Western Wall to pray.

The recent attempt at the UN for Muslims to regain control of the Western Wall, would most likely deprive Jews of their most holy site and return the area to a garbage dump.

Furthermore, to justify the return of Islamic control of the Wall would be to legitimize the Muslim invasion of Jerusalem in the seventh century. Such justification would also ratify the UN’s insensitivity to Israel’s religious heritage. In 1948, when establishing boundaries for the new nation, the UN was wrong to divide Israel’s 3,000 year-old claim to the city of Jerusalem.  

In terms of modern history, Israel’s return to her ancestral home is phenomenal. Unlike under the reign of Joshua in the Old Testament, she cannot kill those who shared the land with her, before independence. The nation must pursue peaceful co-existence. That requires a respectful use of sacred sites, including the Western Wall.

Apocalyptic Islam!

There is a difference between radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam. Radical Islam is a militant, politically activist ideology whose ultimate goal is to create a worldwide community, or caliphate of Muslim believers. Adherents of Radical Islam insist on a literal and fundamentalist reading of the Qur’an. They resist progress in human rights, gender-equality and democratic reforms. 

Apocalyptic Islam is different. It is not driven by political ideology as Radical Islam. Rather, it is a theological ideology with a specific emphasis on End Times or Eschatology. Islam believes that their messiah, known as the Mahdi, will come at any moment. According to Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America: “The coming of the Mahdi is established doctrine for both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and indeed for all humanity.”

Both Shi’a and Sunni branches of Islam have different strategies to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. Both branches of Islam believe a period of global turmoil must precede the coming of their Mahdi. Both main branches are committed to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. According to Shi’a Muslims, the Mahdi, also known as the Twelfth Imam, is a great spiritual savior.

There are many signs that will precede this Mahdi, “a general and very important sign is that he will come at a time when there is great confutation, intense disputes and violent deaths. When people are afflicted by disturbance and experiencing great fear. It is then that Imam Mahdi will be sent.”

As they work to expedite the coming of the Mahdi, ISIS members, representing Sunni Islam, devoutly believe that they are fighting in a cosmic war in which they are on the side of good, which allows them to kill anyone they perceive to be standing in their way. 

Furthermore, they believe that they are the vanguard, fighting a religious war, which Allah has determined will be won by the forces of true Islam. In an upcoming book, authors Berger and Stern explain that "violent apocalyptic groups, tend to see themselves as participating in a cosmic war between good and evil, in which moral rules do not apply." 

Iran, representing Shiite Islam, uses a different strategy to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi. It was former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who attributed his role to that of a forerunner for the Mahdi. He believed he was told by the prophet Mohammed that he was “the chosen one to hasten the return of the Muslim’s messiah by creating chaos throughout the world.” 

Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, warned in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece a few years ago that “President Ahmadinejad seems to believe that the hand of God is guiding him to trigger a series of cataclysmic events which could precipitate the return of the 12th Imam.” As a theocracy, Iran is uniquely poised to administer this apocalyptic role.

New York Times bestseller Joel Rosenberg contends that Iran’s purpose for wanting to build up its nuclear arms program is to be more equipped for the coming of the Mahdi. For Iran, the destruction of Israel, representing Judaism, and America, representing Christianity, is critical in its pre-Mahdi mission. 

According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”

When asked to comment on Apocalyptic Islam, Joel Rosenberg said, “For the first time in human history, we now are faced with two nation-states whose leaders are driven by an end-of-the-world [theology]. ISIS is trying to build the end-of-the-world kingdom, or caliphate, for the Mahdi to come and rule. They are not waiting, like the Iranians are, to build genocidal weapons. ISIS is trying to bring about genocide of the infidels right now.”

Egyptian born Dr. Michael Youssef told the Christian Post recently, "To be quite honest, I am not really afraid as much from jihadists as I am fearing that the evangelical church is losing its moorings on the biblical authority for all kinds of different reasons. The challenge from Islam can only be met by a strong Christian church, rather than a weak and indecisive, spineless Gospel preaching."

Like Muslims, Christians believe we are living in the end times. However, the instructions from our Commanding Officer, Jesus Christ, is to ensure that we share the message of salvation with the entire world. We are “to occupy until He comes.” In other words, we prepare for His coming with vigilance, not violence.

Did It Really Happen?

On October 21, 1997, the Lee County School Board in Florida voted 3 to 2 to adopt the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools program. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and People for the American Way were quick to bring a lawsuit against the School Board. The lawsuit contended that the planned course would present the Bible as history – and that would be unconstitutional.

