JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

1
JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN
Lars Wilhelmsson

2
CONTENTS
Pages
PREFACE 3-4
INTRODUCTION 5-10
1. THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE 11-24
2. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY 25-43
3. EXTERNAL PROOFS FOR JESUS' EXISTENCE 44-50
4. THE ESSENCE OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY 51-69
5. INSPIRATION, AUTHORITY, CANONICITY 70-122
AND HERMENEUTICS
6. THE PREEXISTENCE OF JESUS THE CHRIST 123-131
7. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part I 132-146
Names, An Early Christian Hymn, The Virgin Birth
8. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part II 147-169
Attributes, Bodily Resurrection, Purpose & Nature of the Incarnation
9. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part I 170-180
Attributes, Offices, Prerogatives, Work
10. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part II 181-202
Names
11. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part III 203-218
Unique Relationship
12. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part IV 219-227
Jesus' Own Consciousness
13. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part V 228-235
Teachings
14. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part VI 236-242
Problem Texts
15. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part VII 243-256
Old Testament Names and Terms Applied to Jesus
16. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 257-286
17. ONLY SIX OPTIONS: THE CHALLENGE TO DECIDE 287-301
NOTES 302-323
BIBLIOGRAPHY 324-333

3
PREFACE
If we miss who Jesus is, everything else will be off kilter. Every cult and heresy has
demonstrated this. Only orthodox Christianity recognizes Jesus for who He is:
GOD THE SON or SON OF GOD
SON OF MAN
GOD-MAN
"He is what God means by man. He is what man means by God."1
--J. S. Whale
Today in America there are about 4,000 different cults with about 30 million adherents,
representing a missionfield on our doorsteps. Our society and culture has also become fascinated
with the lure of the occult. This is seen most vividly in the horrific pace of growth of the New
Age movement. It has been estimated that there are 50-60 million practicing some aspect of
the occult. A recent magazine stated that some 40 million Americans check their horoscope
every morning to see what their zodiac sign says about how to live that day.
Our universities and colleges, which for the most part actively or passively teach
agnosticism, are also filled with students who are helplessly adrift in this sea of religious
pluralism and moral relativism. Many of these confused students are desperately seeking for
some kind of meaningful religious experience, for transcendence and personal significance.
Others focus more on objective truth. Most, if not all, look for some semblance of moral and/or
spiritual certainty.
We dare not remain passive in the face of so great a challenge that is before us!
Christ offers all of these! To know Him who is the Truth is to experience life to the full
(eternal life—God's kind of life) with the certainty that He is who He claimed to be: the
Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God or God the Son, the God-Man.
The purpose of this book is threefold. First and foremost, the purpose is to present an
accurate portrait of the Person of Jesus Christ—the God-Man. Hopefully this will lead to a
richer worship of Christ, a deeper devotion to Him, and more zealous service in His name.
I have heard too many Christians who have testified that they were thankful that they
were in the shower and didn't hear the doorbell when the Jehovah's Witnesses came knocking.
Why were they thankful? Too often it is because they were not prepared biblically to address the
arguments marshaled by such an evangelistic cult. I have also personally seen Christians who
were twisted into theological pretzels by proof-texting Jehovah's Witnesses. This is a tragic
confession.

4
Therefore, it is also the aim of this book to equip the faithful in their apologetic task.
God's people must know whom they worship and serve. This implies a thorough knowledge of
Scripture since it is here that Jesus Christ is revealed. This is crucial if Christians are to "contend
for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). This also means that we as
Christians must "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the
reason for the hope we have" (1 Pe 3:15).
It is further within the purview of this book to engage nonbelievers. By presenting a true
picture of Jesus Christ and explaining the orthodox position about who He was and is, it is my
hope that the rationality and logic of the presentation—the ring of truth—will be compelling
enough to prompt their consideration in affirming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

5
INTRODUCTION

6
It is in His name that millions pray every day
and
It is by His name that millions curse every day!

There is a vicious battle going on for our minds! This should not surprise us since the
Bible states that "What a man thinks, so is he" (Pr 23:7). This battle for the mind, and
thus the heart of man, is coming from all directions.
British philosopher Os Guinness has correctly observed:
"When God is dead, man doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything."1
7
Today we are reaping the fruits from cultivating secular humanism based upon the
presupposition that there is no God. Man has replaced God. Augustine affirmed 1500 years ago:
"Cursed is everyone who places his hope in man."
The vicious battle for our minds is obvious everywhere:
● Secular humanism with its agnostic mindset and emphasis on man and his
achievements (i.e. science and technology) has left a spiritual vacuum in our society.
● Religious liberalism (modern theology) which has undermined the authority of the
Bible as the Word of God and thus left people with nothing more than the shifting sand of human
opinion in which one's authority for truth is the latest "discovery" (theory) of truth.
● Deconstructionism which holds that since there is no objective truth, past events or
writings have no intrinsic meaning. What matters is not what authors intended in literature but
what we think of what they wrote. Thus the past is freely revised to fit current politically and
religiously correct values.
● Religious pluralism with its assumption that all religions are works of human
interpretation and that no one religion has "the truth" has undermined the claim of Jesus who
categorically stated, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to [God] the Father
except through Me" (Jn 14:6).
● The great god Entertainment which has captivated the hearts of a people who are, as
sociologist Neil Postman entitled his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death.2
● Two thousand cults with millions of adherents many of which are zealously and
fervently evangelizing their narrow, authoritarian dogma.
● The New Age movement, which is old Hinduism in new clothes and which reeks of
the occult, is outpacing all other cults in their horrific rate of growth as it is increasingly
dominating the "spiritual consciousness" of our society.
● The occult has ensnared millions in its satanic bondage.

It is the aim of this book to show that Christianity is the only viable alternative. We will
do this by addressing the basic tenet of historic Christianity: Christology. Christology means
simply theology about Christ—what we think of Him, who He is and what He has done.
8
What we think about Jesus Christ is basic to everything in Christianity. If our
thinking is defective we are in danger of heresy, whether in the liberal camp of Christendom, or
in the innumerable cults that are taking over the religious landscape of America.
Even the faith movement (the Gospel of Health, Wealth, and Prosperity) whose roots are
deeply embedded in evangelical, conservative theology, is weakened by a defective Christology.
The divine edge of Jesus has been blunted. The qualitative difference—the One who is Wholly
Other—has in many cases been reduced to a quantitative difference. This means that Jesus
Christ, and those who believe in Him, are viewed as having the same nature, with Jesus being
merely more advanced in His spiritual attainment. Such teaching is nothing less than heresy.
All the heresies either distort or deny the biblical teaching concerning the Person of Jesus
Christ!
Every false teaching denies either the humanity or the deity of Jesus Christ. This is
nothing new for the apostles John and Paul addressed this issue in their day as insipient
Gnosticism with its various strands of heretical teachings (i.e. the worship of angels) threatened
the early church.
"What do you think of Christ?" is the test of orthodoxy of any group or movement
calling itself Christian. This is foundational. The attitude of any and every cult is "We need
Jesus, but . . ." The attitude of theological and religious liberalism is: "Jesus who?"
THE PERENNIAL QUESTION
Jesus towers over the rest of mankind in His influence! No other figure in human history
has come close in impacting culture and society as Jesus has. History is truly His Story. In
varying degrees history has revolved around His person and ministry (this is especially true in
the West). He has made His mark on every continent of this globe. His message has gone forth
everywhere.
This should be no surprise to anyone who is even dimly familiar with the biblical account of
Jesus. It was only within a few decades of His death that stories were circulating about His
miraculous birth, His compassionate and supernatural ministry, His unusual death, and His
triumphant resurrection. By the end of the first century Jesus was known as "Son of God," "God
the Son," "Son of Man," "the Word become Flesh," "the Bread of Life," "the Light of the
World," "the Judge of all Mankind," "the Lord of the Universe."

9
Within a few centuries Jesus had become "Lord" of the very empire which crucified Him!
He has dominated the culture of the West since that time. Even the Enlightenment could not
obliterate His influence. Religion, art, music, architecture, education and politics have all been
either formed or informed by His towering cultural status. Thus He has to be reckoned with. He
simply cannot be ignored!
In the book, Christ the Tiger, Thomas Howard shows powerfully how often people, even
professing Christians, manage to construct a Jesus who will fit their own needs and
preconceptions. Howard's point is that people do not want to face the actual Jesus, who is no
"tame kitty but a troublesome tiger."3
This tendency to create a Jesus we would like is a perennial temptation. Since the figure
of Jesus is too large to be ignored by mankind, He has instead been shaped into the kind of
person to which we can best relate. As C. Stephen Evans has pointed out in his book, The Quest
for Faith, too often He has become "the patron saint of whatever cause we feel most deeply
about."4
But who is this Jesus Christ whom people are to believe in and follow? Who He is has
always been a perplexing issue for mankind. Intellectual honesty demands that we seek to find
out, as much as possible, who the actual Jesus of Nazareth is.
When Jesus healed the helpless paralytic and extended forgiveness to him the scribes and
the Pharisees asked, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy?" (Lk 5:20-21)
When Jesus calmed the storm on the sea of Galilee the terrified disciples asked each
other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey Him?" (Mk 4:41)
When those who shared dinner with Him heard Jesus grant pardon to a prostitute they
were amazed and said among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" (Lk 7:49)
When Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, heard about the ministry of Jesus he was perplexed
and said, "I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?" (9:9)
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey "the whole city was stirred and asked,
"Who is this?" (Mt 21:10)
This question of who Jesus is—is the key question Jesus posed to the Pharisees of His
day and the question which continues to fascinate, haunt and perplex people of every generation
right to this day. The perennial question is:
"What do you think about the Christ?
Whose Son is He?" (22:42).

them,
10
Once when Jesus was praying in private and His disciples were with Him, He inquired of
"Who do the crowds say I am?" (Lk 9:18)
They replied,
"Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the
prophets of long ago has come back to life" (v. 19).
Then Jesus posed the question directly to them (the disciples):
"But what about you? Who do you say I am?" (v. 20).
Peter, one of the twelve, responded,
"The Christ of God" (v. 20).
The Person of Jesus, who He is, is the crucial issue. Why? Because He is the criterion
by which every Christian affirmation has to be judged. It is in the light of who Jesus is by which
other teachings stand or fall. The uniqueness of Christianity is found in the Person of Jesus
Christ.
Sundar Singh was born into an Indian Sikh family and became an itinerant Christian
Sadhu after his conversion to Christianity. At one time when he was asked by an agnostic
professor of comparative religions in a Hindu college what he had found in Christianity which he
had not found in his former religion of Hinduism, he replied, "I have Christ." To this answer the
professor impatiently followed up with the obvious question, "But what particular principle or
doctrine have you found that you did not have before?" Once again Sundar Singh responded,
"The particular thing I have found is Christ."5
The Person of Jesus Christ is the crucial issue also because our salvation, our eternal
destiny, is dependent on who we believe Jesus to be. Jesus made this crystal clear when He
challenged the Pharisees:
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am
the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins" (Jn 8:24).

