WHO KILLED JESUS?

 No trial or execution in history has had such crucial outcome as that of the trial of Jesus. For instance, when Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, was released in 2004, it was feared that it would instigate world-wide antisemitism, because the film suggested that the Jews killed Jesus.

The impact of the film was also felt among Muslims. The film was banned in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. They believed in the Koranic teaching that Jesus did not die, as portrayed in the New Testament.

Although almost 2,000 years have gone, the death of Jesus continues to arouse attention. This ongoing interest is what prompted the BBC to update an archived article entitled, Who Killed Jesus? The article suggested that three sources shared responsibility for the death of Jesus.

The first source was Jewish. The Jews arrested Jesus as a Jew. They saw him as a threat to the religious establishment. Jesus assumed messianic authority when he raided the Temple, the heart of Jewish religion, and attacked moneychangers for defiling a holy place.

The Temple apparatus brought in huge revenues for simple matters like purification and the forgiveness of sins. Archaeologists have discovered about 150 ritual baths, which Jews used to purify themselves before any act of worship. Jewish people could only enter the Temple if they were ritually pure, and almost everyone arriving in Jerusalem for Passover was deemed ritually unclean. They had to use a ritual bath before they could fulfil their religious obligations. The priests controlled these baths and charged people to use them. There were so many regulations requiring ritual purification that control of the baths became a way of making money.

Jesus stormed into the Temple and accused the moneychangers and sacrificial dove sellers of extortion and of turning the Temple into a den of thieves. This is how John described Jesus’ reaction: “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the Temple area, both sheep and cattle; He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, ‘Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market’” (John 2:15-16).

To assume that authority was to assume divinity. In many other situations Jesus assumed divinity, and that was tantamount to blasphemy – assuming to be God. Such a charge was punishable by death. However, as a colony of the Roman Empire, the Jews had no authority to invoke capital punishment. In addition, the Romans were not interested in conducting a religious trial.  

 

Because the Jews were so determined to have Jesus killed, they referred the matter to the Romans, accusing him instead of treason. They contended, Jesus claimed to be a king. In essence, he is guilty of insurrection and would eventually become a threat to the Romans. Caiaphas and Pilate, both Roman representatives,  conducted sham trials and did not find any reason to sentence Jesus.

 

They both tried to release themselves from the trial. Pilate offered the murderer Barabbas as an alternative, worthy of death. The Jews objected and publicly expressed their dissatisfaction. In order to avoid public revolt, Pilate capitulated. So, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, at the insistence of the Jews.  

 

The BBC article to which I referred earlier, contended that if the Jews nor the Romans could be held responsible, then Jesus may have been responsible for his own death. Jesus, it was felt, conducted himself in a way to warrant his trial, which resulted in his death.

 

I would agree that Jesus could have extricated himself from capital punishment. On previous occasions he miraculously walked away from death traps. In addition, he rebuked Peter when he attempted to defend him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He informed Peter that he could have called some 10,000 angels to his defense. Then, why didn’t Jesus utilize the resources available to him to avoid crucifixion?

 

The New Testament strongly advances the view that the death of Jesus was no accident. In announcing his birth, the Angel said to Joseph, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The name Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves.

 

At Jesus’ dedication, Simeon the priest mentioned to Mary his mother, “… and a sword will pierce your own soul too” (Luke 2:35). In addition, at the launch of Jesus’ ministry, John the Baptist introduced him as “the Lamb of God”. In brief, Jesus predicted his death. He knew a tragic death was expected of the Messiah.

 

Following his resurrection, Jesus said to his disciples, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day…” (Luke 24:46). Jesus was referring to Scriptures from the Hebrew Bible, written some 700 years earlier.

 

The proper question should not be, who killed Jesus? Rather, the question should really be, why did Jesus die? Among others, Paul answers that question in one of his letters: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:3).

 

And, that is the story of Easter – Jesus Christ died for our sins.

 

 

Mary - Did You Know?