In a split decision, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovakevich said that the School Board can implement a course based on the Old Testament, but may not teach a planned companion course based on the New Testament.

In her twenty-page ruling, the Judge said she had been convinced by the school’s argument that the Old Testament course was “ostensibly designed to teach history and not religion.” But she ruled out teaching the New Testament as history, saying that she “finds it difficult to conceive how the account of the resurrection or of miracles could be taught as secular history.” The judge’s ruling leaves us with a major question: Can the resurrection of Jesus be viewed as an historical event? 

As a term, history may refer to what actually happened, or it may refer to an historian’s interpretation of what actually happened. The historian does not have to believe what happened, but is obligated to report what happened.

In attempting to determine what happened, historians ask questions about location and witnesses to the alleged events. They look for corroborative evidence. They examine archaeological findings in their quest to answer the big question, did it happen?

Judge Kovakevich suggests that such tests cannot be applied to the resurrection of Jesus. In essence, she finds it difficult to conceive that Jesus could rise from the dead. If that is her position, then she is not interested in investigating the event of the resurrection. Rather, she is expressing her inability to conceive of such an event.

Matt Perman makes the point that a method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.

When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even comes close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

No one is asking the historian to explain the process of resurrection – that is the job of the theologian. However, we are asking the historian to respond to the Christians’ claim of an empty tomb. Following His death, Jesus was placed in a tomb, a common practice at that time. Three days later, Christians’ claim that the tomb was empty.

In order to avoid theft, the authorities actually secured the tomb in which Jesus was placed. Yet the tomb was found empty. The announcement of an empty tomb was not made in another city some years later. Rather, it was made in the same vicinity where Jesus was killed, a few days later. If the claim of resurrection was false, then why didn’t the authorities simply identify a sealed tomb?

Interestingly, it was in order to respond to an empty tomb, the Jews attempted to bribe the guards that were on duty to protect the tomb. The case of bribery would not have been necessary if the tomb was not empty.

Furthermore, the story of the empty tomb was not legend. There is clear evidence that within seven years after the alleged resurrection, the story began to be documented. Normally, it would take decades before a story is considered to be a legend. This story was documented within the lifetime of eye witnesses. 

One finds it very strange that the tomb of Jesus was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.   

Following his conversion, Paul, a strong opponent of Christianity, made it very clear: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith...” (1 Corinthians 15:14). 

Scholars may debate the process of resurrection. However, there should be no debate about the fact of resurrection – the empty tomb continues to provide historical evidence that something phenomenal happened following the death of Jesus.

He Chose Not to Fight for His Freedom

Clients expect their defense attorneys to make them look good. Whereas clients who are guilty expect leniency, clients who are innocent expect total exoneration. Unless for some unknown reason, innocent clients usually fight for their freedom.

The Easter story is the story of an innocent man who chose not to fight for his freedom. He had the resources to fight and He chose not to do so. In telling the story, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). 

Considering that a Roman legion had 6,000 soldiers, Jesus was claiming that he had access to at least 72,000 angels to protect Him from Roman crucifixion, one of the worst forms of capital punishment in the history of mankind. In his gospel, Luke contends that one such angel provided strength to Jesus before He was arrested by the Roman authorities (Luke 22:43). In other words, rather than provide release from the trial, the angel provided ability to cope with the trial.

Both the Jewish and Roman trials were mockeries and travesties of justice. Attorney Steven Allen analyzes these trials in his book, The Illegal Trial of Christ. Here he examines both Jewish and Roman civil and religious law and exposes the violations that occurred during Jesus’ arrest and trial. The trials were held in the wrong place, at the wrong time, by the wrong people and with the wrong witnesses. Yet Jesus never fought for a retrial.   

Earlier in His ministry, attempts were made to kill Jesus. This is how John described one of those attempts: “At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’... At this they tried to seize Him, but no one laid a hand on Him, because His time had not yet come” (John 7:25-30). 

John’s comment, “...His time had not yet come”, gives the impression that the death of Jesus was prearranged. Peter, one the disciples of Jesus, was convinced that the death of Jesus was no accident, it was prearranged. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter said, “This Man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge...” (Acts 2:23).

Interestingly, some 700 years before the death of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted that the promised Messiah would experience a tragic death. The prophet went as far as to say that the promised Messiah would be pierced (Isaiah 53:5). However, Isaiah did not say who was the Messiah to whom he was referring. Many Jews are still awaiting the arrival of that Messiah.