11
I. THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE

12
Secular Humanism, a 19th century philosophy in the 20th century with its teachings of
evolution, existentialism (subjectivism) and situation ethics (moral relativism), has left a dearth
of spiritual truth. Young people bounce from one sexual liaison to the next and are unable to find
love because they are selfish and thus unwilling to commit themselves. Such liaisons are often
superficial manifestations of the deep universal quest for love. And for many, love is a
euphemism for sex. Love, after all, is indispensable to humanness . . . because God is love. Man
seeks love because he was made in His image (imago dei).
The spiritual vacuum produced by secular humanism has created a real identity crisis in
the American youth. Young people no longer have answers to the three questions of "Who am
I"? "Why am I here"? and "Where am I going"?
The universities, political parties and modern technology have been found wanting in
providing answers to man's existence. When there has been the desperate need for the bedrock of
biblical authority, too often the church, like the rest of society, has offered nothing more than
warmed over platitudes of liberal theology and secular psychology. She has devastatingly
suffered from subjectivism.
In the New York Times issue (February 9, 1994) there was an article which describes
worshiping in the fast lane. This article under "Religion Notes" was entitled, "Minutes With
God." It stated:
"Concerned that people were moving into the area and not coming to church, a
New Jersey minister has devised an idea for the busy and detached: express
worship. 'You give us 22 minutes and we'll show you the Kingdom of God.' says
the minister, the Rev. John D. Kleist of First Lutheran Church in Stewartsville,
N.J.”1
The "bare-bones service" includes the following:
". . . a greeting, an apology for sins, a statement of faith, a prayer, a song, a reading
from Scripture and--perhaps the greatest innovation--a two minute sermon. The
sermon focuses on the Scripture reading and is followed by a congregational
discussion that lasts no more than five minutes."2
A whole two minutes for a "sermon" that is followed by a five minute discussion time!
The article points out that the strategy seems to be working since the number of
participants had grown from nine to forty in just one month.

ago:
13
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the prince of preachers, lamented more than a hundred years
"Everywhere there is apathy. Nobody cares whether that which is preached is true
or false. A sermon is a sermon whatever the subject; only, the shorter it is the better."3
A fitting description of the church at the beginning of the 21st century!
THE DEMISE OF THEOLOGY
There has been a virtual disappearance of theology from the life of the church, much
less society. There has sometimes been a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, shift from God to
the self as the central focus of faith.
This shift has been evident in the psychologized preaching with its lack of conviction and
authority and in the church's pragmatic approach to virtually everything sacred. Theology has
taken a back seat to methodology. Utilitarianism (usefulness as a standard of what is good), not
truth, has become the standard of conduct.
Capacity for truth has been sadly diminished and modernity (when what is modern
provides the basis for what to think or do) has established its roots deeply in the soil of the
American mind. As a society we have lost our theological soul. Theological soundbites are all
many can endure as we have increasingly approached that time prophesied long ago:
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of
themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,
ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control,
brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather
than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. . . .
always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth . . . men of depraved
minds . . . evil men will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. . . .
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead
to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers
to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away
from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Ti 3:1-5,7-8,13; 4:3-4).
RELIGIOUS COUNTERFEITS
Into the vacuum of spiritual confusion that characterizes our age has rushed a number of
religious counterfeits known to us as cults. This should not be surprising since the Bible warns us
that in the last days "false Christs and false prophets will arise and mislead many" (Mt 24:5). Our
global community stands in the midst of Matthew 24.

The Bible warned us long ago:
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise
every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree
cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that
does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their
fruit you will recognize them.
14
Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will
say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in
Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell
them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!'" (Mt 7:15-23)
There was no doubt in the mind of Jesus that false prophets would come. The accuracy of
such a prophecy was verified in the first five centuries of the church as it was continually
barraged with heresies.
"Wolves in sheep's clothing" who are inwardly "ferocious wolves" or "evildoers" come in
all types of religious garb. Their mission, whether intentional or not, is to undermine the faith
of those who are still seeking for truth and of those who have come to experience in a living and
vital way Him who is "the Way and the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14:6).
Jesus taught that the "fruit" of these false prophets would become apparent. We must be
mindful that the "fruit" may be doctrinal or theological as well as ethical and moral. While the
behavior of these wolves may seem ethical and moral by human standards, if they undermine the
truthfulness of who Jesus is and thus reject Him, they must be rejected as counterfeit. John
warned:
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is
coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the
last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they
had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed
that none of them belonged to us" (1 Jn 2:18-19).
The world will be inundated by false prophets, false christs (antichrists) and false
teachers. Some of these are extremely difficult to spot. Often what appear to be good things are
found among their excesses. If every religious quack was obviously fake, no one would be
deceived. That is why we are warned to be on our guard:
"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and
miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible" (Mk 13:22).

15
Here we see the extreme deceptiveness of the false prophets where they are almost able
to deceive the very "elect." Such religious hucksters are most deadly when they are most
sophisticated religiously and theologically. For they can look like the real thing. This should not
surprise us in light of Paul's warning:
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles
of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.
Their end will be what their actions deserve" (2 Co 11:13-15).
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly
slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of God
into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign
and Lord" (Jude 4).
The devil is not so dangerous when he is dressed in red underwear and proudly holds his
pitchfork. He is most harmful and destructive when he sits in the pew, lectures in the classroom,
and even preaches from the pulpit.
Who are these "wolves in sheep's clothing, these false prophets, false apostles, false
christs (antichrists)?
They are theological or religious liberals (to which many humanists belong) who have
reduced Jesus to a mere human being. The world-famed medical missionary and Nobel price
recipient Albert Schweitzer, prior to going to Africa, wrote two brilliant books dealing with "the
historical quest of Jesus" that shaped scholarly studies concerning the person of Jesus for the rest
of the century. Schweitzer's image of Jesus was that of an eschatological prophet who expected
the events in the immediate future to bring all history to a close and saw His death as playing a
decisive role in bringing about the end. But Jesus was mistaken since the end did not come and
He died perhaps realizing His mistake. This image of Jesus as an eschatological prophet
gradually became the consensus among scholars and is still felt in seminaries throughout the
world.
Liberalism in its blind skepticism has trivialized the Bible by reducing it to a mere
human document. And liberals keep flooding the secular bookstores with their "newest
discoveries" (e.g. Barbara Thiering and her Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead
Sea Scrolls, John Dominic Crossan and his Jesus and The Historical Jesus, THE FIVE
GOSPELS by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar; Ian Wilson and his
Jesus: A Life, and Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus by John Shelby
Spong).

16
These books pontificate liberal theories which reshuffle the gospels. Wilson's and
Spong's books especially, show a shoddy level of analysis and argumentation and do not add a
single thing to the world's knowledge about Jesus. Rather, they are filled with inventive
speculation that disregards the historical method. The path they closely follow is that of
rationalist reduction in which there is no "reasonable alternative reading of the available
evidence but a complete and random reshuffling of the pieces to construct a picture more
satisfying to the aesthetic (Wilson) or political (Spong) sensibilities of the authors."4
In 1977 a debate on the incarnation took place in the United Kingdom with the
publication of the volume The Myth of God Incarnate by seven British theologians. This book
created quite a stir partly because of its provocative title. In the same year an answer was given
by several evangelical scholars in the volume The Truth of God Incarnate. At the same time the
Anglican vicar, George Carey, wrote the booklet entitled God Incarnate. All these books that
challenge the incarnation of God are outworn arguments that have been adequately addressed
long ago by biblical scholars.
Thiering's, Wilson's, Crossan's, and especially Spong's book, with their typical outlandish
claims have been ably criticized or handled by New Testament scholar James Dunn in his book,
The Evidence for Jesus. Marcus Borg and his Jesus A New Vision and Conflict, Holiness and
Politics in the Teaching of Jesus have ably undermined the more extreme liberal arguments.
Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown in his voluminous and meticulous treatments on The
Birth of Christ and on The Death of Christ has pulled the rug from under much of the
argumentation of these liberal theories. New Testament scholar Wright in his book Who Was
Jesus? has taken these theories to task and shown that, as he puts it, "they fail to reach anything
like the right answer" as to who Jesus was. Wright's other two scholarly treatments, The Climax
of the Covenant and The New Testament and the People of God show the nature of history and
first-century Judaism and early Christianity which invalidates much of the claims of these recent
(as well as older) liberal writings.
Other scholars who have recently and masterfully addressed liberal arguments are
I. Howard Marshall, Leon Morris, R.T. France, David Wenham, D. A. Carson, Donald Guthrie,
Ralph P. Martin, Richard Longenecker, D. A. Hagner, J. Ramsey Michaels, etc.5 Solomon's
lament fits the futile mind-set of the liberals: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9). Yet
they continue in their zealous efforts.
These liberal attacks remind me of the Christian student who was condescendingly told
by a professor that the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites was no great miracle. He
explained that the meaning of the Red Sea is Reed Sea and that this sea was made up of reeds
and therefore the depth would only be a couple of feet at the most. The student got excited and
said, "Hallelujah!"
The professor was taken back and curiously inquired, "Why are you excited about that?"
He responded, "Why that is a greater miracle yet. Imagine God drowning the Egyptian army in
water that was only a couple of feet deep!"

17
Throughout history we have witnessed liberals creating greater miracles by their relentless
pursuit of explaining away the miracles they find so objectionable in the Bible. In their
attempts at being "modern" they end up with what many of us what consider "fantastic." It takes
more faith to believe in their concocted explanations than it does to believe the Bible.
Experiential-Expressive Theory
Much of liberalism contends that experience provides a foundational resource for
Christian theology. This teaches that all the world religions are essentially the same. The main
difference is that they are expressed very differently. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and other
religious leaders have the same claim as Jesus. This frees Christianity from the "scandal of
particularity" (the belief that Jesus is the only way, truth, and life—the only bridge to find
salvation).
Such a theology is basically human responses to the same religious experience often
called "a core experience of the transcendent." Therefore it is the task of theology to reflect upon
this common human experience since the same experience underlies all religions. This subjective
theology with its emphasis on religious experience fails because, as George Lindbeck argues, "It
is difficult or impossible to specify its distinctive features, and yet unless this is done, the
assertion of commonality becomes logically and empirically vacuous."5 There is little empirical
evidence for a "common core experience" throughout human history. The legitimacy for such a
theological position is virtually impossible to verify.
POSTMODERN THEOLOGY
One of the more positive developments in theology in recent years is the surge of interest
in the developing concept of "narrative theology." This theology brings emphasis to the
narrative literary form which unquestionably dominates Scripture. The origin of this emerging
theology logically goes back to Karl Barth who gave emphasis and meaning to Scripture as "the
story of God" and H. Richard Niebuhr whose book The Meaning of Revelation emphasized the
revelation of God in history and saw that narratives were an especially appropriate way of
expressing that revelation. God chose to become revealed in history and historical forms (such as
in Israel's exodus from Egypt and the history of Jesus Christ). This theology recognizes that both
the Old Testament and the New Testament bear witness to the fact that the literary form most
appropriate to express God's involvement and revelation in human history was narrative—a
story.
Since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century with its emphasis upon generally
available rational truths, the insights of God's revelation in narrative form have been widely
neglected. The Enlightenment reduced theology to general rational concepts and thus showed an
almost total disregard for the narrative quality of the biblical writings. General principles which
could be established by reason and logic pushed the narrative form into virtual oblivion. The
modern and postmodern theology of our day is a clear witness to this devolution of revelation
that is couched in narratives.

18
Rudolph Bultmann's program of "demythologization" attempted to extract the timeless
significance of Jesus Christ by rescuing Him from the scriptural narratives concerning Him. By
getting to the "real" Jesus as proclaimed by the preaching event, the scriptural Jesus was
jettisoned from the narrative account as given in the biblical record. Thus narratives were set
aside to allow the demythologized Jesus (the Christ of faith) to emerge in existential encounter.
With the demise of the radical theology of the 1960's epitomized by the "death of God"
movement, the time was ripe for the reconstruction of faith which found the key in narrative
theology. Yale theologian Hans Frei in his book The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative set the stage
for this new theological movement. Other "postliberal" theologians who have been influential in
this movement have been Yale Divinity School scholars George Lindbeck and Ronald Thiemann
as well as James Gustafson, Robert Alter, and Stanley Hauerwas.
This theology has gained force because narrative is the main type of literature in the
Bible. It takes various forms such as the Old Testament histories, the gospel accounts of the
history of Jesus, and the parables which Jesus Himself told. It makes sense, therefore, to
approach theology from a narrative point of view, rather than a more theoretical approach, as it
lends itself more likely to faithful adherence to the scriptural record. The creeds and the
confessions of the church illustrate this point as their affirmation of faith in Jesus Christ is an
affirmation in the narrative account of Jesus' birth, ministry, trial, crucifixion, death, resurrection,
and ascension. What we find in the biblical record is a continuous story which centers on the
person of Jesus Christ, His identity and significance.6
This narrative approach rescues modern, postmodern, and conservative theology from
abstraction. It focuses on a story, a vivid account of something that really happened. Such an
approach lends itself to imagination, realism, personal involvement—so often lacking in
theology.
Narrative theology reminds us that God has acted in history, that He invaded our world of
time and space to meet us where we are. God became involved in our life.
Stanley Hauerwas has shown the ethical implications of narrative theology as he has
argued that the gospel narratives set a paradigm of behavior which all believers are to imitate.
Ethics becomes grounded in real life as it looks to the real-life situations of first century Palestine
and patterns its attitudes and behavior according to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.7
Narrative theology points to narration as a fitting structure which allows the reader to see
the story from God's perspective. As he sees the story unfold he comes to appreciate the interplay
between human ignorance or misunderstanding of the situation and its reality. Job is a case in
point. By paying close attention to the narrative we find ourselves in that tension where we see
and feel what Job must be going through and at the same time we have the point of view of the
Sovereign God of the universe. Narrative is the most natural and thus best way to enter into the
biblical situation.

