In preparing for this Easter season, my wife and I reviewed Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ. Like with previous viewings, we were left in shock at the unnecessary brutality, way in excess of the punishment required for the alleged crime.
Luke in his Gospel expressed one aspect of Christ’s suffering that is often overlooked – “His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” Among Gospel writers, only Luke the physician described Christ’s mental anguish in this way.
I am aware that the textual evidence for Luke’s description is ambiguous in that some early manuscripts do not include the two verses in which the description is found. However, unlike J.A. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke – Volume 2), I believe Luke’s description of Jesus’ mental anguish should be included in the text. Luke’s interest in similes and his attentiveness to details are consistent with the description.
Advances in medical science have helped us to appreciate more of what Dr. Luke was saying. In the first place, Luke tells us that there was excessive sweating – “like drops...falling to the ground.” This aptly described someone who was under extreme emotional stress. I understand that in such situations, persons can lose several quarts of fluid in perspiration.
Apart from the volume of fluid, medical scholars believe Luke was describing the phenomenon known as hematidrosis or hemohidrosis – a condition that occurs in highly emotional states. Hemohidrosis is a very rare condition in which a human sweats blood. I believe it was Leonardo da Vinci who described a soldier who sweat blood before going into battle.
When added to the stress, the night temperature would have produced chills, thus creating more physical discomfort. However, such physical discomfort was not the goal of Roman crucifixion.
The Romans perfected crucifixion as a form of torture and capital punishment that was designed to produce a slow death with maximum pain and suffering. It was one of the most disgraceful and cruel methods of execution and usually was reserved only for slaves, foreigners, revolutionaries and the vilest of criminals.
Not one of these categories would describe Jesus. Even Judas who betrayed him admitted, “I have betrayed innocent blood.” Even Peter who denied Him mentioned in one of his letters, “He did no sin, not even guile was found in His mouth.” Then why should Jesus be subjected to such torture?
Interestingly, Jesus could have escaped the ordeal but chose not to do so. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asked, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 72,000 angels” (Matthew 26:53)? In other words, if a secure escape were needed, it would be made available.
Then, why all the sweat? To this Jesus replied – so that the promises in the Hebrew Scriptures would be fulfilled (Matthew 26:56). Following His resurrection He said something similar to the two men on the road to Emmaus – “did not the Christ have to suffer these things...” (Luke 24:26)? Later that day Jesus maintained that theme as He addressed His disciples – “everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).
In other words, although painful, the suffering of Jesus was no accident. Some 700 years before His death, the prophet Isaiah described how the Christ would suffer and die (Isaiah 53). In addition to reading the text I would recommend you read, The Gospel According to Isaiah 53 by Darrell Bock and Mitch Glaser. This volume is a collection of eleven essays by evangelical scholars. The essays provide a theological foundation for what Mel Gibson illustrated in the film, The Passion of the Christ.
After watching the film, my wife and I were contending, if Jesus could have been freed but chose rather to become a victim of crucifixion, the worst form of capital punishment in history, then why, simply why did He allow it? On his way home, an Ethiopian asked Phillip a similar question. Based on the text he was reading from Isaiah 53, Phillip introduced the royal official to Jesus (Acts 8:26-40).
Like Phillip, the Apostle Paul believed that Isaiah 53 was referring to the Christ – Paul told the Corinthians that that Christ was Jesus of Nazareth, the One who was crucified (1 Corinthians 15:3-5). And that is the story of Easter – the Christ of Isaiah 53 suffered and died as a sacrifice.
Like the Ethiopian eunuch Phillip met, I pray that everyone reading this commentary would or has already come into a personal relationship with the Christ of Isaiah 53.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Pope Francis
I had barely composed myself in the barber’s chair when I was asked, “... and what do you think of the new Pope?” That was probably the most asked question for the past week. Well, I like him. I believe, should he continue to serve as he did as a priest, the world would see a different brand of leadership in the Catholic Church.
In less than 24 hours after he became the first non-European pope in some 1,300 years, Francis seemed to break more rules than his predecessor did in eight years. Actually, the first words out of Francis' mouth after he became Pope sent a signal that things would be different.
He did not start by using the customary "Praised be Jesus Christ", but employed a much more familiar and inviting "Buona Sera" - good evening in Italian - to address drenched crowds in a rain-swept St. Peter's Square.
On the morning after his election, the Vatican was scrambling to meet the needs of a new-style papacy. For example, while he was still in the Sistine Chapel, his aides set up a throne-like chair on a platform for him to sit on while the cardinals pledged their obedience one at a time. Instead, he came down to their lower level and remained standing while they each greeted him.
