Last Thursday, in a powerful, uplifting speech at an interfaith service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, President Obama said he went to join people to “pray and mourn and measure our loss. We also come today to reaffirm that the spirit of this city is undaunted and the spirit of this country shall remain undimmed. I’m here today on behalf of the American people with a simple message: Every one of us has been touched by this attack on your beloved city. Every one of us stands with you,” he said.
At the conclusion of the President’s speech, the 2,000 people in the crowd leapt to their feet, some with tears streaking down their cheeks, to deliver a standing ovation. The crowd then joined in singing “America the Beautiful.”
The interfaith service at the cathedral was in keeping with a religious response to the terror attack at which three people died and more than 170 were injured when two blasts were detonated near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon.
Religious clerics have been responding because of the grief and the terrorists’ claim to be Muslims. However, unlike some previous attacks in which the perpetrators claimed to be Muslims, the reaction of Muslim clerics this time was different.
In reference to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the terrorist who died in a shoot out with the police, one Boston Muslim cleric said he would refuse to perform funeral rites for a man accused of committing so much violence. Yusufi Vali, executive director of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in the Boston area, also refused to identify with the two killers.
The two Tsarnaev brothers, accused of the Boston bombings, occasionally attended prayer services at the Islamic Society of Boston Cambridge Masjid, a small mosque near Tamerlan’s home. In a statement from the masjid, Muslim leaders claim “the brothers never exhibited any violent sentiments or behavior in their visits to the mosque.”
In a recent interview, the Council on American Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Executive Director in Florida, Hassan Shibly said, “domestically, it appears that many of those who engage in plotting acts of terror are ignorant, troubled, and mentally unstable individuals. Some have used disagreement with US foreign policy as justification for their disgusting acts, but the fact remains that such acts are unjustifiable and are due to the individual needing serious mental health counseling more than anything else. No mentally healthy individual can accept the intentional attack against innocent civilians, especially not in the name of any divine faith.”
I congratulate American Muslim leaders on this move to condemn the Boston attack. I now challenge them to go one step further and condemn the Egyptian cleric who said the attack in Boston “was definitively a jihad by mujahedeen.” As a matter of fact, the dust had not even settled on the ground at the site of the devastating explosions at the Boston Marathon finish line before Islamists started celebrating that so many people in America had been killed and injured. There were reports from Jordan and Gaza that people explicitly allied with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad joined with ordinary citizens to dance in the streets, cheer, and pass out candy.
Such celebrations are unacceptable in today’s America - and so are the organizations that participate in the celebrations. American Muslim clerics need to challenge and discontinue supporting terrorist organizations. To challenge violence in any religion is not hate speech.
Sinem Tezyapar, a Muslim commentator got it right when she said, “history has witnessed many sick people leading others to commit atrocities, but there is one thing for certain; whatever the perpetrator or perpetrators might profess as a religion, they are not believers. If someone is capable of killing innocent people without so much as blinking an eye, then they are murderers with no fear of God. That is indisputable.”
That perspective deserves our support as Christians. In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul urged Christians to pray for persons in authority, “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...” (1 Timothy 2:2). Hundreds of years earlier, while in exile, Jeremiah encouraged the Jews to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).
Today we are seeking peace in a hostile world. In pursuing that peace we must encourage others who are also seeking peace and condemn every attempt to challenge civility and tranquility.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
PLEASE PRAY FOR Rick & Kay Warren
The Warrens need our prayers. They are known publicly as the founders of Saddleback Church, international speakers and best-selling authors. With the media visibility it is easy to forget that they face challenges in their home like any other family in America – probably more than the average family in America.
Last Friday they faced one major challenge. They had just completed a fun evening with their son Michael. After leaving his parents, Michael went to his home and experienced “a momentary wave of despair” similar to other moments he had throughout his life. This time though, he reacted by taking his own life.
This is how Rick Warren announced the tragedy to his staff: “over the past 33 years we’ve been together through every kind of crisis. Kay and I have been privileged to hold your hands as you faced a crisis or loss, stand with you at gravesides, and prayed for you when ill. Today, we need you to pray for us. No words can express the anguished grief we feel right now. Our youngest son, Matthew, age 27, and a lifelong member of Saddleback, died today.”