19
Although at first it may seem that this theological approach is conducive only to
conservative theology, a closer look will show that this is not necessarily so. The limitation of
this theological approach is that its emphasis on the narrative form does not necessarily mean
that it is the only legitimate, authoritative story. It does not, by and in itself, exclude other stories
(such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam) from being as valid.
Narrative theology also tends to so focus on the form—narration as a literary structure of
Scripture—that it tends to ignore the all important question of truth. How is fiction and history
distinguished since they both contain narrative structures? The very structure that is most loyal to
the form and shape the biblical record takes is also the structure that easily lends itself to other
religious stories as equally valid.
LEGITIMATE DEMYTHOLOGIZING
The demythologized (stripped of myth) Jesus of Rudolf Bultmann and liberalism is a
pathetic figure in that He is a mild, gentle human being who would offend no one. Or He is a
revolutionary who, instead of being sent by His Father, came on His own to set things straight.
Such a Jesus fostered a vaguely humanistic ethic as liberals have approached Jesus cafeteria
style—they picked and chose what they liked and left the rest. Dorothy Sayers rightly reminds
us:
"We cannot blink the fact that gentle Jesus meek and mild was so stiff in His
opinions and so inflammatory in His language that he was thrown out of church,
stoned, hunted from place to place, and finally gibbeted as a firebrand and a
public danger. Whatever His peace was, it was not the peace of an amiable
indifference; and He said in so many words that what He brought with Him
was fire and sword."8
A Jesus demythologized of His divine nature is no Jesus at all! He certainly is not the
Jesus we are confronted by in the pages of Holy Scripture. Such a Jesus is an empty suit.
Bultmann is right in the need for demythologizing Jesus. But what Jesus needs to be
demythologized of is the liberal picture of the delicate and unmanly, but well meaning human
being who couldn't hurt a fly, or as in a few cases, the revolutionary human being out on His own
mission.
FUNDAMENTALISM
The Jesus of fundamentalism is also a distorted figure. A. W. Tozer perceptively wrote:
That while the liberals lost Jesus in the wonder of the world, fundamentalists lost Jesus in the
wonder of the Word.9

20
Fundamentalists have been guilty of bibliolatry. The Bible has become an end in itself
rather than a witness to the Person of Jesus Christ. The Bible, rather than Jesus, has become
the object of worship. In the process fundamentalists have become mean-spirited legalists whose
"Jesus" delights more in justice than mercy. This Jesus is quick to judge and consign people to
hell with few tears to spare. He has a list of dos and don'ts by which He measures people's
spirituality. Tozer sadly admitted while the Jesus of fundamentalism is strong, He is hardly
beautiful. Philosopher and theologian E. John Carnell pointed out that fundamentalism began as
a movement but disintegrated into a mentality. Such a mentality is not surprising of a people who
lost Jesus in the wonder of the Word. After all, ". . . the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"
(2 Cor. 3:6).
It is my belief that the Jesus of evangelicalism comes the nearest theologically to the
portrait we find in the Bible. When it comes to lifestyle, evangelicals have nothing to brag about
as they have become increasingly secular. While they have, on the whole, tenaciously fought for
the doctrine of biblical authority they have also failed to bend their lives to that very authority.
In their intense search for respectability, success and worldly acclaim they have ignored theology
and biblical fidelity and thus lost their integrity, spiritual power and influence.
EVANGELICALISM
While for the most part evangelicals have not been guilty of bibliolatry, they have been
guilty of spiritual sluggishness and mental laziness (except in the arena of theology and
biblical studies where they have made tremendous strides in the last 40 years). They have been
careless in their "discipleship" and have found themselves numbed by apathy or drunk with
power. Witness the sad parade of TV evangelists!
In the name of Jesus evangelicals have felt free to sell "easy believism" or "cheap grace"
which German theologian and martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, described as
". . . the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without
church discipline, communion without confession. . . . grace without discipleship,
grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ living and incarnate."10
Most of all, evangelicals have sold themselves (just listen to their backscratching
introductions of each other and their grabbing for and use of honorary degrees). Pride has been
the name of the game. Hardly good representatives of the humble Nazarene!
Liberalism has lost its relevance because they made relevance, rather than truth, an end in
and of itself. Fundamentalism has also become irrelevant because of being intellectually and
socially reactionary and religiously pharisaical. Evangelicalism has lost its integrity in the
prideful pursuit for respectability and power. The Jesus of all these "movements" or "mentalities"
must be demythologized. We must see the Jesus presented to us in the pages of Scripture.

21
MODERNITY
German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg in his book, Jesus-God and Man, explains the
modernistic trend in our educational institutions which has devastatingly undermined any
semblance of biblical authority:
". . . there is now an insurmountable coalition between the Enlightenment idea
that it is the subject who defines reality and the universities that are now
structured not only to make this idea normative but also to make its orthodox
alternative unacceptable.
In twentieth-century universities, especially in America, the fact that confession
is unwanted is communicated in a number of ways. There has been a trend
(which peaked in the 1960s) toward replacing departments of theology with
departments of religious studies. The new script for study is human experience,
not the teaching of the Bible or, for that matter, of the Church. This script
encompasses all human experience in all of its religious shades; it is no longer
tolerable to restrict academic considerations to what is Christian or Western. The
method of study is now scientific, objective, and comparative; the starting point
is the assumption that all religions are works of human interpretation and that no
one religion has 'the truth.' And, because the study is conducted under the aegis
of the social scientists rather than that of the clergy or theologians, the credibility
of the whole undertaking requires that it take place not in the context of the old
spirit of belief but rather in the context of the most audacious, irreverent, and
skeptical questions, even if the result is to create a maze through which
befuddled students will not easily find a way. Unhappily, the demand for
pluralistic values, to which unstinting support is given in these departments,
itself invariably becomes an unyielding orthodoxy. Faculty in many of these
departments will not tolerate those whose views are not pluralistic."11
Robert Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago, has cynically defined
our modern university as a series of separate schools and departments held together by a central
heating system. There is no longer a coherent philosophy.
In his book, The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom points out that the
Enlightenment substituted nature for the divine authority of God as its supreme reality. Modern
man has abandoned both God and nature and thus ended up with himself as the reference
point. Thus our highest value is openness—to anything and everything. This has led to what
professor Bloom calls the "democratic personality," which is receptive to "whoever" or
"whatever."12

22
Such relativistic "open-mindedness" is nothing less than nonsensical empty-mindedness.
There is no longer any standard by which to judge right or wrong, good or evil. The end result is
nihilism where the external becomes formless and the internal becomes empty. It is a reminder
of what Solomon stated in his attempt to find meaning and purpose in life apart from God:
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" (Ecc 1:2).
The philosophy departments of our universities have come to dominate intellectual life in
academia. These departments have come to be to the universities what the theology departments
had been in the older colleges prior to the civil war. Once theology became marginalized, truth
quickly became relativized with the expected result of no standard of authority other than the
latest theory advanced by those who at any given moment wield the greatest influence.
If the Bible is no longer authoritative then what can we know of Jesus since it is the Bible,
according to Jesus Himself, which "testifies to Him" (Jn 5:39)? If Jesus is not the Jesus of the
Bible what Jesus is He? The liberals, whose theological correctness is skepticism, proceed to
point us in the confusing direction we should go to find a demythologized, reconstructed "Jesus."
CULTS
These purveyors of erroneous doctrines are also members of cults who in their blind and
uncritical allegiance fervently follow an authoritarian and often dictatorial leadership which
pontificates their narrow dogma. The leaders are frequently men and women who claim that they
in some unique way represent God to their disciples. Some claim to be a "messiah," if not
outright "the Messiah." Others claim to be the interpreter of God's mind and Word. Their
attitude is "I know what's best for you."
Such arrogant and confident claims attract confused and perplexed people who are
looking for certainty in a world drowning in uncertainty. Fear and guilt are ingeniously and
forcefully used to totally dominate the lives of its followers. Sadly, allegiance to the leader and
the cult becomes so pronounced that followers are ready to die to show their loyalty as in the
case of the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
We must be alert! Peter and Paul both warned of those who would be deceived:
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false
teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on
themselves" (2 Pe 2:1-2).
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and
follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings
come from hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared with a
hot iron" (1 Ti 4:1-2).

23
THE CALL TO SEEK AND BATTLE FOR THE TRUTH
In this desperate spiritual warfare against the powers of darkness it is imperative that we
arm ourselves for the battle. The apostle Paul warns us:
"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your
minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to
Christ" (2 Co 11:3).
With spiritual confusion as the norm of the day, we Christians must rise above the
relativistic, humanistic philosophies and outlandish cults that permeate society with the voice of
absolute truth. Jesus offered such:
"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32).
Many Christians have come to believe that it is wrong to judge. For many this is based on
Jesus' warning:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others,
you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
(Mt 7:1-2)
This, however, does not mean that it is always wrong to judge people under any
circumstances. If so, then why did Jesus tell us five verses later not to give sacred things to dogs
and pearls to swine? How can you decide who is a dog or who is a swine unless you judge?
What Jesus is saying is that when you judge others—as everyone must—be aware that
the same measuring stick you use for others will be used for you.
So it is not wrong to listen carefully to what is being said behind the pulpit. Paul
encouraged this:
"Two or three prophets should speak and others should weigh carefully what
is said" (1 Co 14:29).
To those who would argue that this only applies in the case of prophecy, Luke replies:
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they
received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every
day to see if what Paul said was true" (Ac 17:11).
God loves truth seekers--people who so love the truth that they will not automatically
receive something as truth just because someone said it, no matter what reputation the person had
(by this time Paul was considered a solid leader and teacher).

From these passages we see that even prophets, apostles and teachers make mistakes or
go beyond the revelation God has given them. That is where the community of believers is so
important. God has given us the responsibility to test everything:
24
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they
are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 Jn 4:1).
"Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Th 5:21-22).
Fakes know how to use religious terminology. They have all the right phrases and cliches
and thus sound so pious. They use such words as salvation, resurrection, judgment, prayer, etc.
When they depart from historic Christianity, they seem to find a way to convince others that their
"interpretation" is right. The believers of Galatia evidently were seduced for Paul said:
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the
grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really not gospel
at all" (Gal 1:6-7).
As evangelicals we have passively witnessed, to our shame, the tragic demise of
theology, doctrine, truth. It is vital that we wake up and restore theology to its rightful and
historic place—at the center, at the core—of the life and ministry of the church. Only then is
there hope for society to get back to its religious roots and ethical moorings.

25
2. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

DEFECTIVE VIEWS CONCERNING THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
26
Errors of the Early Centuries
The issue as to the nature of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth engendered all kinds of
philosophical and theological speculation throughout church history. This was also true of the
early development of the Christian religion.
The early church's teaching that Jesus Christ is both God and man created a problem as to
the nature of the union of the two natures. Many errors crept in probably because there was a
failure to make a clear distinction between His two natures and to emphasize the unity of His
person.
Several early positions were branded "heretical" by the early church. The word "heresy"
(Greek hairesis) means literally a "choice." The word has three primary meanings in the New
Testament:
1. A chosen course of thought and action. This means a party or sect such as the
Sadducees (Ac 24:5,14; 28:22).
2. Dissensions arising from diverse opinions and aims (1 Co 11:19; Gal 5:20).
3. Doctrinal departures from revealed truth (Titus 3:10).
It was heresy of this third type against which the apostles vigorously warned the church
(Ac 20:29; Php 3:2).
GNOSTICISM
Gnosticism was one of the most dangerous heresies of the first two centuries of the
church. Its primary feature is that redemption is found through mystical knowledge rather than
faith. When combined with certain elements from Christianity, Gnosticism proved extremely
attractive. In fact, it became so widespread that by the beginning of the third century A. D. most
of the intellectual Christian congregations (where a significant number of parishioners had a
basic education) throughout the Roman Empire were to some degree affected by it. One historian
referred to its growth in the second century as "the swiftness of an epidemic over the Church
from Syria to Gaul."1
Gnosticism was not originally a heresy in that it was not a perversion of Christian truth.
Rather it came from without. Only as it worked its way into the Christian Church did it become
intensely heretical.