Less than an hour later, he shunned the papal limousine that was waiting to take him to a Vatican residence for a meal. As the last bus pulled up, guess who got off? It was Pope Francis. The only difference between him and the cardinals was that he was no longer wearing their red robes, but a white robe.
There was more unorthodox papal behavior on Thursday morning when Francis returned to the Church-run residence where he had checked in as a cardinal for the conclave. He insisted on paying his hotel bill, despite now being the boss.
"He wanted to get his luggage - he had left everything there," a Vatican spokesman told a news briefing. "He then stopped in the office, greeted everyone and decided to pay the bill for the room, because he was concerned about giving a good example of what priests and bishops should do."
The behavior of the new Pope is consistent with the name he chose – Francis. He admitted he had St. Francis of Assisi in mind when deciding on a name. Actually, it was a cardinal from Brazil who said to him to remember the poor, when it seemed that the Argentinean would be selected. The Pope told the media that he wanted to honor St. Francis of Assisi, an admirer of nature and a servant to the poor and destitute.
St. Francis of Assisi was born the son of a rich cloth merchant. But he lived in rags among beggars at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. He was known for bonding with lepers and the poor. Those close to Pope Francis see similarities between the two men.
With the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires as pope, the Roman Catholic Church has elected the first Pope from the Society of Jesus, known as the Jesuits. This society was founded by Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century. Now this Jesuit Pope takes the name Francis from the humble servant of medieval Assisi who began the Franciscan order 300 years before Ignatius.
Like Ignatius, he has a reputation for using his mind to solve a problem but his heart to make a decision. Like Francis of Assisi, he operates within the world of an ordained clergy while not being drowned in self-serving clerical rank and privilege.
So what Pope Francis seems to bring to the table, at least at a first glance, is personal authenticity and credibility – critical precursors to change. I believe Pope Francis will continue to be a model of service to everyone, but especially to the less fortunate.
Interestingly, to be a model servant to the less fortunate should not be limited to a pope. Jesus was clear when He taught that serving the less fortunate is expected of every Christian (Matthew 25:31-46). In addition, Jesus taught that leadership and authority are best illustrated when we lead with the attitude of children.
This Easter season provides a great opportunity to reflect on symbols of service to others. The cross is one such symbol. In the first century culture the cross represented defeat and shame. However, the death of Jesus on a cross changed that negative picture.
In referring to the cross the Apostle Paul said, “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him” (1 Corinthians 1:28-29). You now understand why I believe that by using simple approaches Pope Francis is destined to become a great spiritual leader. I like Pope Francis.
In less than 24 hours after he became the first non-European pope in some 1,300 years, Francis seemed to break more rules than his predecessor did in eight years. Actually, the first words out of Francis' mouth after he became Pope sent a signal that things would be different.
He did not start by using the customary "Praised be Jesus Christ", but employed a much more familiar and inviting "Buona Sera" - good evening in Italian - to address drenched crowds in a rain-swept St. Peter's Square.
On the morning after his election, the Vatican was scrambling to meet the needs of a new-style papacy. For example, while he was still in the Sistine Chapel, his aides set up a throne-like chair on a platform for him to sit on while the cardinals pledged their obedience one at a time. Instead, he came down to their lower level and remained standing while they each greeted him.
Less than an hour later, he shunned the papal limousine that was waiting to take him to a Vatican residence for a meal. As the last bus pulled up, guess who got off? It was Pope Francis. The only difference between him and the cardinals was that he was no longer wearing their red robes, but a white robe.
There was more unorthodox papal behavior on Thursday morning when Francis returned to the Church-run residence where he had checked in as a cardinal for the conclave. He insisted on paying his hotel bill, despite now being the boss.
"He wanted to get his luggage - he had left everything there," a Vatican spokesman told a news briefing. "He then stopped in the office, greeted everyone and decided to pay the bill for the room, because he was concerned about giving a good example of what priests and bishops should do."
The behavior of the new Pope is consistent with the name he chose – Francis. He admitted he had St. Francis of Assisi in mind when deciding on a name. Actually, it was a cardinal from Brazil who said to him to remember the poor, when it seemed that the Argentinean would be selected. The Pope told the media that he wanted to honor St. Francis of Assisi, an admirer of nature and a servant to the poor and destitute.
St. Francis of Assisi was born the son of a rich cloth merchant. But he lived in rags among beggars at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. He was known for bonding with lepers and the poor. Those close to Pope Francis see similarities between the two men.
With the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires as pope, the Roman Catholic Church has elected the first Pope from the Society of Jesus, known as the Jesuits. This society was founded by Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century. Now this Jesuit Pope takes the name Francis from the humble servant of medieval Assisi who began the Franciscan order 300 years before Ignatius.