 Twenty-six years ago, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell invited Mark Lowry to write a Christmas program. As he wrote the “speaking parts”, he began to think about Mary, the mother of Jesus.   

In a recent interview, Lowry recalled, “as my mind went back to the manger scene, I began to think about the power, authority and majesty Mary cradled in her arms. I began writing a list of questions I would like to ask Mary if I could sit down with her - questions such as, ‘Mary, do you know who is in your arms? Did you know that your baby boy will walk on water, give sight to a blind man and calm a storm at sea with his hand?’”

Lowry carried his lyrics with him for the next seven years. In 1991, he asked his good friend, Buddy Greene, to write suitable music for his poem. According to Green, “Mark handed me his lyrics, and I held on to them for about two weeks.

One day I pulled them out and looked at them. They seemed to suggest a minor key approach to writing an accompaniment. I completed the musical setting in about 30 minutes. I called Mark at his home in Georgia and on the phone played and sang the song to him. He was ecstatic! He said, ‘That’s it!’

Two weeks later. Greene met in Mark’s hotel room in Nashville where they recorded the song on a small portable machine. It was then taken to Michael English who was preparing to make an album. He was the first person to record “Mary, Did You Know?”

Since Michael English, many other artistes have rendered “Mary, Did You Know”. I like Mark Lowry’s rendition very much. Then I heard the Pentatonix a cappella rendition.

In 2014, this Grammy Award-winning a cappella group with their resplendent displays of vocal harmony, took Lowry’s classic to another level. The musical group used the diversity of their collective vocal ranges to emphasize that a small gathering is in awe of Mary and her role. Each of the five vocalists asked her their questions. The unusual approach magnified the sense of wonder in the song, particularly as contrasted to a single querying narrator.

Here we are, twenty-six years later and still in love with “Mary, Did You Know”. Some are captivated by the music and return to it again and again. Interestingly, many who do not share Mark Lowry’s faith, which fueled his authorship, sing the song with passion.

Some who share Lowry’s faith have problems with the song. They believe the song contends that Mary needed a Savior. “But how could Mary need a Savior,” they ask, “if she were born of immaculate conception?” Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic teaching which asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved free from the effects of original sin from her conception.

Mary had been solemnly declared to be the mother of God at the Church’s Council of Ephesus in 431. Most Catholic theologians doubted that one who had been so close to God could have actually experienced sinful acts. I have not read the findings of the Council of Ephesus, but I have read the Magnificat, the lyrics of Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-55.

The Latin translation of Mary’s response begins with the word Magnificat, which simply means “magnify” (or “exalt,” “glorify,” etc.). The Magnificat is a poem of praise to God, praising Him for His blessing to Mary and His faithfulness to Israel. The Magnificat also highlights a series of reversals in which the proud are humbled and the humble are exalted—not the least being a poor young girl who will be the mother of the Messiah.

Commentators have pointed out that the Magnificat is full of quotations of and allusions to passages in the Old Testament. Many of the truths Mary expresses find a counterpart in Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1–10.

Dr John Piper shared an interesting commentary on Mary’s reference to God’s holiness. Piper contends that Mary stressed that God's holiness has expressed itself and will express itself by exalting the lowly and abasing the haughty.

“What fills Mary's heart with joy is that God loves to undertake for the underdog who calls on his mercy. This is how his holiness expresses itself. Does this not commend itself as true, that the great and holy God should magnify his greatness by blessing the lowly who admire his greatness and by abasing the haughty who resent his greatness?”

Honestly, Mary would not have been able to answer the questions in Mark Lowry’s song – she just did not know the answers. However, what she knew, was what God could do through the surrender of a simple teenage girl. This Christmas, remember, God still works through simple people who surrender their lives to Him.

 

 

VIRGIN BIRTH: No Big Thing?

 Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. A Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.

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

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

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

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

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

That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography. Apologist William Lane Craig contends, “historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.

Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”