Unlike the Jews who are awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus contended that He was the Messiah. Following His death and resurrection, Jesus said to His disciples, “...everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). It was because of His claim to be the Messiah, first century Jews sought to kill Him (Luke 22:66-71).

As far as Jesus was concerned, the authorities killed the Messiah, and that killing was consistent with what was expected to happen to the Messiah. Therefore, to avoid the crucifixion would be to deny a messianic requirement. Jesus was no insurrectionist, as the authorities contended, in order to justify their murderous act - He died as was expected of the Messiah. 

That being the case, one must now answer the question, why was it necessary for the Messiah to die? The apostle Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, answers that question in one of his letters: “...that Christ [Messiah] died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). His use of the word Scriptures here is in reference to the Hebrew Bible.

In other words, Paul is contending that according to the Hebrew Bible, Jesus died for the sins of the people. Could Paul have been referring to the words of Isaiah? “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 53:6).

Because Jesus was aware that His cruel death was consistent with His messianic role, it made sense not to seek a retrial or to avoid the consequences. He was aware that He was dying because of “our iniquities and our transgressions.” In addition, Jesus was aware that “by His wounds we would be healed.”

For this reason Jesus could shout triumphantly from the cross. His statement, “IT IS FINISHED” was similar to the shout of an athlete as he crosses the finish line. For Jesus, the mission was a victory, not a tragedy. That victory is what we claim when we commit our lives to Him – He died for me. I am so glad He did not seek a retrial.

Body Snatching!

Body snatching is the secret unearthing of dead bodies from graveyards. A common purpose of body snatching, in England during the 19th century, was to sell the bodies for dissection or anatomy lectures in medical schools.

In my home-state Florida, body snatching is a crime. The law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years and a fine of not more than $10,000.

From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead. The Bible’s description of witchcraft and sorcery in the Old Testament includes necromancy.

In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
                          
Therefore, according to the New Testament record the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).

The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.

In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. This edict was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:

“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”

That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.

The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of body snatching in that area to warrant such an edict?

Students of Church History discern significance in the fact that the Roman Emperor’s edict coincided with a period of much growth in Christianity. Nazareth was the area in which Jesus, the founder of Christianity was raised. 

Further, the primary message of Christianity was that Jesus was raised from the dead. Positive analysis in regard to this is that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen by the disciples. The Jewish authorities were in effect more deeply troubled by those facts than historically assumed – the facts that the tomb was empty and that the body could not be found. 

What options could best explain that profound predicament? Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime, attracting even a death sentence.

As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?

In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from Nazareth. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!

What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – the New Testament. The New Testament writers contend that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.

The New Testament writers further contend that for forty days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.

Logically then, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for body snatching? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.
                                                                                                                                                                                   
The resurrected Jesus was seen and heard for more than five weeks after the Roman authorities certified his death and burial. The Apostle Peter testified concerning the truth of such powerfully persuasive facts when he declared “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32)

Hoax or History?

Muslims do not believe Jesus died as the Bible claims He did. The Qur’an explicitly states (4:157-159): “And for their saying, ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.’ Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.”
In commenting of this text, Baidawi, a highly esteemed thirteenth-century Muslim jurist and exegete said: “It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa [Jesus]...then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him [Jesus] that he would take him up to heaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, ‘which one of you is willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?’”

This claim of the non-death of Jesus is an argument of history, not only theology. The claim is alleging that the New Testament is wrong to state that Jesus was killed by means of crucifixion – Jesus did not die on the cross. Muslims believe someone else died in His place. Among other things, the Islamic claim is a challenge to the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament record. 

The implications of this no-death claim is too serious to go unnoticed. Apart from challenging the credibility of the New Testament, the view is suggesting that all Christian doctrines that are based on Christ’s death on the cross are false, in that there was no death on the cross. In addition, the Christian claim of the resurrection is a hoax, in that there can be no resurrection if there were no death. 

Furthermore, all the Old Testament references to the death of Jesus were misinterpreted. Added to these would be all the references to the death of Jesus, following the death of Jesus. In essence, the Christian Bible is unreliable, in that it records an event that did not take place. Some Muslims explain this dilemma by suggesting that the Early Church adjusted the records to fit their theology.