Like Ignatius, he has a reputation for using his mind to solve a problem but his heart to make a decision. Like Francis of Assisi, he operates within the world of an ordained clergy while not being drowned in self-serving clerical rank and privilege.
So what Pope Francis seems to bring to the table, at least at a first glance, is personal authenticity and credibility – critical precursors to change. I believe Pope Francis will continue to be a model of service to everyone, but especially to the less fortunate.
Interestingly, to be a model servant to the less fortunate should not be limited to a pope. Jesus was clear when He taught that serving the less fortunate is expected of every Christian (Matthew 25:31-46). In addition, Jesus taught that leadership and authority are best illustrated when we lead with the attitude of children.
This Easter season provides a great opportunity to reflect on symbols of service to others. The cross is one such symbol. In the first century culture the cross represented defeat and shame. However, the death of Jesus on a cross changed that negative picture.
In referring to the cross the Apostle Paul said, “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him” (1 Corinthians 1:28-29). You now understand why I believe that by using simple approaches Pope Francis is destined to become a great spiritual leader. I like Pope Francis.
Monday, March 11, 2013
When Darkness Struck
All three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) report that there were three hours of darkness when Jesus was crucified. The three hour period of darkness took place from twelve noon to 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon – when the sun is normally at its brightest.
Luke indicates how dark and unusual this darkness was by the statement, “... and the sun was darkened”. The New International Version captured the Greek sense of Luke’s statement with the words “the sun stopped shining.” In essence, at the brightest time of day, sunlight ceased.
Even before attempting to explain what may have happened, one needs to establish if what the New Testament stated really happened. In order to avoid what scholars term a circular argument, allow me to cite a few non-Christian historians on the authenticity of this sun-darkening event.
In 52 (AD/CE), Thallus, was commenting on this event from Rome, some 1,500 miles away from the site of the crucifixion. He was trying to deny any supernatural association with the sun-darkening. In quoting the writings of Thallus, Julius Africanus was confident Thallus’ reference showed that the facts of Jesus’ death were known and discussed in Rome as early as the middle of the first century.
Phlegon of Tralles, a first-century Greek historian also mentioned the sun-darkening event and attempted to explain it as a natural phenomenon. Phelegon confirmed that the event took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the same period alluded to in the New Testament.
Origen was one of seven ancient writers who cited this same Phlegon, in his defense of Christianity against Celsus. The issue for the first-century non-Christian historian was not if the event happened – it was attempting to explain what really happened.
Non-Christian historians believed the event was caused by an eclipse of the sun. However, early church historians disagreed. It could hardly have been an eclipse of the sun at the time of the Passover. At that time of year the earth is closer to the sun than the moon, thus nullifying the eclipse theory. Furthermore, no eclipse of the sun can last more than 7 ½ minutes in any one place – this sun-darkening incident lasted for three hours.
Some believe the darkness may have been caused by an east wind or sirocco, a scorching wind from the desert. East winds are normally hot, gusty winds laden with sand and dust and occur frequently in May and October. But the synoptic writers never suggested that there were strong winds at the time of the darkness. In addition, such winds never appear at the time of Passover, the period when Jesus was crucified.
Then, could the darkness have been some unnatural phenomenon? Like what? From the information available, it is obvious that there is no explanation for this astronomical event. In addition, the timing of the darkness would certainly suggest that the event had something to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. If not, why would the synoptic writers mention the event if there was no relationship to the main story they were reporting – the crucifixion.
Interestingly, the darkening of the sun was not unique to the crucifixion of Jesus. In the book of Exodus, the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that darkness will spread over Egypt – darkness that can be felt. So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days” (Exodus 10:21-22).
The Exodus event makes it clear that it is possible for God to interrupt the course of nature as He sees necessary. Whereas the darkening of the skies in Exodus was an act of judgment, one wonders, what did a similar darkening mean when Jesus was crucified?
The synoptic texts are silent on the cause of the darkness, and so should we. However, what is clear was the act of an unnatural intervention at the time of the death of Jesus. Based on similar interventions in Exodus and other places in the Bible, one would not be speculating to conclude that the darkening of the sky was a divine act – an act of God.
It was not a mere accident of nature nor could it be a normal astronomical event. Rather, it was a clear indication of God’s involvement in the death of Jesus. In other words, the death of Jesus was no mere accident. Neither was it an event that overwhelmed God. The death of Jesus was as intentional as the offering of a sacrifice for sin in the Old Testament.
I believe Paul got it right when he wrote, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Incredible, darkness appeared when Jesus, the Light of the world died as a sacrifice for sin.