This anti-Christian influence was not a homogeneous system of either religion or
philosophy. Rather it was highly syncretistic. It was an attempt to found a universal religion
which would take advantage of contributions from many sources and thus to "acclimatize
Christianity in a popular religious trend of the day and to show it to be consistent with it and a
fulfillment of it."2
27
Gnosticism embraced many widely diversified sects holding opinions drawn from a great
variety of sources such as Greek, Jewish, Parsic (Persia), Indian (India); philosophies (especially
Plato and Philo), religions, theosophies and mysteries. These schools of philosophy were oriental
in general character.
There were two primary features to the teachings of Gnosticism. One is that there is
redemption through Christ, but it was redemption from matter rather than redemption of mankind
from sin. This was so because their teaching of a dualism between the world of the spirit and
the world of matter. The world of the spirit was entirely good and consisted of the heavenly
realm which would include the mind—the psychic and spiritual aspects of man. The world of
matter, however, was entirely evil because it consisted of the earthly, that which belongs to the
flesh, the body, etc.
The other primary feature was that this redemption was accomplished primarily through
knowledge, as the name denotes (Gnosticism comes from the Greek root gnosis which means
"knowledge"), rather than through faith. This knowledge which was essential to "salvation" was
of a kind of which the ordinary believer was incapable of achieving. Only the "enlightened"
could achieve it. Thus Gnosticism belonged to the intellectually and spiritually elite.
The unbiblical dualism engendered five main errors:
1. Man's body is evil since it is made of matter (earthly). This is in contrast to God,
who is purely spirit and therefore good.
2. Salvation or redemption is the escape from the flesh, the body—from physical evil.
The human race is essentially akin to the divine, being a spark of heavenly light
imprisoned in a material body. This escape is made through a special knowledge
rather than faith in Christ.
3. Jesus Christ's true humanity was denied for two reasons:
(1) The Docetists (from the Greek dokeo which means "to seem") taught that Christ
only seemed to have a body, and
(2) The Cerinthianists (named after its most prominent spokesman, Cerinthius) taught
that Christ (the Anointed One) came upon or joined the man Jesus at baptism and left Him just
before He died.

Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered as a man. While the man Jesus
suffered and rose again, the Christ remained impassible as a spiritual being.
28
In this way they solved the difficulty of the connection between the highest spiritual
agency (the Christ) and sinful corporeal matter (the human Jesus with a body), which was
involved in the doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion. This view is the background of much of
1 John (1:1; 2:22; 4:2-3).
4. Since the body was considered evil, it was to be treated harshly (asceticism). This
ascetic form of Gnosticism is the background of part of the letter to the Colossians
(2:21-23).
5. This dualism of spirit (which is good) and matter (which is evil) paradoxically led to
licentiousness (libertinism) as well as asceticism. The reasoning was that, since matter
was considered evil, the breaking of God's law was of no moral and spiritual consequence. The
locus of sin was found in matter rather than in the breaking of God's holy law (1 Jn 3:4).3
Gnosticism also taught that the Old Testament and New Testament were revelations of
two different deities. They regarded the God of the Jews as far inferior to the Supreme Being,
called by them the Abyss. The God of the Old Testament was the creator of the world, often
referred to as the Demiurge. Many Gnostics (especially Marcion and his followers--
"Marcionites") considered the God of the Old Testament as merely great, harsh, and rigorous,
and the God of the New Testament to be wholly good—a God of love. Some Gnostic sects
considered the God of the Old Testament as being totally alien from and opposed to the supreme
God; others considered Him merely as a subordinate power, inferior but not hostile to the
supreme God and acting as His unconscious organ or agent.4
The Gnostics justified their beliefs by appealing to Christian and Jewish writings which
were allegorically interpreted. Gnosticism also claimed to have authoritative gospels and epistles
of their own. These were based on the supposed teachings of Jesus which had not been
committed to writing, but which had been handed down secretly through oral tradition.
This provided a powerful impetus for the formation of a New Testament canon of
Scripture to distinguish between spurious and genuine Scriptures.
Jesus Christ is not the God-Man, wholly God and fully man, but an eon, an angelic being,
though the highest in order of all generations of angelic beings (there were at least 30 orders of
eons according to Valentius, the most influential of all Gnostics). This makes Jesus Christ a very
special person, but hardly the God-Man of the New Testament.

29
The Apollinarians denied the integrity of the human nature by saying that the eternal Son,
or Logos, supplied the place of human intelligence. Nestorius denied the unity of his person by
separating the two natures into two personalities. Eutyches, denied the essential integrity of both
natures by confusing them, that is, running them together, so as to make a third nature separate
and different from either the human or divine nature.
Gnosticism did not have a well knit, unified organization. They were too divided and too
varied to be brought together. Some remained within the existing churches, teaching their
doctrines, until they were expelled as heretics. Others formed themselves into separate
congregations. These congregations had special rites which resembled the mystery cults which
were widespread in the Roman Empire of that time.
Gnosticism strikes at the very root of Christianity. The Person of God—the Godhead, the
Trinity, the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament as Holy Scripture, the personality
and free will of human beings, the existence of moral evil, salvation by grace through faith alone,
the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the redemption of Christ, His resurrection—the whole
significance of His Person and work—all this is denied. Such is the spirit of Gnosticism.
The Gnosticism addressed in the New Testament was an early form of heresy. The
intricately developed system of Gnosticism took place in the second and third centuries.
In addition to I John and Colossians there also seems to be allusions to early Gnosticism
in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy (6:20) and 2 Timothy, Titus and 2 Peter.
Most of the heresies in the early church revolved not around Christ's deity, but His
humanity. Most people believed that He was God, while some questioned whether He truly
became man. The apostle John wrote his first letter to refute arguments against Jesus' humanity,
not His deity:
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they
are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does
not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist,
which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world" (1 Jn 4:1-3).
ARIANISM
Not until A.D. 318 did a recognized church leader deny Christ's deity. Arius (A.D. 250-
336), a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, taught the most subtle and damaging teaching of
the third and fourth centuries.

30
Arius' teaching began from the position that God the Father is unique and distinct. He
alone is ingenerate, everlasting, uncreated, true, immortal, wise, good, sovereign. God the Father,
therefore, could not possibly have communicated His essence to any other, for that would
remove the great gulf between Creator and creature, and thus would in effect be a reversion to
polytheism. This means that Arius' Supreme Being was God the Father, not the triune God
(Trinity).
The Son of God, by contrast, was a being created by the will and power of God the
Father. Therefore He was not "without beginning." He thus denied the preaching of Pope
Alexander of Alexandria who stated:
"God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the
Son, the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever-begotten, he is not born
by begetting; neither by thought nor by any moment of time does God precede
the Son; God always. Son always, the Son exists from God himself."5
Arius said that Christ was simply the first of created beings, and through Him all other
things are made. Christ was not actually God. Since He was created He could not be God. The
fact that He was created, says Arius, made Him subordinate to the Father. In anticipation of the
glory that He was to receive, finally He is called the Logos, the Son, only begotten.
Jesus as the Son of God was treated as a special creature in the sense that the Father
created Him first and for the specific function of undertaking the rest of the creation. His major
role was that of being God's servant in the work of creation and (to a lesser extent) in
revelation.
Arius' teachings raised a furor in the church—largely because it had not been the church's
commonly held view. The Council of Nicea met seven years later (A.D. 325) to refute this view
and eventually expelled Arius as a heretic. As a result Arianism went underground for a period
of thirty years. It enjoyed a resurgence between A.D. 353 and 378. After this Arianism splintered
into more radical groups (also more vocal in their opposition to orthodox Christianity) such as
the Anomoeans or Eunomians with Aetius (A.D. 370) as its leader and later Eunomius (A.D.
395) as his successor.6
CREEDS & DOGMAS
The creeds and dogmas of the church are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a
priori by a committee of theologians enjoying an intellectual endeavor. Most of them were
hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy.
The creed of Nicea states:
"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things visible and invisible;

31
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His
Father before all worlds; God of God; Light of Light; very God of Very God;
Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things
were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven.
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried;
And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; And ascended into
heaven; And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with
glory to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Lord and Giver of Life; Who proceedeth
from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is
worshiped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. And I believe one Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of
sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead; and the Life of the world to
come. Amen."
The key phrase—that Christ was of one substance (homoousios) with the Father—stood
solidly opposed to the Arian belief that the Son (as well as any other creature) was alien to the
Father's substance.
Modern Errors
The old dictum that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it is certainly
true when it comes to church history and heresy. The diagram below illustrates the fact that
present-day heresies emanate from heresies that were disputed long ago.
______________________________________________________________________________
GNOSTIC PROTOTYPE ARIAN PROTOTYPE
______________________________________________________________________________
Christian Science and Jehovah's Witnesses
Unity School of Christianity Mormonism
Mind & Healing Sciences Unification Church
Transcendental Meditation (TM) The Way International
New Age Movement Armstrongism
______________________________________________________________________________
Modern errors regarding the natures in Christ center mostly in denying that Christ is
actually God. Liberal theologians and others who deny the deity of Christ are only reviving the
old Arian heresy of the third and fourth centuries.

32
Orthodox Doctrine
The orthodox doctrine concerning the natures of Jesus Christ was drawn up at the
Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.
"Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to
acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in
Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of
a reasonable soul and body; of one substance [omoousios] with the Father as
regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards
his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; (2) as regards his Godhead,
begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten,
for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [theotokos];
(3) one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized IN TWO
NATURES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT
DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being in no
way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being
preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence [hupostasis],
not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest
times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of
the Fathers has handed down to us."
This creed is a refutation of both Arianism and Apollinarianism. The reference to Jesus as
"complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly Man" is the basic
affirmation of Chalcedon, but the reference to "a reasonable soul and body" is a refutation of
Apollinarianism which denied that Jesus had a human mind.
The word "substance" in the affirmation that "our Lord Jesus Christ is of one substance
(omoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with
us as regards his manhood" as it is used here, does not mean "stuff," as we are inclined to
understand it. In fact, it meant virtually the opposite when it was written into this creedal
statement. The "substance" of something was its essence, or what makes it what it is—apart from
its varying appearances to us.
This Chalcedonian definition of who Jesus is tells us that He has two natures but that He
is one Person—fully God, fully man, one Person.
The Formula of Concord states:
"We believe, teach, and confess that the Son of God, although from eternity He has
been a particular, distinct, entire divine person, and thus, with the Father and the
Holy Ghost, true, essential, perfect God, nevertheless, in the fullness of time
assumed also human nature into the unity of His person, not in such a way that

33
there are now two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus is now in one
person at the same time true, eternal God, born of the Father from eternity,
and a true man, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, as it is written Rom. 9:5:
'Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed
forever.' Hence Christ is not two distinct persons, but one single person,
notwithstanding that two distinct natures are found in Him."
The Westminster Confession, now more than three centuries old states:
"The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God,
of one substance, and equal with the Father did, when the fullness of time was
come, take upon Him man's nature. . . ."
In the one person Jesus Christ, therefore, there are two natures: a human nature and a
divine nature. Each is found in its completeness and integrity, and these two natures are
organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby.
Summary of Creeds
● The Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) produced the Nicene Creed, affirming the essential
oneness between the Father and the Son.
● The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) confirmed the Nicene Creed and clarified
the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and to the Son.
● The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) defined the unity of the two natures of Christ.
● The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) produced the Chalcedonian Creed that defended
the integrity of the two natures of Christ against teachings that would have
minimized the human nature.
The Two Natures of Christ
The union of the two natures in Christ is unique and incomparable. It is both personal (or
"hypostatic") and an ontological union (union at the level of being or essence—at the deepest
level). The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, rightly observed that this union is neither
accidental nor essential. This is true in the sense that it is not essential as we find between the
persons of the Trinity. After all, the Trinity was a reality before the incarnation, before the
joining of the two natures into one person.
This union, however, is profoundly personal since the two natures coexist in one Person.
It does not signify a union whereby humanity is mingled with deity so that a third entity results;
instead it entails the intimate and perpetual conjunction of two natures into unity with one

34
person, with each nature retaining its distinctive properties. This hypostatic union represents an
ontological union since human being at the very deepest level of humanity participates in, and is
directed by, divine being. Yet the humanity of Jesus Christ is never dislodged or displaced by
His divinity; both natures remain intact without any confusion or conversion of one into the
other.
John Calvin compared the two natures of Christ to the two eyes of man:
"Each eye can have its vision separately; but when we are looking at anything . . .
our vision, which in itself is divided, joins up and unites in order to give itself
as a whole to the object that is put before it."8
Throughout the centuries there has been an unbroken chain of creedal testimony to the
Godhead of Jesus Christ.
This form of the doctrine is generally accepted among orthodox theologians. The
questions arise, however, from the mystery of the union of the two natures. How can a person
with two separate natures still be one person? How are they joined? How do they function?
Does each nature have a will and consciousness of its own?
Jesus Christ was just One Person
All attributes and powers were ascribed to just one person. Whatever He did, whether
from the human nature (e.g. "Jesus wept"), or from the divine nature (e.g. Jesus multiplying the
loaves and fish), was ascribed to just one person.
British New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce says that when John says "The Word became
flesh and dwelt among us" he was asserting that the "one Who had His being eternally within the
unity of the Godhead became man at a point in time, without relinquishing His oneness with
God."9
\
● Christ continually refers to Himself as a single person; He always speaks of Himself as
"I".
● We can understand salvation only when we understand that Jesus Christ was and is the
God-Man, not just the Man of God.
● Christian consciousness recognizes Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality.
● Both human and divine qualities and acts may be ascribed to the God-Man under either
of His names.
● "The Blood of God (Ac 20:28).