However, other than Christian writers, non-religious historians reported on the death of Jesus. Housed in the British Museum is a document entitled, “the letter of Mara Bar Serapion.” In this letter, written about thirty years after the death of Jesus, Mara asks, “what advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?” 

Even the Jewish Babylonian Talmud states, “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”

In spite of the overwhelming evidence to support the death of Jesus, Islam is not the only ones supporting the non-death theory. As early as the second century, Gnostic Basilides denied the death of Jesus. He 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 [Simon] to the cross. Basilides contended that 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 Jesus’ 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.

The Gospel of Barnabas 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. Interestingly, most religious scholars will concur that The Gospel of Barnabas is a fake.

From my research, no credible historical source would challenge the crucifixion of Jesus. Many would debate the significance of His death – but not the fact of His dying on a cross. 

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 need not deny the death of Jesus – to do so would be to deny what actually happened. Unlike other deaths, the death of Jesus does not mean defeat. Rather, the death of Jesus means victory. That is why He gave a victory shout from the cross.

Prophet or Politician?

During his speech before the U.S. Congress last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the Jewish Purim holiday. He cited the biblical deliverance of Jews from genocide under ancient Persian Empire rule and called attention to the story of a Jewish girl named Esther, who rose to become Queen of Persia.

Queen Esther, a courageous Jewish woman exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, "The plot was foiled, our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”

According to the Old Testament book of Esther, during the time of King Ahasuerus, Haman, a minister to the king, sought to annihilate the empire’s Jews in retaliation for being insulted by a Jewish man named Mordecai. The man learned of Haman’s plan for retaliation and warned his cousin Esther, who had become queen of the empire but whose Jewish identity had been kept secret. 

On the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Adar, following several days of fasting and prayer, the Jews rose up against their enemies and were victorious. The Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated every year in early spring to commemorate the Jewish rise against the Persian Empire – the Prime Minister’s speech coincided with that annual observance.  

Some 2,500 years earlier the Esther story unfolded. Then, as today, the threat against Israel is real. Instead of a Haman scheming to kill the Jews, it’s Iranian mullahs who are accused of plotting to wipe Israel off the map, and being aided in the process by the soon realization of a goal more than 20 years in the making – obtaining a nuclear arsenal.

In a November 14 sermon aired on Iran’s state-run television, Ayatollah Ali Movahedi-Kermani made the following statement: “The Sejjil ballistic missile can hit and raze to the ground any place in Israel, as well as any American base in the region.” Crowds listening to the speech shouted: “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel!”

Like the biblical character Esther, Prime Minister Netanyahu sees himself in a strategic position. Esther’s cousin Mordecai asked her, “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” 

To this Esther replied: “...I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:12-16). Other than Esther, the Jews seemed to have no other option – they were defenseless. That is no longer the case.

According to Business Insider, Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East, followed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition to being battle-tested against a variety of enemies, the Israel Defense Forces have a qualitative edge over all other militaries in the region, as well as a highly-capable air force. "Pilot to pilot, airframe to airframe, the Israeli air force is the best in the world."

From that position of military strength, much restraint is necessary from Israel. Despite the current divisions among countries in the Middle East, any aggression from Israel, can position the nation to become a common enemy – that will certainly unite militants in the region.

One must not forget that the regional dislike for Israel is less political and more ideological. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what some call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

The term “Apocalyptic Islam” introduces the topic of end-of-the-world religious ideology. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”

Imam Mahdi is a messianic figure often referred to as the twelfth imam in Shiite Islam. According to one Islamic website, there are at least four signs that will precede the coming of Imam Mahdi. All of these signs include some kind of battle. Interestingly, both ISIS and Iran see themselves as key players in these apocalyptic battles.

Some analysts believe “Iran is controlled by religious hardliners afflicted with a messianic fervor whose primary goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi. 

This is to be accomplished by annihilating Israel, waging war against infidels and sowing chaos. The price for Iran may be national martyrdom, for which its causalities will be richly rewarded in the afterlife, while survivors will enjoy the favor of the returned Mahdi.”

CHRISTMAS ROOTS!

The television mini-series ROOTS, which first aired in January 1977, was the most-watched TV show in US history. More than 36 million households or 51.1% watched it, giving it a Nielsen share of 71%. The movie was the dramatization of Alex Haley’s novel, Roots: The Saga of an American Family.

The release of the novel, combined with its hugely popular television adaptation, led to a cultural sensation in the United States. Because of Alex Haley’s work, an amazing interest in ancestral studies developed. Numerous books and movies received an overwhelming response from global enthusiasts, eager to learn of their ancestry or genealogy.   