Luke indicates how dark and unusual this darkness was by the statement, “... and the sun was darkened”. The New International Version captured the Greek sense of Luke’s statement with the words “the sun stopped shining.” In essence, at the brightest time of day, sunlight ceased.
Even before attempting to explain what may have happened, one needs to establish if what the New Testament stated really happened. In order to avoid what scholars term a circular argument, allow me to cite a few non-Christian historians on the authenticity of this sun-darkening event.
In 52 (AD/CE), Thallus, was commenting on this event from Rome, some 1,500 miles away from the site of the crucifixion. He was trying to deny any supernatural association with the sun-darkening. In quoting the writings of Thallus, Julius Africanus was confident Thallus’ reference showed that the facts of Jesus’ death were known and discussed in Rome as early as the middle of the first century.
Phlegon of Tralles, a first-century Greek historian also mentioned the sun-darkening event and attempted to explain it as a natural phenomenon. Phelegon confirmed that the event took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the same period alluded to in the New Testament.
Origen was one of seven ancient writers who cited this same Phlegon, in his defense of Christianity against Celsus. The issue for the first-century non-Christian historian was not if the event happened – it was attempting to explain what really happened.
Non-Christian historians believed the event was caused by an eclipse of the sun. However, early church historians disagreed. It could hardly have been an eclipse of the sun at the time of the Passover. At that time of year the earth is closer to the sun than the moon, thus nullifying the eclipse theory. Furthermore, no eclipse of the sun can last more than 7 ½ minutes in any one place – this sun-darkening incident lasted for three hours.
Some believe the darkness may have been caused by an east wind or sirocco, a scorching wind from the desert. East winds are normally hot, gusty winds laden with sand and dust and occur frequently in May and October. But the synoptic writers never suggested that there were strong winds at the time of the darkness. In addition, such winds never appear at the time of Passover, the period when Jesus was crucified.
Then, could the darkness have been some unnatural phenomenon? Like what? From the information available, it is obvious that there is no explanation for this astronomical event. In addition, the timing of the darkness would certainly suggest that the event had something to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. If not, why would the synoptic writers mention the event if there was no relationship to the main story they were reporting – the crucifixion.
Interestingly, the darkening of the sun was not unique to the crucifixion of Jesus. In the book of Exodus, the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that darkness will spread over Egypt – darkness that can be felt. So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days” (Exodus 10:21-22).
The Exodus event makes it clear that it is possible for God to interrupt the course of nature as He sees necessary. Whereas the darkening of the skies in Exodus was an act of judgment, one wonders, what did a similar darkening mean when Jesus was crucified?
The synoptic texts are silent on the cause of the darkness, and so should we. However, what is clear was the act of an unnatural intervention at the time of the death of Jesus. Based on similar interventions in Exodus and other places in the Bible, one would not be speculating to conclude that the darkening of the sky was a divine act – an act of God.
It was not a mere accident of nature nor could it be a normal astronomical event. Rather, it was a clear indication of God’s involvement in the death of Jesus. In other words, the death of Jesus was no mere accident. Neither was it an event that overwhelmed God. The death of Jesus was as intentional as the offering of a sacrifice for sin in the Old Testament.
I believe Paul got it right when he wrote, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Incredible, darkness appeared when Jesus, the Light of the world died as a sacrifice for sin.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Did He 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 the New Testament said He did?
Second century Gnostic, Basilides would say no. 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 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.”
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 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.
As Messiah, His death was predicted in the Old Testament. 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 alludes 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.
As we prepare for Easter 2013, let us not forget that the primary story of the death of Jesus comes from the New Testament – “there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament” (F.F Bruce). Thankfully, the foundation of the Christian faith is built on fact and not legend.
Second century Gnostic, Basilides would say no. 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 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.”
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 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.
As Messiah, His death was predicted in the Old Testament. 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 alludes 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.
As we prepare for Easter 2013, let us not forget that the primary story of the death of Jesus comes from the New Testament – “there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament” (F.F Bruce). Thankfully, the foundation of the Christian faith is built on fact and not legend.
Monday, February 25, 2013
MLK & Non-Violence
By 2006, some 730 American cities had a street named after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In addition, the records at the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) indicate that by 1998, 110 public schools were bearing some reference to Dr. King’s name. Each of these communities, mainly in central cities of large and mid-size urban areas, had hoped that residents would feel obligated to live out the noble tenets of Dr. King.
It was hoped that many persons would emulate the six-point non-violent philosophy adopted by Dr. King. As a student of the New Testament, Dr. King was familiar with the non-violent teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. In addition, he was familiar with the non-violent practices of Mahatma Gandhi of India. That knowledge became the basis of his philosophy.