35
● "They crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Co 2:9).
● "The virgin shall bring forth a son . . . He shall be called the Son of
the Most High" (Lk 1:31-32).
● "Even as the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13).
With regard to Christ having two wills there were times when Jesus expressed the will of
unfallen humanity; and other times when He expressed the will of deity (e.g., Jesus said,
"Nevertheless not My will but Yours be done"—Lk 22:42). This obviously expresses human
will. Again He said, "Your sins be forgiven" (Mt 9:2,5)—a statement that could never be
attributed to man as only God can forgive sins. It seems that every single decision stemmed from
either the "will" of His human nature or the "will" of His divine nature or a blending of both.
Therefore it is correct to think of Jesus having two wills.
With regard to Christ having two consciousnesses, it is clear that there were times when
Jesus was conscious humanly speaking (e.g., Jesus said, "I thirst"—Jn 19:28). On the other hand,
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (10:30). Inasmuch as the Father was not human, He could
have been referring to His deity.
With regard to the exact nature of the union of the two natures, human nature found its
personality only in union with the divine nature. The human nature did not have a personality of
its own before Christ took it for Himself. In other words, the logos did not take on an already
developed personality. The two natures thus joined, constitutes one personal subsistence.
Furthermore it was God in the person of Christ who took upon Himself the nature of a
man; the union of the natures is thus theanthropic, God-Man. He had divine intelligence and
human intelligence. He had a divine will and a human will. He had a divine consciousness and
human consciousness.
Modern Cults
Mormonism views Jesus as a man who achieved great things. While they teach that
Jesus was a pre-existing spirit—an unembodied spirit—they believe that about everyone.
According to them Jesus' distinctiveness is not that He was God, but that He was God's firstborn
spirit-child, He was the first of many since all human beings are spirit children prior to
their birth. "His humanity is to be recognized as real and ordinary—whatever happened to Him
may happen to any of us." Thus he is often referred to as our "elder brother." According to
Mormonism, "Even though we can become a god just like Jesus," Jesus has shown to have
preeminence because of what He has accomplished.

"When God, 'the most intelligent' of the eternal intelligences, decided to
clothe the others with spiritual form, Christ was the first-begotten. Christ
was not eternally the Father's Son; He was not eternally pre-eminent. He
'the Firstborn Spirit Child,' and from that day forward He has had, in all
things, the preeminence."10
Although Mormons don't accept Jesus' deity or the doctrine of the trinity, they do
believe that Jesus was the Messiah:
"We hold that Jesus Christ was the one and only Being fitted to become the
Savior and Redeemer of the world, for the following reasons: (1) He is the
only sinless Man who has ever walked the earth. (2) He is the Only Begotten
of the Eternal Father in the flesh, and therefore the only Being born to earth
possessing in their fullness the attributes and power of both Godhood and
manhood. (3) He is the One who had been chosen in the primeval council of
the Gods and foreordained to this service."11
The "council of the Gods" are three separately and physically distinct Gods:
"Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have
revealed themselves to man: (1) God the eternal Father; (2) His son,
Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are held to be separate
individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the
accepted records of divine dealings with man."12
They refute the doctrine of the trinity as they further state: "This cannot rationally be
construed to mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in substance."13
36
Jehovah's Witnesses understand Jesus to be a created being who was given the status
of second-in-command: "A 'god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah." Jesus is viewed
as "a created individual who is the second personage of the universe."14 He was "a god" as Satan
was said to be a god of this world. They believe that Jesus existed prior to His birth in
Bethlehem, but even in that pre-earthly state He was not true deity. Rather before coming to
earth He was the first created being, the archangel, Michael, the chief representative of God.
He is the highest of all creation:
"As he was the highest of all Jehovah's creation, so also he was the first, the
direct creation of God, the 'only begotten,' and then he, as Jehovah's power,
and in his name, created all things—angels, principalities and powers, as well
as the earthly creation."15
However exalted, the first created being is not an eternal member of the Godhead; He had a
beginning. They also reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

37
Although the Jehovah's Witnesses accept the doctrine of the virgin birth, they maintain
that Jesus was merely human until baptized at the age of 30. Then "God begot Jesus to be his
spiritual Son . . . instead of a human son. . . . By being thus anointed with the spirit Jesus became
the Messiah."16
When Jesus died, His human experience ended; it was annihilated. Then the spirit
creature, Michael, took up his existence in an even higher exaltation.
According to the Witnesses, before and after His earthly existence, Jesus was the highest
spiritual creature. During His life on earth, He was a perfect man, but He was never truly God:
"Nowhere does the Bible teach the equality of the son with the Father, but it
teaches the very opposite; it shows the Son to be in subjection and hence
inferior to the Father."17
Christian Science teaches that Jesus was a mere human being while Christ is Truth, a
spiritual or divine idea. Thus Jesus is not the Christ. Their explanation of Peter's great
affirmation,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" is:
‘The Messiah is what thou has declared—Christ, the spirit of God, of Truth,
Life, and Love, which heals mentally. . . It was now evident to Peter that
divine Life, Truth, and Love, and not a human personality, was the healer of
the sick and a rock, a firm foundation in the realm of harmony."18
Mary Baker Eddy, in her book, Science and Health repeatedly makes the point that "the
word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus." Rather
"Jesus is the name of the man who, more than all other men, has represented Christ,
the true idea of God, healing the sick and the sinning and destroying the power of
death. Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea; hence the duality of
Jesus the Christ."19
While Jesus was born at Bethlehem, Christ was eternal. Although Jesus suffered, Christ
"never suffered." Even though Jesus finally "disappeared," Christ "continues to exist in the
eternal order of divine Science."20
They are complimentary of Jesus:
"Jesus of Nazareth was the most scientific man that ever trod the globe. Jesus was
'the best Christian' on earth. As such, Jesus 'represented' Christ, 'the true idea of
God.' Jesus 'illustrates' the human blending with God that gives dominion over
all the earth. . . . 'Endowed with the Christ,' Jesus became the 'wayshower.'"21

38
Their compliment does not go far enough since they deny the humanity and deity of Jesus
Christ. Since they deny the reality of matter they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon views Jesus as a man no better than we
are. Jesus' value is no greater than that of any other man. He categorically has declared: "It is
plain that Jesus is not God Himself."22
According to the teachings of the Unification Church Jesus' work and mission was a
failure. His death on a cross was disappointing and second best. Although Jesus preferred to rule
as a religious and political ruler as the Messiah inaugurating the kingdom of God, His messianic
goals were thwarted when John the Baptist failed to convert his audience into a power bloc for
Jesus.
Instead of giving up, Jesus adopted another mission which was not dependent on popular
support. Rather than introducing the kingdom of God, He secured spiritual salvation for
believers.
Because Jesus failed in His mission to secure physical salvation for His followers, the
messianic mission is unfinished and its completion awaits the leadership of another man, that
man being Sun Myung Moon. He claims that on Easter morning in 1936 Jesus appeared to him
and commissioned him to complete the mission for him: to form a large following and the
fathering of perfect children. In the spring of 1980 when Moon's 12th child was conceived, the
goal was accomplished and salvation was secured.23
Moon has retired from active leadership by having distributed authority to other
Unification leaders. His task is complete. Although, like Jesus, he is simply a man, unlike Jesus,
he has not been thwarted by historical circumstances and thus the second coming of Christ is
fulfilled.
The Way International teaches that Jesus is merely a man and that His existence began
at His conception: "Jesus Christ's existence began when he was conceived by God's creating the
soul-life of Jesus in Mary."24 They explain how this was done: "God created, brought into
existence, a sperm in an ovum in Mary."25 Since flesh is flesh, and God is spirit, so Jesus is not
the divine man; He is simply a man. He was just like other human beings, except that His
"bloodline" was a little different. Therefore they claim that the trinitarian belief is "an invention"
of the Nicaean Council of A.D. 325.26
Yet they insist that the Bible accurately records the life of Jesus, and its words are
trustworthy. They believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior of all who believe in Him. They teach
that Jesus is the revealed word of God, the Logos. God foreknew that Jesus would lead a perfect
life and thus become a suitable sacrificial lamb. He gave His life to avert God's judgment of
humanity's sins and that His substitutionary death and His resurrection from the dead
demonstrate God's power and grace.

39
The Way International cult believes that Christianity, as we have come to know it, is a
heretical institution that teaches unbiblical truths. It has robbed believers of many spiritual
benefits and thus prevented them from hearing the complete counsel of God. By raising up The
Way International Church God is teaching truth once again after 20 centuries of heretical and
defective teaching.27
The "Jesus" of the New Age is divine in exactly the sense that all human beings are
divine. He is one of many great spiritual masters who have succeeded in tapping into their own
godhood. New Agers generally separate the man Jesus from "the Christ." When they refer to
Jesus as "the Christ," they do not think of Him as the only Messiah but rather as one of many
manifestations of a universal power that they call God.
Jesus then, is no more God than anyone else. The only difference between Jesus and the
rest of humanity is that Jesus more fully realized and demonstrated the divine potential that we
all have. Therefore His value to us is that of an example. And it is the desire of Jesus for the rest
of humanity to become His equals, not to worship Him.
Ken Wilber accuses the Christian clergy of changing Christianity from a mystical religion
into a personality cult:
"A religion that is merely at the mythic level—such as fundamentalist Protestantism
or exoteric (nonmystical) Catholicism—then a living mystic is a real problem for
you, because the mystic claims that everybody can become one with God, and
that means bypassing the middleman: the priest and his collection plates . . . so
the esoteric Christians did a clever thing: they allowed that Christ was one with
God, but nobody else! Christ got 'kicked upstairs,' and from that time on, anybody
who claimed to be one with God was pronounced heretical."28
Jesus "Christhood" was the realization that he was divine while in human life. All people
can also attain to such Christhood.
According to the New Age, Jesus is a mystic medium. He is a guide to self-actualization.
He is a channel—one of many ancients who give New Age adherents a "glimpse" of the past.
Through previous incarnations Jesus attained a level of purity that is achievable by all.
Shirley MacLaine's spirit guide, her Higher Self, explains,
"Each soul is its own God. You must never worship anyone or anything other than
self. For you are God. To love self is to love God."29

Shirley MacLaine put it:
40
"The most pleasurable journey you take is through yourself . . . . the only sustaining
love involvement is with yourself . . . When you look back on your life and try to
figure out where you've been and where you're going, when you look at your work,
your love affairs, your marriages, your children, your pain, your happiness—when
you examine all that closely, what you really find out is the only person you've
ever gone to bed with is yourself. . . . The only thing you have is working to the
consummation of your own identity. And that's what I've been trying to do all my
life."30
God is no longer the personal God of the Bible, who interacts with man and works His
will and purpose through history. Rather, God is an impersonal, nonfeeling, nonthinking godforce,
energy, consciousness, principle, or vibration, of which everything in the universe is a
part. It is possible to tap into that power without the restrictions of morals whereby we can be the
master of all nature like Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars films in which he used the "Force" to
gain his supernatural powers and win his battles.
The New Age is not new! It is merely Hinduism in a new garb. In the New Age, as in
much of Eastern mysticism and Greek philosophy, all is one: God is one, we are one, therefore
we are God. This is pantheism. It is the belief that God did not create the universe but rather God
is the Universe. God is everything; the rocks, the trees, the sun, the wind, all are God and God is
all.
MARKS OF CULTS
All cults have certain features or characteristics that are common to all.
1. DEFECTIVE CHRISTOLOGY. Since this is the subject of this entire book it will not
be treated separately here.
2. EXTRA BIBLICAL REVELATION. To the Bible is added the authority of some
book or teacher. Their view is "We have a special message from God." They thrive on biblical
illiterates and religious newcomers who become enamored with special revelation, deeper truths,
and better methods. Cult members profess to have a corner on God's revelation. As a rule they
claim to have a book or letter that is the "key" to understanding the Bible. Some say that their
translation of the Bible only is inspired. Others believe their leader alone has God's final message
for the world in these last days. Their attitude is "Yes, we need the Bible but . . ."
3. DEFECTIVE PNEUMATOLOGY. Their defective Christology leads to an erroneous
view of who or what the Holy Spirit is. Instead of recognizing the Holy Spirit as the third
member of the Trinity and therefore a Person, they look upon the Holy Spirit as merely an
impersonal force or power.