The interest in genealogy did not begin with Alex Haley. That interest has been within human societies for thousands of years. Whereas for many of us in the West, ancestral studies is a fad, the same cannot be said of persons in the Middle East.

In the Middle East, one’s rank in the community was often determined by one’s ancestral history. That became obvious when Jesus was challenged by some from His community. They had just heard Jesus contend that He was the fulfillment of an Isaiah 61 prophecy. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. In other words, does his ancestral rank give him this authority (Luke 4:20-22)?

Both Matthew and Luke were very much aware of this cultural requirement of anyone claiming to speak with authority. Therefore, in seeking to establish that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised Messiah, it was necessary to trace the ancestral roots of Jesus. Both Gospel writers chose to establish the ancestral roots of Jesus very early in their presentations. Although there are noticeable differences in their approach, they were both fully aware of the significance of establishing credible ancestry.

These genealogies of Jesus serve as a grounding force in the narrative that roots the text into an historical context. Interestingly, one of the main differences between the mythological stories of the Greeks and Romans over against the Bible is that the Greek myths include fantastical creatures such as Centaurs, Cyclops, sphinxes, and the like.  

Biblical stories do not include any of these fictional characters, but rather seek to tell what actually happened. Genealogies establish human links and are rooted in reality. When you read through and grapple with the names and lineages of the genealogies of the Jewish people and of Jesus, you come away with the sensation that you are reading through a family tree, and you are struck with the fact that these were real people.

Genealogies in the Bible indicate to the reader that family identity and lineage is of utmost importance within the cultural milieu of Scripture. In providing the genealogy of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke were careful to provide credibility to their stories – credibility that was rooted in history and lineage. Those are the contexts in which they tell the story of the birth of Jesus.

Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. 

In his opening verses, Luke established that he complied with rules of historical analysis. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refered to the sources that were at his disposal and declared that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable. 

Furthermore, the birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other claim of virgin birth, no claim preceded the birth of the child. Claims were often made by supporters, after the birth and in an attempt to exalt the child born. 

Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23). He reinforced this conviction by providing a genealogy that placed Jesus in an ancestral setting, consistent with community requirements and the expectations of the prophets. 

It is the birth of that Jesus, I am celebrating this Christmas – not some mythological figure. Rather, one of whom Matthew said, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That Savior is the reason for the season of Christmas.

Tell Me a Story...

One of the most universal human impulses can be summed up in four words – tell me a story. According to Professor Leland Ryken, “the Bible satisfies that human demand for a story.” (Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible – Second Edition, by Leland Ryken). Narrative is the dominant literary form found in the Bible. It is believed that some 40% of the Old Testament is narrative.
Henry Luce, founder of Time magazine would most likely agree with Ryken. Luce once quipped, “Time did not start this emphasis on stories about people; the Bible did.”

To further reinforce the point about the dominant use of narrative in the Bible, literary critic Robert Alter said, “It is peculiar, and culturally significant, that among ancient peoples, only Israel should have chosen to cast its sacred national traditions in prose.” (The Art of Biblical Narrative).

One wonders, why did the writers of the Bible, and more specifically the Old Testament, steer away from the literary forms that were commonly used among other religions in ancient culture? Put differently, why did the biblical writers prefer to use prose narrative to tell their stories?

The impulse of the Bible writers was to give a circumstantial and factual basis to their stories. The result is what literary scholars call realism. Literary realism shares with history and biography the quality of being rooted in observable reality. In addition, we associate realism with the tendency to be concrete, vivid and specific.

Part of the realism of Bible stories is the refusal of writers to omit sordid actions in the name of niceness. For instance, the choice and role of David as king of Israel is remarkable. He earned the title of “a man after God’s own heart”. However, unlike some ancient writings, the Bible does not hesitate to point out that Dave was a murderer, an adulterer and someone who abused his royal authority. 

Another thing that links the stories of the Bible with literary realism is their focus on common experience and characters of average social standing. This is in sharp contrast to ancient stories like the epics of Homer, where only aristocratic characters count for much and people of lesser standing are a nameless, faceless group. 

In narrative, one of the goals of a writer in telling a story is to invite readers to share an experience with the characters in the story. For the writer, the plot, characters, and setting of a story are the means by which he or she communicates aspects of reality.