In the first place, King believed that non-violent resistance was not for cowards. It was not a quiet, passive acceptance of evil. One was passive and non-violent physically, but very active spiritually, always seeking ways to persuade the opponent of advantages to the way of love, cooperation and peace.
Secondly, the goal of non-violence was not to defeat or humiliate the opponent but rather to win him or her over to understanding new ways to create cooperation and community.
In the third place, non-violence was viewed as the force that was attacking evil. As Dr. King said in Montgomery, Alabama, “we are out to defeat injustice, not white persons who may be unjust.”
In addition, non-violence accepted suffering without retaliating. It accepted violence, but never commit violence. It was Gandhi who contended that “Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood.” Both King and Gandhi understood that suffering by activists had the mysterious power of converting opponents, who otherwise would refuse to listen.
In addition, in non-violent resistance, one learns to avoid physical violence toward others and also learns to love the opponents with unconditional love – a love that does not depend on what it receives in return, but acts solely for the sake of love. According to Dr. King, “along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate.”
Finally, non-violent resistance was based on the belief that the universe is just. There is God that was moving us toward universal love and wholeness. Therefore, “all our work for justice will bear fruit – the fruit of love, peace and justice for all beings everywhere.”
One would have hoped that with such a rich legacy of non-violence, especially within black communities, there would be a greater appreciation for the ideals of Dr. King. Even with the numerous institutions carrying King’s name, the high levels of violence in black communities is unacceptable.
A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that more than 8,000 African-Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact that 93% of these murders are perpetrated by other blacks. In other words, in one year more blacks are killed in America than service men and women killed on the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan in twelve years.
Whereas the statistics of killings are sobering, the number of violent crimes is frightening. Apart from the impact on the victims, we often forget the impact on the community. Last December, the Department of Justice released a little-noticed report that suggested that children exposed to community violence might turn to violence themselves as “a source of power, prestige, security, or even belongingness.” The report went on to recommend that these children should be treated by professionals.
Rather than resort only to professionals who often live far away from the crime communities, what about Christian churches located in the heart of those communities? Despite the silence from the media, stories of conversion continue to come from pastors and Christian workers. They are not only conducting funeral services for the victims of crime, many churches are witnessing genuine stories of conversion.
The non-violent vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is still alive in many churches as criminals turn from drugs and guns to a transforming faith in Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote with confidence that conversion brings about change, old lifestyles fade and new desires emerge (2 Corinthians 5:17). For this reason we need to pray for Christian workers who risk their lives daily in taking the message of peace to our violent-torn cities. Thankfully, despite the reality of serious crime during this Black History Month, we have hope that Jesus still transforms broken lives.
It was hoped that many persons would emulate the six-point non-violent philosophy adopted by Dr. King. As a student of the New Testament, Dr. King was familiar with the non-violent teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. In addition, he was familiar with the non-violent practices of Mahatma Gandhi of India. That knowledge became the basis of his philosophy.
In the first place, King believed that non-violent resistance was not for cowards. It was not a quiet, passive acceptance of evil. One was passive and non-violent physically, but very active spiritually, always seeking ways to persuade the opponent of advantages to the way of love, cooperation and peace.
Secondly, the goal of non-violence was not to defeat or humiliate the opponent but rather to win him or her over to understanding new ways to create cooperation and community.
In the third place, non-violence was viewed as the force that was attacking evil. As Dr. King said in Montgomery, Alabama, “we are out to defeat injustice, not white persons who may be unjust.”
In addition, non-violence accepted suffering without retaliating. It accepted violence, but never commit violence. It was Gandhi who contended that “Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood.” Both King and Gandhi understood that suffering by activists had the mysterious power of converting opponents, who otherwise would refuse to listen.
In addition, in non-violent resistance, one learns to avoid physical violence toward others and also learns to love the opponents with unconditional love – a love that does not depend on what it receives in return, but acts solely for the sake of love. According to Dr. King, “along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate.”
Finally, non-violent resistance was based on the belief that the universe is just. There is God that was moving us toward universal love and wholeness. Therefore, “all our work for justice will bear fruit – the fruit of love, peace and justice for all beings everywhere.”
One would have hoped that with such a rich legacy of non-violence, especially within black communities, there would be a greater appreciation for the ideals of Dr. King. Even with the numerous institutions carrying King’s name, the high levels of violence in black communities is unacceptable.
A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that more than 8,000 African-Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact that 93% of these murders are perpetrated by other blacks. In other words, in one year more blacks are killed in America than service men and women killed on the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan in twelve years.
Whereas the statistics of killings are sobering, the number of violent crimes is frightening. Apart from the impact on the victims, we often forget the impact on the community. Last December, the Department of Justice released a little-noticed report that suggested that children exposed to community violence might turn to violence themselves as “a source of power, prestige, security, or even belongingness.” The report went on to recommend that these children should be treated by professionals.