The heart-wrenching email went on to say, “only those closest knew that Matthew struggled from birth with mental illness, dark holes of depression, and even suicidal thoughts. In spite of America’s best doctors, meds, counselors, and prayers for healing, the torture of mental illness never subsided...I’ll never forget how, many years ago, after another approach had failed to give him relief, Matthew said, ‘Dad, I know I’m going to heaven. Why can’t I just die and end this pain?’”
That pain ended for Matthew on Friday, but not for the Warren family. Days earlier, Rick Warren and his staff prepared for the services over the weekend of Matthew’s death - the theme – “Surviving Tough Times.” Little did Rick know that he and his family would need the message more than any of the 20,000 persons who worship at Saddleback every weekend.
Worship services continued as scheduled with Rick’s brother-in-law Tom Holladay filling-in. Rick asked Tom, one of the assistant pastors, to take over the weekend services when he came down with pneumonia after a busy Easter schedule. Before Matthew’s tragedy, Rick Warren promoted the weekend services on Facebook with these words: “It’s a message on what to do on the worst day of your life.” What a prophetic message.
Both Rick and Kay are prolific writers and encouragers. In addition, Kay has spent the last ten years as a tireless advocate for persons living with HIV and AIDS. She has travelled to more than 19 countries calling on faith communities to respond to the needs of others.
In her most recent book, Choose Joy: Because Happiness Isn’t Enough, she describes her own pain. She has had two bouts of cancer and has watched as life-threatening illnesses attacked her children and grandchildren. Those experiences obviously helped to prepare her for Matthew’s tragic death.
Matthew’s dad, Rick Warren wrote The Purpose Driven Life, which became the bestselling hardback non-fiction book in history, and is the second most-translated book in the world, after the Bible. The Purpose Driven Life has inspired and changed tens of millions of lives ... more than any modern book.
The Warrens need our prayers at this time. Millions have benefited from their ministry and it is now our turn to take them to the Lord in prayer. In a recent tweet to his almost one million internet followers, he said he and his wife were overwhelmed by the support they have received since Matthew’s tragedy.
Unfortunately, not everyone has responded to this tragedy with compassion. Heartlessness was expressed by both Christians and non-Christians. Here is a sampling:
“He knew his daddy was a fraud fleecing the masses and just could no longer live with the guilt and continue the charade.”
“He preaches about saving millions of lost souls, but couldn’t save his son. Just another phony preacher taking advantage of stupid sheep!”
“I can only think of one “believer” who committed suicide: Judas Iscariot. Did he suffer a mental illness, too?”
How sad, some have allowed their theological and ideological differences to stifle compassion. The Bible we claim to believe calls on us “to grieve with those who grieve and mourn with those who mourn.” When we cannot do that, we are as warped as the opinions we share.
Last Friday they faced one major challenge. They had just completed a fun evening with their son Michael. After leaving his parents, Michael went to his home and experienced “a momentary wave of despair” similar to other moments he had throughout his life. This time though, he reacted by taking his own life.
This is how Rick Warren announced the tragedy to his staff: “over the past 33 years we’ve been together through every kind of crisis. Kay and I have been privileged to hold your hands as you faced a crisis or loss, stand with you at gravesides, and prayed for you when ill. Today, we need you to pray for us. No words can express the anguished grief we feel right now. Our youngest son, Matthew, age 27, and a lifelong member of Saddleback, died today.”
The heart-wrenching email went on to say, “only those closest knew that Matthew struggled from birth with mental illness, dark holes of depression, and even suicidal thoughts. In spite of America’s best doctors, meds, counselors, and prayers for healing, the torture of mental illness never subsided...I’ll never forget how, many years ago, after another approach had failed to give him relief, Matthew said, ‘Dad, I know I’m going to heaven. Why can’t I just die and end this pain?’”
That pain ended for Matthew on Friday, but not for the Warren family. Days earlier, Rick Warren and his staff prepared for the services over the weekend of Matthew’s death - the theme – “Surviving Tough Times.” Little did Rick know that he and his family would need the message more than any of the 20,000 persons who worship at Saddleback every weekend.
Worship services continued as scheduled with Rick’s brother-in-law Tom Holladay filling-in. Rick asked Tom, one of the assistant pastors, to take over the weekend services when he came down with pneumonia after a busy Easter schedule. Before Matthew’s tragedy, Rick Warren promoted the weekend services on Facebook with these words: “It’s a message on what to do on the worst day of your life.” What a prophetic message.