Jesus illustrates this point well when asked to define who is a neighbor. He could have given a simple definition to the lawyer who confronted Him. Instead, Jesus wanted to involve the man in the answer He was about to give. So, He told the man a story. 

As with any good story-teller, the story Jesus told included setting, action and character. Upon hearing the story, the lawyer concluded that the neighbor was the character who had mercy on the victim. Although that character did not have the profile of someone who would do the neighborly thing, the lawyer chose him. His choice required him to listen, to analyze and to exercise judgment. 

Following that story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus said to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:38). Jesus understood that the use of narrative as a literary device draws one into encounters with characters and events and make response inevitable.

The outcome was no different when Nathan the prophet confronted King David about his despicable behavior (2 Samuel 12). David was quick to pass judgment on the abusing character in the story Nathan told. At that point Nathan exposed David as the real abuser. The character in Nathan’s story drew David into an encounter that demanded a response. 

Is it possible that the frequent use of narrative as a literary device in the Bible was designed to solicit response by readers? The writer to the Book of Hebrews was convinced that biblical information had the power to provoke response. This is how he expressed his conviction: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

That ability to convict must also be seen in the context of narratives portraying God as hero or protagonist in the biblical stories. God’s role is often unmentioned, although obvious through one character. A good example is presented in the story of the Prodigal Son.

The actual title given to the story would seem to suggest that the main character in the story is the son who repented and returned home. I would encourage that you re-read the story, viewing the father of the prodigal as the main character. Something tells me that you will walk away with an appreciation for a forgiving and gracious God rather than a mere report on a worthless son who repented.

Another Beheading

The recent beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff in Iraq were savage acts. Many watched the videos of their murders by Islamist State militants and were horrified. Muslim organizations around the world distanced themselves from the militants and decried the brutal slaying, making it clear that the acts did not represent Islam.

Our opinion of associating beheading with barbarism is consistent with a modernized view of capital punishment. For instance, the Romans were brutal and beheading was not uncommon. In the New Testament there was the case of John the Baptist’s head on Herod’s platter. Interestingly, the Romans considered beheading to be more honorable than crucifixion. They beheaded their own people but limited crucifixion to non-Romans.

Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century. Interestingly, all the European countries that previously used beheading have now totally abolished the death penalty. As recent as 2007, 153 men and three women were beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Beheading is still practiced in Iran.
Apart from being used as a means of capital punishment by a state, the act of beheading is used to obliterate enemies. According to Ian Tuttle of the National Review Institute, “beheading is not just a warning or a promise; it is a ritual expression of an ideology. That this ideology seeks to annihilate and tyrannize is clear from the jihadists’ beheading method; not a quick, clean blow, but a slow, agonizing sawing motion that keeps the victim alive to experience his own execution.”

The vicious murders of the journalists were not done as acts of capital punishment – like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, they committed no crime. The beheadings were done in the name of religion. It would seem as though Islamists practice beheading because they believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Their intent is to weaken the will of opponents. 

According to Professor Timothy Furnish, “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings” (The Middle East Quarterly: Spring 2005. Volume 12: Number 2).

Jihadist groups justify the decapitation of opponents with Qur’anic Scripture. In chapter (sura) 47 verse (ayah) 4 of the Qur’an it says: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” With little variation, Muslim scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks.”

Many modern interpretations of this verse remain consistent with those of early Islam. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” he argued (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 1378).

In Islamic history, beheading of captives is a recurring theme. The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. The earliest biographer of Mohammad is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, [translated]).

Since Mohammad’s time, many Islamic leaders have followed his model. History is replete of examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was often referred to as the decapitation state. Upon their victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners. In the early 19th century, even the British fell victim to the Ottoman barbarianism. An 1807 British expedition to Egypt resulted in “a few hundred spiked British heads left rotting in the sun outside Rosetta.”

So much for history – we do not expect such barbaric behavior in the 21st century. As people groups migrate, they take their religious ideas with them. In the process migrants are expected to live with people who share differing worldviews. As we share opportunities for advancement, we should be free to learn about the religious or irreligious views of our neighbors.

For Christians, migration brings opportunity - opportunities to learn from others and to share with others. Like Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17), we must be ready to share our faith in the marketplace of ideas. We must listen and learn how to share our faith without attempting to destroy others who may disagree with our approach to life.

Jesus clearly taught us how to deal with people who disagree with us. He never taught violence as an option. Instead, He instructed us to pray for those who disagree with us. As an evangelistic strategy, compassion is always more effective than confrontation.