Rather than resort only to professionals who often live far away from the crime communities, what about Christian churches located in the heart of those communities? Despite the silence from the media, stories of conversion continue to come from pastors and Christian workers. They are not only conducting funeral services for the victims of crime, many churches are witnessing genuine stories of conversion.
The non-violent vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is still alive in many churches as criminals turn from drugs and guns to a transforming faith in Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote with confidence that conversion brings about change, old lifestyles fade and new desires emerge (2 Corinthians 5:17). For this reason we need to pray for Christian workers who risk their lives daily in taking the message of peace to our violent-torn cities. Thankfully, despite the reality of serious crime during this Black History Month, we have hope that Jesus still transforms broken lives.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Meteorite Worship
A fifty-foot wide, ten ton meteor streaked across Russia last week. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences, the meteor entered the earth’s atmosphere at a hypersonic speed of 33,000 miles per hour shattering into pieces about 18 to 32 miles above sea level.
The U.S. space agency, NASA, said the meteor was 33 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Reports from Russia indicate that more than 4,000 homes were damaged. According to the state-run news agency, glass shattered across more than a 75,000 square mile area. Thankfully, no one died and fewer than 1,500 persons suffered injuries, mostly from flying glass.
Whereas meteoroids are small particles from comets orbiting the sun, meteors are meteoroids that actually land on the earth’s surface. The pieces of the meteor that exploded in Russia are meteorites. Generally, meteorites are smaller than grains of sand and vaporize on passage through the atmosphere.
According to Russian scientists, the meteor that exploded comprised of rock and a bit of iron.
Scientists found 53 small meteorites on the surface of a lake and believe larger fragments are under water. The crash left a 26-foot wide crater in the ice on which it landed.
It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of what happened in Russia. Because of the enormity of the explosion, some have begun to attach religious significance to what happened. History confirms that it is not that unusual to associate meteors with divine intervention.
For thousands of years, meteorites were venerated as sacred objects by ancient civilizations. The spectacular explosions of meteorites, along with the light, often as bright as the sun, are so enormous that they evoke fear and awe in persons who witness such events.
Actually, several Native American tribes venerated pieces and fragments of the huge iron meteorite responsible for Arizona’s famous Meteor Crater. Native tribes from around the world have venerated meteorites for centuries. Ancient civilizations of the western hemisphere were no exception, and there are several examples of the worship of meteorites in Greco-Roman tradition.
Palladion of Troy, as well as the Cone of Elagabalus were actual meteorites – stones that had fallen from the sky, objects from heaven, believed to contain supernatural powers. In addressing the Ephesians, the city clerk said, “...doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven (Acts 19:35)?
The Roman historian, Titus Livius, tells the story of the meteorite in Phrygia - a conical object known as the Needle of Cybele, the goddess of fertility. After the Romans conquered Phrygia, the meteorite was conveyed in a gigantic procession to Rome, where it was worshipped for another 500 years.
Annually, millions of Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Kaaba, a room in which a sacred black stone is housed. Each Muslim is expected to make the pilgrimage at least once in his lifetime and to walk around the Kaaba seven times. Pilgrims are then expected to pause at the southeastern corner of the Kaaba to complete the ritual, touching or kissing the sacred black stone.
Venerating the black stone was practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs. Muslims inherited this practice and contend that it is done to show special reverence and veneration for its dignity after the example of the Prophet Mohammed. The Qur’an actually teaches that the Ka’aba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2:125) and some believe that the stone became black as it took the sins of those who kissed it (Burton: Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah – Vol.2, page 300). Despite this practice, Muslims contend that they do not worship the stone.
In addressing the Athenians, the Apostle Paul confronted philosophers who thought the divine being was like gold, or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill. He contended, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:29-30). In other words, our understanding of the Creator must not be equated to things He created – that is a display of ignorance.
Scientific knowledge has helped to dispel much ignorance, thus removing the need to associate divinity with meteoric phenomena. The Apostle Paul would agree – he did not only expose religious superstition among the Athenians, he challenged them to commit to the historical Jesus – “the person you killed and God brought back to life.” Some of those who heard believed, others disagreed, and another group deferred their decision – just like we do today.
The U.S. space agency, NASA, said the meteor was 33 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Reports from Russia indicate that more than 4,000 homes were damaged. According to the state-run news agency, glass shattered across more than a 75,000 square mile area. Thankfully, no one died and fewer than 1,500 persons suffered injuries, mostly from flying glass.