Both Rick and Kay are prolific writers and encouragers. In addition, Kay has spent the last ten years as a tireless advocate for persons living with HIV and AIDS. She has travelled to more than 19 countries calling on faith communities to respond to the needs of others.
In her most recent book, Choose Joy: Because Happiness Isn’t Enough, she describes her own pain. She has had two bouts of cancer and has watched as life-threatening illnesses attacked her children and grandchildren. Those experiences obviously helped to prepare her for Matthew’s tragic death.
Matthew’s dad, Rick Warren wrote The Purpose Driven Life, which became the bestselling hardback non-fiction book in history, and is the second most-translated book in the world, after the Bible. The Purpose Driven Life has inspired and changed tens of millions of lives ... more than any modern book.
The Warrens need our prayers at this time. Millions have benefited from their ministry and it is now our turn to take them to the Lord in prayer. In a recent tweet to his almost one million internet followers, he said he and his wife were overwhelmed by the support they have received since Matthew’s tragedy.
Unfortunately, not everyone has responded to this tragedy with compassion. Heartlessness was expressed by both Christians and non-Christians. Here is a sampling:
“He knew his daddy was a fraud fleecing the masses and just could no longer live with the guilt and continue the charade.”
“He preaches about saving millions of lost souls, but couldn’t save his son. Just another phony preacher taking advantage of stupid sheep!”
“I can only think of one “believer” who committed suicide: Judas Iscariot. Did he suffer a mental illness, too?”
How sad, some have allowed their theological and ideological differences to stifle compassion. The Bible we claim to believe calls on us “to grieve with those who grieve and mourn with those who mourn.” When we cannot do that, we are as warped as the opinions we share.
Monday, April 1, 2013
A Defense of the Resurrection
Far too often Christians have been led to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is an issue of faith and not history. However, I believe there are a few historical questions that can best be answered by a belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
One such question concerns the empty tomb. First-century historians and New Testament writers confirm that the practice of entombment was a normal occurrence. As a result, it is not a problem to accept that Jesus was placed in a tomb, following His crucifixion. The New Testament contends that the tomb was empty three days later. This claim was made and documented within the lifetime of most of the persons who witnessed the crucifixion.
To date, we are not aware of any credible first century historian who has refuted the Christian claim of an empty tomb. Explanations for the empty tomb include theft by the disciples of Jesus and resuscitation. In light of the Roman reputation for conducting crucifixions, both theories are implausible. To be honest, the resurrection of Jesus is by far the most plausible option.
We are also aware that bone boxes or ossuaries were used to store the bones of persons who were entombed. If Jesus were not resurrected, His bones would have been transferred to an ossuary within eighteen months to two years after entombment. Outside of such ossuaries, the names of the deceased were engraved. To date, hundreds of ossuaries have been found and most identified.
In order to refute the claim of the rapidly growing Christian church in the first century, how is it no one has ever been able to locate the bone box of Jesus? Archaeologists have found bone boxes for Pilate and even James, the brother of Jesus, but no credible claims have been made concerning Jesus’ ossuary. Is it likely that no bone box can be found because no bones were left behind?
In his book, The Jewish Messiahs, Professor Harris Lenowitz indicates that prior to and following the life of Jesus, Jewish leaders arose claiming to be the promised Messiah. Each professed Messiah attracted a following. However, with the death of each Messiah, the followers scattered and the messianic movement died.
Christians contend that unlike other messianic enthusiasts, the Jesus movement did not die following the death of Jesus. There were sure signs of the movement collapsing during the proceedings before and immediately after the crucifixion. The hopelessness of the two men on the road to Emmaus was reflective of the mood of the Jesus movement.
What then could have accounted for the massive turnaround among the followers of Jesus? Within days they were transformed from wimps to witnesses and from cowards to people of courage. This turnaround took place in front of the same authorities before whom they were terrified. The only plausible answer could be a major event that transformed them. Christians contend, the resurrection of Jesus fits that description.
Furthermore, why did the Christians within a few months of the death of Jesus practice the following?
- corporate worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2);
- referencing the first day of the week as “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10);
- reinterpreting Jewish baptism to signify the death and resurrection of Jesus; and
- associating hope of life after death with the resurrection of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20).