41
4. EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. Because of their belief in a leader who alone has God's
final message they believe that God can accomplish His ultimate purpose only through them—
"our group" since they alone are God's people and understand His message. They truly believe
that they alone are saved while all others are lost. If their movement fails, then they reason, God
has failed. If they let God down then His work will never be accomplished.
5. PRESUMPTIOUS MESSIANIC LEADERSHIP. The leaders of cults are frequently
men and women who claim that they in some unique way represent God to their disciples. Some
claim to be a "messiah," if not outright "the Messiah." Others claim to be the interpreter of God's
mind and Word. Their attitude is "I know what's best for you." Such arrogant and confident
claims attract confused and uncertain people who are looking for certainty in a world of
uncertainty.
6. BLIND ALLEGIANCE TO LEADERSHIP. Followers are taught that any kind of
questioning is seen as disloyalty to the follower and to the group. All disagreement is looked
upon as a threat to the "purity" of the movement. Uncritical allegiance to leadership is the result.
Allegiance to the leader and the cult becomes so pronounced that followers are ready to die to
show their loyalty as in the case of Jim Jones' followers. This blind allegiance is also seen in that
decades and even centuries after a leader has died the devoted followers still try to prove that
their founder was true or that his long past date for the Second Coming of Christ is still
legitimate.
7. A FALSE BASIS OF SALVATION. Instead of accepting "the finished work" of Jesus
Christ who died to obtain man's salvation, cults add to that work. This is in the form of
meritorious work—rules and regulations that are closely adhered to. Often certain religious
observances are added that take on crucial importance. When any kind of human activity is
added to the work accomplished by Jesus on the cross, the gospel of grace is perverted. Their
attitude is "Jesus died for our sins, but . . ." They also believe in an exclusive salvation which
says: "We alone are saved. All others are lost."
8. UNCERTAIN HOPE. Even with a view toward salvation that is exclusive, the real
truth is that a cultist never has the full assurance of salvation. When pressed he will admit that he
is not sure that he will enter heaven, but hopes so as he presses on to work a little harder to make
that hope more certain. With meritorious work as the basis of salvation, it is no wonder that
the cultist is tragically and understandably left in a limbo of uncertainty.
9. DOCTRINAL AMBIGUITY. Cults are constantly changing their views to fit with the
changing values and ideas of society. Changes are made to fit whatever is currently attracting
followers. An example of this would be the position of the Mormons toward blacks. It was only a
few years ago that they allowed blacks into the priesthood. Before that they were considered an
inferior race.

42
10. SELECTIVE HERMENEUTICS (INTERPRETATION). The cultist is very selective
in his treatment of the Bible. It is a cafeteria style of interpretation where he picks and chooses
certain verses here and there without regard to their context. It is proof-texting where certain
portions of Scripture are extracted from their context to prove a particular point of doctrine. He
builds his beliefs out of bits and pieces of the Bible. This is why cult members are so extremely
ignorant of biblical knowledge in general. They have focused all their learning on certain
portions and are totally in the dark if asked about the rest of the Bible.
11. LIMITED ESCHATOLOGY. Because cult members believe that they alone are the
people of God and that they have the only true message of God, their view of Christ's coming is
"Christ is coming only for us.”
12. PERSECUTION COMPLEX. Their exclusivistic view of salvation whereby they
think they are the only ones who have the truth and are therefore qualified to be God's people has
given rise to a persecution complex that feeds their paranoia. They tend to have a mentality that
people hate them because they're different. Their attitude is "The world is against us because we
have the truth!"
13. DENUNCIATION OF OTHERS. This often takes the form of black-listing all other
churches and denominations as being apostate while claiming their cult to be the only true
representation of the Church. Often they see themselves as the restoration of the primitive faith
of Christianity. Their attitude is "All the churches are wrong but ours."
14. CONTROLLING. Leaders intrude into the most minute details of the lives of its
followers. People are told often what to eat, when to go to bed, who to marry (dating is often
forbidden and considered "worldly"), how many children to have, how to discipline, where to
live (if they are not in a communal setting), what kind of work they should be employed with,
etc. Followers are discouraged to think for themselves and thereby the cult keeps its uniformity
or "purity." Fear and guilt are ingeniously and forcefully used to totally dominate the lives of its
followers.
15. ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. This does not mean that cult leaders or followers are not
intelligent; it means that they have a general disdain for education as offered by our society and
religious institutions. Often they will make fun of seminaries by arrogantly referring to them as
"cemeteries." For the most part the leaders of cults are "self-taught" deciding for themselves
what is important and what is not important to study. If they do have some formal or semiformal
education, it is often at a school that is not accredited by an accrediting association.
Such lack of formal education easily leads to heresy since a person is not given the broad
spectrum of education, whether secular or theological. I'm reminded of the young and
enthusiastic evangelist who told John Wesley, "God doesn't need your education." Wesley
responded, "Nor does God need your ignorance."

The cultist takes pride in his lack of formal education. To bypass the accumulated knowledge
and wisdom of people throughout the ages by selecting a narrow path, if a path at all, of
intellectual pursuit, is the height of intellectual and religious snobbery.
43
16. SYNCRETISM. Often cults are a mixture of views and interpretations from various
teachings or groups such as the British Israel theory of eschatological interpretation, Seventh
Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Various views are blended together to appeal to the
naive and the uninformed.
17. FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION. As seen earlier, false prophets are usually
motivated by greed. Their love of money, which is the root of all evil, makes them seek huge
sums of money from their followers so they can live in the lap of luxury. Luxurious living is
often used as evidence of God's blessing in their life and ministry. Wealth is a sign of God's
approval and the faith of the leader. The more faith, the more money! All kinds of manipulative
techniques are brought to bear on the gullible followers to extract their hard-earned money.
All these major cults, as well as the numerous minor (only in the sense that they have a
smaller following) cults, are doctrinal perversions which deny the deity and humanity of Jesus.
With this denial and their denial of Jesus' bodily resurrection, they render Jesus' death and
resurrection meaningless.
Throughout church history orthodox Christianity has adhered to the statements of the
creeds of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. Even the division between the Eastern and
Western churches in A.D. 1054 did not change this as both church bodies retained the
Christology of the early church. The Reformation with its major division of the Western church
also left the creedal confessions unchanged. All major Reformation churches (Lutheran,
Reformed, Anglican) accepted the ancient creeds.
It was only in the 18th century that serious opposition arose from the new liberal
theology, but even then the churches themselves, at least officially, retained the old
Christological dogma. None of the historic denominations ever officially abandoned it.
Throughout this entire period, as well as our own century, the ancient creeds (as well as the
Westminster Confession) have remained the shibboleth that distinguished orthodoxy from
liberalism.
According to the New Testament, our salvation is nothing less than this:
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ who, though He was rich, yet for your
sake He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich" (2 Co 8:9).
These words contain in a nutshell the whole Christology of the New Testament. It was
this very Christology that was upheld by the church at Nicea as well as at Chalcedon.

44
3. EXTERNAL PROOFS FOR JESUS' EXISTENCE

Due to the obscurity of Judea in the Roman Empire and the contempt in which Roman
society held the Jews, it is not surprising that much testimony of Jesus' person is lacking. Yet
there is some that give us insight to Jesus' authenticity.
45
GENTILE EVIDENCE
The earliest piece of historical evidence concerning Jesus from nonbiblical sources can be
dated with certainty between A.D. 40 and 50. It consists of two inscriptions on caskets
containing bones of the dead which were found in a burial chamber in Talpioth, a suburb of
Jerusalem, in 1945 by Professor E. L. Sukenik, a Jewish archeologist with the inscription of two
Greek words which mean "Jesus woe!" or "Jesus, help!"1 This was probably a short prayer
addressed to Jesus.
Another inscription found was the Greek words which mean "Jesus, let him (who rests
here) arise!"2 These two inscriptions give indication that even at this early date people were
praying to Jesus. This, of course, is based on the presumption that the Jesus referred to is Jesus of
Nazareth and that the followers of Jesus were looking forward to a future resurrection.
There is the record of an edict of either Emperor Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) or Emperor
Claudius (A.D. 41-54) found in Nazareth which addresses the issue of the robbing of graves:
"Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remained undisturbed
in perpetuity for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors of their
house. If however any man lay information that another has either demolished them,
or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to
other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing of other stones,
against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in
regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honour the
buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of contra-
vention I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of
violation of sepulchre."3
It must be admitted that we cannot be certain that there is any connection between this
inscription and the disappearance of the body of Jesus from the tomb. It does point out, however,
that reports had reached the emperor about bodies being removed from tombs, perhaps in
Palestine itself. It is possible, therefore, that this edict may represent the official reaction of such
reports.
Julius Africanus writes concerning Thallus the Samaritan:
"Thallus, in the third book of his history, calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun,
but in my opinion he is wrong."4

46
This allusion is to the supernatural darkness that accompanied the crucifixion of Jesus
(Mk 15:33). Biblical scholar M. Goguel, in his book Life of Jesus comments on this statement:
"This shows that this detail [of the darkness] was known in Rome, in the middle
of the first century, in a circle near to the Imperial House. A small detail like
this could not have been preserved and transmitted save within the setting of a
narrative of the Passion."5
This fragmentary allusion dispels the notion that the story of Jesus grew like a legend
over the decades and centuries. Within twenty years or so of the actual event in the gospels a
secular writer is aware that a phenomenal happening was reported in connection with the
crucifixion of the Carpenter of Nazareth.
The famous words of Suetonius are an indirect witness to Jesus' existence:
"Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of their continual quarrelling
at the instigation of Chrestus."6
The last name is in all probability intended to state "Christus" or "Christ." There is little
doubt but that the "quarrelling" referred to points to the Jewish-Christian controversies. Luke
refers to the edict of the emperor "Claudius" which is another evidence of the historical setting of
the Christian Gospel:
"After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named
Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife
Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome" (Ac 18:1-2).
The historian Tacitus, in his description of the fire of Rome in A. D. 64 during the reign
of Nero Caesar, states:
"Christ from whom they [the Christians whom Nero accused of arson] took their
name had been put to death as a punishment during the reign of Tiberius at the
hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous
superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea,
the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."7
By linking the names of Pilate and Tiberius (as Luke does in his gospel—Lk 3:1) this
testimony of Tacitus firmly anchors Christ and His followers in the stream of history.
Mara bar Serpion wrote a letter in Syriac from prison to his son in which he points out
that those who persecuted wise men were overtaken by misfortune. The examples he gives are
the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus Christ:

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise Kings? It was
just after that that their kingdom was abolished. . . . But Socrates did not die
altogether; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die
altogether; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die
altogether; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."8
47
It is believed that this letter was written in the second or third century. It is unlikely that
the writer was a Christian since there is no explicit reference to the resurrection. There is
indication, however, that the writer seems to have been influenced by Christians since he makes
the usual Christian claim that it was "the Jews" and not the Romans who were responsible for
the execution of Jesus.
The Roman official Pliny, governor of the province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor in
A.D. 111-112, in a piece of correspondence with the emperor Trajan relates some information
about the worship and witness of the early church in that region:
". . . before dawn on a set day and singing alternate verses to Christ as to a God."9
Here is a clear piece of evidence that Jesus had early followers and adored and worshiped
Him "as to a God." British scholar Ralph P. Martin, in his book Carmen Christi, develops this
evidence further.10
The fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 destroyed most of the Jewish writings that treat this
theme. After that there was a bitter cleavage between the Christian church and the Jewish
synagogue and thus the revived Judaism deliberately kept silent concerning the practices of the
followers of Jesus who were now regarded as "apostates."
Innuendos are occasionally made. An example is the twelfth of the "Eighteen
Benedictions" which is a set of synagogue prayers and petitions:
"To slanderers let there be no hope, and let all workers of wickedness perish in a
moment."11
There is evidence that the word "slanderers," which is a general term for synagogue
opponents, was put in later but that the word "heretic" was used originally. If this is so, this
would in no doubt refer to the Jewish believers of the Messiah. The use of such a prayer would
be an effective means by which the synagogue leaders could detect who in the service was a
believer in the Messiah since such a person would not use the prayer unless they were to call
down condemnation on their own heads.