Whereas meteoroids are small particles from comets orbiting the sun, meteors are meteoroids that actually land on the earth’s surface. The pieces of the meteor that exploded in Russia are meteorites. Generally, meteorites are smaller than grains of sand and vaporize on passage through the atmosphere.
According to Russian scientists, the meteor that exploded comprised of rock and a bit of iron.
Scientists found 53 small meteorites on the surface of a lake and believe larger fragments are under water. The crash left a 26-foot wide crater in the ice on which it landed.
It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of what happened in Russia. Because of the enormity of the explosion, some have begun to attach religious significance to what happened. History confirms that it is not that unusual to associate meteors with divine intervention.
For thousands of years, meteorites were venerated as sacred objects by ancient civilizations. The spectacular explosions of meteorites, along with the light, often as bright as the sun, are so enormous that they evoke fear and awe in persons who witness such events.
Actually, several Native American tribes venerated pieces and fragments of the huge iron meteorite responsible for Arizona’s famous Meteor Crater. Native tribes from around the world have venerated meteorites for centuries. Ancient civilizations of the western hemisphere were no exception, and there are several examples of the worship of meteorites in Greco-Roman tradition.
Palladion of Troy, as well as the Cone of Elagabalus were actual meteorites – stones that had fallen from the sky, objects from heaven, believed to contain supernatural powers. In addressing the Ephesians, the city clerk said, “...doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven (Acts 19:35)?
The Roman historian, Titus Livius, tells the story of the meteorite in Phrygia - a conical object known as the Needle of Cybele, the goddess of fertility. After the Romans conquered Phrygia, the meteorite was conveyed in a gigantic procession to Rome, where it was worshipped for another 500 years.
Annually, millions of Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Kaaba, a room in which a sacred black stone is housed. Each Muslim is expected to make the pilgrimage at least once in his lifetime and to walk around the Kaaba seven times. Pilgrims are then expected to pause at the southeastern corner of the Kaaba to complete the ritual, touching or kissing the sacred black stone.
Venerating the black stone was practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs. Muslims inherited this practice and contend that it is done to show special reverence and veneration for its dignity after the example of the Prophet Mohammed. The Qur’an actually teaches that the Ka’aba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2:125) and some believe that the stone became black as it took the sins of those who kissed it (Burton: Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah – Vol.2, page 300). Despite this practice, Muslims contend that they do not worship the stone.
In addressing the Athenians, the Apostle Paul confronted philosophers who thought the divine being was like gold, or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill. He contended, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:29-30). In other words, our understanding of the Creator must not be equated to things He created – that is a display of ignorance.
Scientific knowledge has helped to dispel much ignorance, thus removing the need to associate divinity with meteoric phenomena. The Apostle Paul would agree – he did not only expose religious superstition among the Athenians, he challenged them to commit to the historical Jesus – “the person you killed and God brought back to life.” Some of those who heard believed, others disagreed, and another group deferred their decision – just like we do today.
Monday, February 11, 2013
An Appeal for the Unborn
This column is the third in my trilogy on abortion. Last week, my guest discussed the need for compassion to be shown to the woman who chose to terminate a pregnancy. As a medical doctor she took the position that she would rather provide the woman with the opportunity to have an abortion “in an informed, medically safe and legal way”, rather than suffer the consequences of unprofessional intervention.
Agreed, unprofessional intervention or botched abortions have an ugly history of barbaric procedures often leading to tragic consequences for the mother. It is believed that one woman dies every seven minutes around the world due to an unsafe illegal abortion. In the United States the death rate for abortion is currently 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Hence, it would be safe to say that in the U.S., legalizing abortion has reduced reproductive barbarism significantly.
However, with safer procedures has come increasing frequency of abortions and casual sex. Researchers tell us that some 22% of the 1¼ million pregnancies in America will be terminated in abortion. More than 48% of these women would have had at least one previous abortion. But why would a woman want to abort her baby? The most common reasons women consider abortion are:
- Birth Control – more than 50% of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant;
- Economics – inability to support or care for a child/to end an unwanted pregnancy;
- Birth defects – to prevent the birth of a child with severe medical problems;
- Physical or mental conditions that endanger the health of the mother; and
- Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Although much has been said of the mother’s health and forced sex as legitimate reasons for abortion, many analysts are reluctant to tell us that such cases are rare among women seeking abortion. Actually, fewer than 3% of all women who abort fall into these categories.
So often we forget that the biggest victim in abortion is the child that is aborted. For convenience, we sometimes ignore that the child is a person. Legally, one is charged for double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed. Already, 29 states practice fetal homicide laws. The law grants personhood status to a fetus, thus affording legal rights for a fetus, separate from those enjoyed by the mother. The killer is usually charged for double homicide.