The most plausible answer to the above is the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. Even normal greetings among Christians in the first century reflected their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Christians greeted each other with the words, “He is risen” – the response? “He is risen indeed.” Why would such a greeting be necessary if they did not believe that Jesus was resurrected?
In the recently concluded television series, The Bible, it was clearly shown where ten of the twelve disciples of Jesus died as witnesses. They were prepared to die rather than deny what they saw and knew to be true. Interestingly, no one dies for what he knows to be a lie. People will die for what they believe to be true – but never for what they know to be a lie.
Furthermore, how do historians account for the rapid growth of Christianity so soon after the death of Jesus? It was not only the courage of the disciples but also the outcome of their testimonies before persons who witnessed the death of Jesus. Were it not for the resurrection, the tragic death of Jesus would not be an incentive for new believers.
Agreed, the resurrection of Jesus was miraculous, but it is not historically indefensible.
One such question concerns the empty tomb. First-century historians and New Testament writers confirm that the practice of entombment was a normal occurrence. As a result, it is not a problem to accept that Jesus was placed in a tomb, following His crucifixion. The New Testament contends that the tomb was empty three days later. This claim was made and documented within the lifetime of most of the persons who witnessed the crucifixion.
To date, we are not aware of any credible first century historian who has refuted the Christian claim of an empty tomb. Explanations for the empty tomb include theft by the disciples of Jesus and resuscitation. In light of the Roman reputation for conducting crucifixions, both theories are implausible. To be honest, the resurrection of Jesus is by far the most plausible option.
We are also aware that bone boxes or ossuaries were used to store the bones of persons who were entombed. If Jesus were not resurrected, His bones would have been transferred to an ossuary within eighteen months to two years after entombment. Outside of such ossuaries, the names of the deceased were engraved. To date, hundreds of ossuaries have been found and most identified.
In order to refute the claim of the rapidly growing Christian church in the first century, how is it no one has ever been able to locate the bone box of Jesus? Archaeologists have found bone boxes for Pilate and even James, the brother of Jesus, but no credible claims have been made concerning Jesus’ ossuary. Is it likely that no bone box can be found because no bones were left behind?
In his book, The Jewish Messiahs, Professor Harris Lenowitz indicates that prior to and following the life of Jesus, Jewish leaders arose claiming to be the promised Messiah. Each professed Messiah attracted a following. However, with the death of each Messiah, the followers scattered and the messianic movement died.
Christians contend that unlike other messianic enthusiasts, the Jesus movement did not die following the death of Jesus. There were sure signs of the movement collapsing during the proceedings before and immediately after the crucifixion. The hopelessness of the two men on the road to Emmaus was reflective of the mood of the Jesus movement.
What then could have accounted for the massive turnaround among the followers of Jesus? Within days they were transformed from wimps to witnesses and from cowards to people of courage. This turnaround took place in front of the same authorities before whom they were terrified. The only plausible answer could be a major event that transformed them. Christians contend, the resurrection of Jesus fits that description.
Furthermore, why did the Christians within a few months of the death of Jesus practice the following?
- corporate worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2);
- referencing the first day of the week as “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10);
- reinterpreting Jewish baptism to signify the death and resurrection of Jesus; and
- associating hope of life after death with the resurrection of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20).
The most plausible answer to the above is the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. Even normal greetings among Christians in the first century reflected their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Christians greeted each other with the words, “He is risen” – the response? “He is risen indeed.” Why would such a greeting be necessary if they did not believe that Jesus was resurrected?
In the recently concluded television series, The Bible, it was clearly shown where ten of the twelve disciples of Jesus died as witnesses. They were prepared to die rather than deny what they saw and knew to be true. Interestingly, no one dies for what he knows to be a lie. People will die for what they believe to be true – but never for what they know to be a lie.
Furthermore, how do historians account for the rapid growth of Christianity so soon after the death of Jesus? It was not only the courage of the disciples but also the outcome of their testimonies before persons who witnessed the death of Jesus. Were it not for the resurrection, the tragic death of Jesus would not be an incentive for new believers.
Agreed, the resurrection of Jesus was miraculous, but it is not historically indefensible.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
DID JESUS...Sweat Like Blood?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)