48
JEWISH EVIDENCE
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writing about A. D. 93 or 94 in his Antiquities of the
Jews provides an interesting and controversial description of Jesus and His followers.
"Now about this time arises Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be called a man.
For he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth
with pleasure; and he won over to himself many Jews and many also of the Greeks.
He was the Christ. And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us,
Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, those who had loved [or perhaps 'been
content with' him at the first did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day
alive again, the divine prophets having (fore)told these and then a thousand other
wonderful things concerning him. And even now the tribe [or 'race'] of Christians,
named after him, is not extinct."12
This account by Josephus has been suspected as being a Christian interpolation. The
account is that of the martyrdom of James, and Josephus' version is slightly different than that of
Eusebius. It is therefore unlikely that this is a Christian interpolation. New Testament scholar
T. W. Manson, in his book Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, argues against such a claim:
". . . it is difficult to imagine what sort of Christian could have deemed it worth
his while to interpolate this cool, objective, patronizing, and faintly contemptuous
paragraph into the text of Josephus."13
Even if the whole section was not written by Josephus it is at least a testimony to the fact
that Jesus existed, that He was a wonder-worker who had a following, and that He paid the
gruesome price for His unorthodox sayings and actions by crucifixion.
More light has been shed on this text since an Arabic version of the same text was found
in a church history written by Bishop Agapius, an Arab bishop in Baghdad. This text was found
by Professor Shlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who believes this text to be
the older version rather than the Greek one. It states:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was
good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews
and from the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be
crucified and to die."
"And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They
reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he
was alive. Accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah of whom the prophets have
recounted wonders."14

49
It is the opinion of Professor Pines that medieval Christian censorship was probably
responsible for the differences between the two versions with the Arabic version being less kind
to Christianity than the Greek version. This is why the Arabic version may be an earlier version
than the traditional Greek version.
There is another passage in the Antiquities of the Jews in which Josephus refers to Jesus.
It is his account of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus:
"(Ananus) assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,
and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he
delivered them to be stoned."15
The collection of Jewish traditions called the Talmud was written in the third century and
clearly refers to Jesus:
"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu of Nazareth, and the herald went before
him for forty days saying, Yeshu of Nazareth is going forth to be stoned in that
he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing
aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense
and hanged him on the eve of the Passover."16
There are actually numerous allusions to Jesus in the Talmud. New Testament scholar
J. Klausner, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, summarizes the significance of such allusions:
"There are reliable statements to the effect that his name was Yeshua (Yeshu) of
Nazareth; that he 'practiced sorcery' (i.e. performed miracles) and beguiled and
led Israel astray; that he mocked at the words of the wise; that he expounded
Scripture in the same manner as the Pharisees; that he had five disciples; that he
said that he was not come to take aught away from the Law or to add to it; that
he was hanged (crucified) as a false teacher and beguiler on the eve of the
Passover which happened on a Sabbath; and that his disciples healed the sick in
his name."17
These Roman and Jewish sources all point to the clear evidence that Jesus did live since
He was a "false teacher who was crucified." While such a summary does not adequately and
correctly describe who Jesus was and is, it does affirm that Jesus was an influential figure in first
century Palestine. This clearly proves that Jesus is an historical figure.
● The New Testament—The New Testament cannot be accounted for apart from the
fact that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again.
● The New Testament Christian Church—The Church of Jesus Christ cannot be
accounted for apart from a person who lived in the first century and built His church.

50
● The Lord's Day—The Lord's Day (Sunday) and its universal observance as a holiday
for worship is accountable only in the light of a living Christ.
● The Testimony of Changed Lives of Believers—Thousands of believers of all
centuries since Christ have testified to and experienced a change of life as the result of trusting a
crucified, resurrected and thus a living Christ.

51
4. THE ESSENCE OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

52
"The history of the Church Universal has confirmed in me the conviction that those
who have had and maintained the central article in its integrity, that of Jesus Christ,
have remained safely entrenched in their Christian faith. . . . He who steadfastly
holds to the doctrine that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, who died and rose
again for us, will acquiesce in and heartily assent to all the other articles of the
Christian faith."1
--Martin Luther
Christianity is Christ! He is the center, all else is circumference. The one most
distinguishing characteristic which separates Christianity from all other religions lies in the
personality of its founder.
Hinduism and Buddhism is loyalty to principles; Shintoism is loyalty to natural forces;
Confucianism is loyalty to a tradition; Islam is loyalty to a code.
Christianity, however, is loyalty to a Person.
You can remove the name of Buddha, the personal revealer of Buddhism, from his
system, you can take away Confucius from Confucianism, or the personality of Mohammed from
Islam, and the entire doctrine of these religions would still be left intact. Their practical value
would still be legitimate. But if you take away the Person of Jesus Christ from Christianity you
have nothing left! The entire religion collapses!
If Jesus is not who He said He was and is, and if He did not do what He claimed He came
to do, the whole superstructure of Christianity crumbles in ruins to the ground.
While it may be conceivable to think of orthodox Christianity without an organization,
without a ritual or a creed, it is anomalous as well as impossible to think of it without the Person
of Jesus Christ.
Philosophy, ethics, liturgy, institution, even doctrine: all of them are eclipsed by that one
perfect life—Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God.
Theologian James Denney put it:
"From beginning to end, in all its various phases and aspects and elements, the
Christian faith is determined by the person and work of Jesus Christ. It owes its
life and character at every point to Him. Its convictions are convictions about
Him. Its hopes are hopes which He has inspired and which it is for Him to fulfill.
Its ideals are born of His teaching and His life. Its strength is the strength of His
spirit."2

53
No theologian in all of church history has shown as powerfully and convincingly as
Karl Barth that theology that is "worthy" of the name Christian must be Christocentric (Christcentered).
He has shown in his massive Church Dogmatics (13 volumes) that Christian dogma
falls apart unless the Person and Work of Jesus Christ is found at the very center of any
theological endeavor that calls itself "Christian." He boldly pronounces that the unity of
Holy Scripture and of Christian theology is Jesus Christ. The mosaic of inspiration finds its
blending in Him.
Barth's rationale for his Christological principle is that the highest point of revelation
governs the interpretation of revelation. That highest point is the Incarnation. It is therefore as
legitimate to look backward Christologically into the Hebrew Scriptures as to look forward
Christologically into the New Testament. Barth also reasons that the preexistence of Christ
involves Christ's participation in the revelation of the Old Testament.
From the very beginning of the church's reflection regarding the Person of Jesus it has
been affirmed that the New Testament was prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures. The New
Testament writers, the early church fathers and Augustine affirmed that the New Testament lay
hidden in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament became clear in the New Testament. It
was essentially a Christological interpretation.
In his first epistle Peter points out that the Spirit who spoke through the prophets was the
Spirit of Christ (1 Pe 1:11). Similarly in the book of Revelation John says that the spirit of
Jesus is the testimony of prophecy (Rev 19:10).
The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, also emphasized the central role of
Christ in any theological framework that is called Christian. Luther is famous for his remarks
about the Christological character of Holy Scripture and Calvin taught that Christ is the
mediator of all divine revelation. Calvin explained:
"In the first place, if the assertion of Christ be true, that 'no man knoweth the
Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,' it must
always have been necessary for those who would arrive at the knowledge of
God, to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have compre-
hended the mysteries of God, or how could they have declared them, except
by the teaching of him to whom alone the secrets of the Father are intimately
known? The saints in former ages, therefore, had no other knowledge of God
than what they obtained by beholding him in the Son, as in a mirror. By this
observation I mean that God never manifested himself to man in any other
way than by his Son, his only wisdom, light and truth.
From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others drew all
knowledge which they possessed of heavenly doctrine; from this fountain the
prophets spoke and wrote.”3

Calvin is on solid ground, therefore, in his teaching that Christ is the supreme Word of
God and the Mediator of all God's revelations.
Calvin goes on to point out that this does not mean that this wisdom was always
manifested in the same way. Rather with the patriarchs God used secret revelations with signs
that made it very plain to them that it was God who spoke to them.
54
The patriarchs transmitted this revelation from hand to hand to their posterity since God
had made this a condition. Succeeding generations understood that this message was from God
as He made this certain to their hearts.
Wolfhart Pannenberg states categorically,
"As Christians we know God only as he has been revealed in and through Jesus.
All other talk about God can have, at most, provisional significance."4
Like Karl Barth and many before him theologian Emil Brunner states that God's
revelation is Jesus Christ Himself:
"He is not a 'Word'; He is not 'speech', or a summary of sentences like the prophetic
utterances; and it is this very fact which is joyfully proclaimed: that for this very
reason, just because He is quite different from a speech, namely, God Himself
present, acting in His own Person, that He is the consummation of the revelation
of God. For what the prophets could 'only' say, towards which their word could
'only' point, as something which was yet to come, a Perfection yet to be realized
in the future, has not happened: Emmanuel, God with us. God Himself, not only
a Word about Him, is now here."5
What made Jesus' message (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount or other teachings) so startling
was not primarily the content of the sermons but His authority. Attention is riveted on the
Preacher rather than the sermon. After all, there is a real sense in which the Preacher of the
sermon is the sermon. For Jesus is the Narrow Gate we must enter. He is the Narrow Road we
must travel. He is the Rock upon which we must build our lives (Mt 7). It is Jesus Himself that is
most important.
THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE
The message of Jesus continually points to the Preacher as He Himself pointed out:
"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess
eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me . . ." (Jn 5:39).

55
THE WITNESS OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
The Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, testifies to the Person and
Work of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament is important to the Christian church because it is
a Christological document in that its purpose is to lead people to salvation in the name of Jesus
Christ. When the New Testament writers refer to Scripture they are talking about the Hebrew
Scriptures. Thus we see how the Old Testament Scriptures testify to Jesus Christ by the
following statements.
"But as for you [Timothy], continue in what you have learned and have become
convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from
infancy you have known the holy Scriptures [OT], which are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Ti 3:14-15).
Paul completes this thought by pointing out the nature and full-orbed ministry of the
Word of God:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting
and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly
equipped for every good work" (vv. 16-17).
Peter tells us that the supreme witness of the prophets was about the sufferings and glory
of Christ:
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to
come to you, searched diligently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the
time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when
he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was
revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke
of the things that have now been told to you by those who have preached the
gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even Angels long to look
into these things" (1 Pe 1:10-12).
Similarly Luke points to Christ as the one who would fulfill what the prophets
proclaimed:
"But this is how God fulfilled what He had foretold through all the prophets,
saying that His Christ would suffer. . . . As his custom was, Paul went into
the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned them from the
Scriptures [OT], explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and
rise from the dead" (Ac 3:18; 17:2-3).

In the great post-resurrection Bible study Jesus pointed to His own importance in the
pages of the Hebrew Scriptures:
56
"How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets
have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter
glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to
them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself" (Lk 24:25-27).
In controversy with the Jews, Jesus referred to the Old Testament and claimed:
"These are the Scriptures that testify about Me . . . If you believed Moses,
you would believe Me, for He wrote about Me. But since you do not believe
what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (Jn 5:39,46-47)
THE WITNESS OF HEBREW PROPHECY
The significance of predictive prophecy is fourfold:
● Shows that there is a divine Intelligence behind both the Old Testament and the New
Testament.
● Establishes the existence of God.
● Demonstrates the divine inspiration of the Bible.
● Authenticates the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
The witness of prophecy backs up Barth's insistence on the Christological principle in
interpreting Scripture since there are more than 300 messianic prophecies in the Hebrew
Scriptures. No other figure plays such a significant role in prophetic history as the Messiah. The
attempt to explain away Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah has been futile. The evidence is
simply massive and thus compelling.
The apostles of the New Testament age appealed to two areas of the life of Jesus of
Nazareth to establish His Messiahship. One was the resurrection and the other was fulfilled
messianic prophecy. The Old Testament, written over a thousand year period, is replete with
references to the coming Messiah. The closer the examination of such prophecies the more
convincing the evidence that these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and thus establish solid evidence
of His credentials as the Messiah.
The following page provides examples of some of the best known messianic prophecies
and their fulfillment.