In addition, the use of ultrasound in early pregnancy enables medical personnel to examine the gestational sac within the uterus as early as the fourth week of pregnancy. There should be no doubt then, that an abortion is the surgical removal of a person from a woman’s womb.
The purpose or method of removal does not legitimize the act of removal. Fearful young women sometimes attribute their pregnancies to rape in order to avoid possible condemnation. For instance, Norma McCorvey was the young woman called “Roe” in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade case of legalizing abortion. Norma elicited sympathy in the court and media because she claimed to be a rape victim. However, years later, she admitted that she lied and was not raped.
The courts and the media fell for that lie because we have been led to believe that abortion should be expected whenever someone is raped. Under no condition should rape be trivialized. It is a horrible crime for which rapists should receive the full extent of the law.
Rape traumatizes women and as a society we should do everything to reduce the impact of that pain. However, is abortion the only option and does it bring authentic healing to rape victims? Feminists for Life contend that “some women have reported suffering from the trauma of abortion long after the rape trauma has faded.”
In their book Victims and Victors, David Reardon and his associates draw on the testimonies of 192 women who experienced pregnancy as the result of rape or incest – and 55 children who were conceived through sexual assault. Nearly all the women interviewed in Reardon’s anecdotal survey said they regretted aborting the babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90% said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.
Today Jennifer Bowman has three beautiful children. However, looking at her one could never tell that she was a victim of rape. Her passion for this forgotten group of victims is evident on her website.
The impact of such stories is not merely statistical for me. I thank God daily, that although a victim of rape, my mother-in-law did not opt for an abortion. The child that resulted has changed my life forever.
Agreed, unprofessional intervention or botched abortions have an ugly history of barbaric procedures often leading to tragic consequences for the mother. It is believed that one woman dies every seven minutes around the world due to an unsafe illegal abortion. In the United States the death rate for abortion is currently 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Hence, it would be safe to say that in the U.S., legalizing abortion has reduced reproductive barbarism significantly.
However, with safer procedures has come increasing frequency of abortions and casual sex. Researchers tell us that some 22% of the 1¼ million pregnancies in America will be terminated in abortion. More than 48% of these women would have had at least one previous abortion. But why would a woman want to abort her baby? The most common reasons women consider abortion are:
- Birth Control – more than 50% of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant;
- Economics – inability to support or care for a child/to end an unwanted pregnancy;
- Birth defects – to prevent the birth of a child with severe medical problems;
- Physical or mental conditions that endanger the health of the mother; and
- Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Although much has been said of the mother’s health and forced sex as legitimate reasons for abortion, many analysts are reluctant to tell us that such cases are rare among women seeking abortion. Actually, fewer than 3% of all women who abort fall into these categories.
So often we forget that the biggest victim in abortion is the child that is aborted. For convenience, we sometimes ignore that the child is a person. Legally, one is charged for double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed. Already, 29 states practice fetal homicide laws. The law grants personhood status to a fetus, thus affording legal rights for a fetus, separate from those enjoyed by the mother. The killer is usually charged for double homicide.
In addition, the use of ultrasound in early pregnancy enables medical personnel to examine the gestational sac within the uterus as early as the fourth week of pregnancy. There should be no doubt then, that an abortion is the surgical removal of a person from a woman’s womb.
The purpose or method of removal does not legitimize the act of removal. Fearful young women sometimes attribute their pregnancies to rape in order to avoid possible condemnation. For instance, Norma McCorvey was the young woman called “Roe” in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade case of legalizing abortion. Norma elicited sympathy in the court and media because she claimed to be a rape victim. However, years later, she admitted that she lied and was not raped.
The courts and the media fell for that lie because we have been led to believe that abortion should be expected whenever someone is raped. Under no condition should rape be trivialized. It is a horrible crime for which rapists should receive the full extent of the law.
Rape traumatizes women and as a society we should do everything to reduce the impact of that pain. However, is abortion the only option and does it bring authentic healing to rape victims? Feminists for Life contend that “some women have reported suffering from the trauma of abortion long after the rape trauma has faded.”
In their book Victims and Victors, David Reardon and his associates draw on the testimonies of 192 women who experienced pregnancy as the result of rape or incest – and 55 children who were conceived through sexual assault. Nearly all the women interviewed in Reardon’s anecdotal survey said they regretted aborting the babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90% said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.
Today Jennifer Bowman has three beautiful children. However, looking at her one could never tell that she was a victim of rape. Her passion for this forgotten group of victims is evident on her website.
The impact of such stories is not merely statistical for me. I thank God daily, that although a victim of rape, my mother-in-law did not opt for an abortion. The child that resulted has changed my life forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)