57
OTHER CREDENTIALS OF JESUS AS THE MESSIAH THROUGH
FULFILLED PROPHECY
TOPIC PROPHECY FULFILLMENT
Born of the Seed of Woman Gen. 3:15 Gal. 4:4
Son of God Ps. 2:7; I Chron. Mt. 3:17; 16:16;
I Chron. 17:11-14 Mk. 9:7; Lk.9:35
Seed of Abraham Gen. 22:18 Mt. 1:1; Gal. 3:16
Son of Isaac Gen. 21:12 Lk. 3:23, 34
Son of Jacob Num. 24:17 Lk. 3:23, 34
Gen. 35:10-12 Mt. 1:2; Lk. 1:33
Tribe of Judah Gen. 49:10 Lk. 3:23, 33
Mic. 5:2 Mt. 1:2; Heb. 7:14
Family Line of Jesse Isa. 11:1; 11:10 Lk. 3:23, 32; Mt. 1:6
House of David Jer. 23:5 Lk. 3:23, 31
2 Sam. 7:12-16 Mt. 1:1; 9:27
Ps. 132:11 Mk. 9:10; 10:47-48
Herod Kills Children Jer. 31:15 Mt. 2:16
The Messiah's Pre-existence Mic. 5:2; Isa. 9:6-7 Col. 1:17; Jn. 1:1
Isa. 41:4; 44:6; Jn. 8:58; 17:5,24
Isa. 48:12; Ps. 102:25 Rev. 1:17; 2:8
Prov. 8:22-23 Rev. 22:13
He shall be called "Lord" Ps. 110:1; Jer.23:6 Mt. 22:43-45
He shall be a Prophet Deut. 18:18 Mt.1:23; Lk.7:16
He shall be a Priest Ps. 110:4 Heb. 5:5, 6
He shall be a Judge Isa. 33:22 Jn. 5:30; II Tim. 4:1
He shall be a King Ps. 2:6; Zech. 9:9 Mt. 27:37; 21:5;
Jer. 23:5 Jn. 18:33-38
Anointed by Holy Spirit Isa. 11:2; Ps. 45:7 Mt. 3:16, 17
Isa. 42:1; 61:1-2 Mt. 1:10,11; 12:17-21
Mk. 1:10-11
His Zeal for God Ps. 69: 9 Jn. 2:15-17
Preceded by Messenger Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1 Mt. 3:1-3; Jn.1:23
Ministry to Begin in Galilee Isa. 9:1 Mt. 4:12-13,17
Ministry in Miracles Isa. 35:5-6; 32:3-4 Mt. 9:22,25;
Mt. 9:32-33; 11:4-6
Jn. 5:5-9; 9:6-11
Teacher of Parables Ps. 78:2 Mt. 13:34
Enter the Temple Mal. 3:1 Mt. 21:12
"Stone of Stumbling" Ps. 118:22 1 Pet. 2:7
to the Jews Isa. 8:14; 28:16 Rom. 9:32-33

58
"Light" to Gentiles Isa. 49:6; 60:3 Acts 13:47,48a
Acts 26:23; 28:28
Seated at Right Hand of God Ps. 110:1 Mk.16:19; Heb. 1:3
Sold for 30 Pieces of Silver Zech. 11:12 Mt. 26:15; 27:3
Money to be Thrown in God's House Zech. 11:13b Mt. 27:5
Price Given for Potter's Field Zech. 11:13b Mt. 27:7
Forsaken by His Disciples Zech. 13:7 Mt. 26:31; Mk. 14:50
Accused by False Witnesses Ps. 35:11 Mt. 26:59-60
Silent before His Accusers Isa. 53:7 Mt. 27:12
Wounded and Bruised Isa. 53:5 Mt. 27:26
Zech. 13:6
Smitten and Spit Upon and Mocked Isa. 50:6; Mic. 5:1 Mt. 26:67
Ps. 22:7,8 Mt. 27:31; Lk. 22:63
Fell Under the Cross Ps. 109:24-25 Mt. 27:31-32
Lk. 23:26
Crucified with Thieves Isa. 53:12 Mt. 27:38
Mk. 15:27-28
Made Intercession for Persecutors Isa. 53:12 Lk. 23:34
Hated Without a Cause Ps. 69:4; Isa. 49:7 Jn. 15:25
Friends Stood at a Distance Ps. 38:11 Mt. 27:55-56
Mk.15:40; Lk.23:49
People Shook their Heads Ps. 109:25; 22:7 Mt. 27:39
People Stared upon Him Ps. 22:17 Lk. 23:35
Garments were Parted and Ps. 22:18 Jn. 19:23-24
Lots were Cast
He Suffered Thirst Ps. 69:21; 22:15 Jn. 19:28
Gall and Vinegar was Ps. 69:21 Mt. 27:34
Offered to Him Jn. 19:28-29
He Uttered a God-Forsaken Cry Ps. 22:1 Mt. 27:46
Committed Himself to God Ps. 31:5 Lk. 23:46
His Bones Were Not Broken Ps. 34:20 Jn. 19:33
His Heart was Broken Ps. 22:14 Jn. 19:34
His Side was Pierced Zech. 12:10 Jn. 19:34
There was Darkness over the Land Amos 8:9 Mt. 27:45
He was Buried in a Rich Man's Tomb Isa. 53:9 Mt. 26:57
Mathematical Probability
Peter Stoner in his book, Science Speaks, uses mathematical probability as one method of
showing that the evidence of Jesus being the Messiah is astronomical. In the forward of his book,
H. Harold Hartzler, of the American Scientific Affiliation, Goshen College, verifies that the
figures used by professor Stoner are legitimate:

59
"The manuscript for Science Speaks has been carefully reviewed by a committee
of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of
the same group and has been found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in
regard to the scientific material presented. The mathematical analysis included is
based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor
Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way."6
Professor Stoner argues convincingly that coincidence is ruled out if we are logical,
reasonable, and open to the evidence before us. By using the modern science of probability in
reference to only eight prophecies Stoner says, ". . . we find that the chance that any man might
have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 17 ."7 This would
be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. Stoner helps us to comprehend this staggering number with an
illustration. He says that if we suppose that
". . . we take 10 17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover
all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the
whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can
travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is
the right one. What chance would we have of getting the right one? Just the same
chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and
having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time,
providing they wrote them in their own wisdom."8
Stoner goes on by considering 48 of the messianic prophecies. He states, ". . . We find the
chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 157 .9 Again Stoner helps us to
visualize this staggering number:
"The silver dollar, which we have been using, is entirely too large. We must select
a smaller object. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so
small that it will take 2.5 times 10 15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single
file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this long line and
counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-
inch line of electrons. If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to
count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times
19,000,000 years or 6.9 times 10 21 years.
With this introduction, let us go back to our chance of 1 in 10 157 . Let us suppose
that we are taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring
it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right
one. What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a pile will this
number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably large volume."10

60
This is the mathematical chance of any one man fulfilling 48 prophecies. In light of such
compelling evidence how can anyone doubt the messianic emphasis of the Hebrew Scriptures
and that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah!
If Christ is the substance of the Old Testament Scriptures how much more is He the
substance of the New Testament. The only real Christ, then, is the Christ presented to us in the
Sacred Scriptures. Just as Christ came to that one generation two thousand years ago as a human
being so He comes to every other generation in the garments of the Bible, God's Word, as
witnessed by the prophets and apostles who were inspired to write as God Himself supernaturally
guided them (2 Pe 1:20-21).
While Jesus Christ is the Truth, we know Him only through the instrumentality of
truths. Jesus as the Living Word is revealed to us in the written Word--the Holy Scriptures.
Apart from the written documents of the New Testament we would know virtually nothing of
this Nazarene Carpenter. It is only through special revelation (Jesus as revealed through the
Scriptures) that we gain knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. The only Jesus Christ we can grasp,
experience, know, and love is the Christ that is shown in the New Testament. We can only
apprehend Christ, therefore, in terms used by His apostles. Theologian B. B. Warfield explained:
"Christ is the very substance of special revelation documented in Scripture, and the
laying hold of Christ by faith presupposes therefore confidence in the revelation
the substance of which He is."11
Conceptual Framework: Doctrine
Those who say (some liberals) that we are to look only to Jesus and not to any doctrinal
considerations are being naive for such a position presumes that we can know Christ without any
conceptual framework. The Christ of faith is not a religious figure conjured up by well-meaning
religious folk: He is a Person rooted in history. Therefore the Christian Church has always been
unalterably pledged to the written witness of the Person and Work of Christ as given by His
apostles. And what is given by the apostles is Holy Scripture.
This is why the apostles (primarily John and Paul) framed the Christian faith in doctrinal
terms and showed great concern for its preservation and protection. To speak of Christian faith
without the bedrock of "the apostles' teaching" (Ac 2:42), "sound doctrine" (1 Ti 1:10; Titus 1:9),
"sound instruction" (1 Ti 6:3), or the "pattern of sound teaching" (2 Ti 1:13-14) is to deviate
from the bedrock of orthodox teaching. It is the truth contained in such doctrine that was taught
by the apostles and passed on to the Church. This is the message that is presented to us in
Scripture as our only ground for hope (Titus 1:9) and salvation (1 Co 15:2; 1 Pe 1:23-25). John,
the apostle, put it:
"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does
not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and
the Son" (2 Jn. 9).

61
John further emphasizes how crucial such a teaching is by adding the solemn warning:
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into
your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
work" (2 Jn 10-11).
Paul states that our growth in Christ is dependent upon our obedience to the truth
contained in the apostolic doctrinal framework:
"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him,
rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught,
and over-flowing with thankfulness" (Col 2:6).
Timothy is told by his spiritual father Paul that it is only as he adheres to the "good
teaching" that he will become a "good minister of Jesus Christ" (1 Ti 4:6).
John, in his emphasis on the correlation between belief (orthodoxy) and practice
(orthopraxis), presents three tests by which we can discern whether our spirituality is authentic:
● Believing the right doctrine (1 Jn 2:18-27; 4:1-6, 13-21).
● Obedience to right doctrine (2:3-6; 28-3:10).
● Living a life of love as a manifestation of right doctrine.
(vv. 7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-12)
Doctrine is essential because it is "truth" (2 Co 4:6; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; 2 Ti 2:5; Titus
1:14; 1 Pe 1:22; 2 Pe 1:12; Jas 1:8; 3 Jn 4). Scripture is adamant that it is only by
coming to know this "truth" that one comes to know God since Christ is the object, the very
center, of this teaching (2 Ti 3:7; Titus 2:4; Heb 10:26; 1 Pe 1:22).16
Therefore the early followers of Jesus were urged not to depart from the apostolic
teaching they had received from the very start (Jn 2:7,24,26; 3:11; Heb 2:1; Jude 3). Rather they
are to "guard" this legacy of faith and transmit it intact to succeeding generations (Gal 1:9; 2 Ti
1:13-14; 4:3; Titus 1:9).
To jettison such a body of doctrine is to end up in the sandy soil of conjecture with no
higher authority than the latest "finding" of the most recent scholar. Such "scholarship" is
frequently blind to truth for it is wearing the intellectually correct glasses of antisupernaturalism
because of its naturalistic, and therefore, antisupernatural presuppositions.
The Crucified God
The liberal agenda in its naturalistic pursuit of the so-called "Jesus of history and the
Christ of faith" has doggedly tried to detach Jesus Christ from God, and to separate Him from
Israel, and to jettison Christianity from Christ Himself.

62
Scottish theologian D. M. Baillie points out:
"It is quite plain that this is the kind of Christological interest that we find in the
New Testament. We never find there anything that could be called a Jesus-cult,
or a Christology interested simply in the question of who or what Jesus was,
apart from the action of God the Father. Whatever Jesus did, in His life, in His
teaching, in His cross and passion, in His resurrection and ascension and
exaltation, it is really God that did it in Jesus: that is how the New Testament
speaks. It becomes most striking of all in connection with the reconciling death
of Jesus. When His early followers spoke of His death on the cross as a supreme
expression of love for men, it was not so much of the love of Jesus that they
spoke as of the love of God who sent Him. In the New Testament . . . it is the
love of God Himself that is seen in the sufferings of Christ. In the New
Testament the love of Christ and the love of God are the same thing: the two
phrases can be used interchangeably. 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto Himself', and 'it is all of God'."12
There is no legitimate way to separate Jesus from the Father and have any semblance of
Christianity left. For Jesus was sent on a mission by the Father to reconcile the world. Apart
from that reconciling work on the cross Jesus becomes a foreign figure to the church and
irrelevant to the rest of mankind.
Jurgen Moltmann in his book, The Crucified God, claims:
"The death of Jesus on the cross is the centre of all Christian theology. It is not
the only theme of theology, but it is in effect the entry to its problems and answers
on earth. All Christian statements about God, about creation, about sin and death
have their focal point in the crucified Christ. All Christian statements about history,
about the church, about faith and sanctification, about the future and about hope
stem from the crucified Christ. The multiplicity of the New Testament comes
together in the event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and flows out
again from it. It is one event and one person. . . .
In coming to terms with this Christ event, the christological tradition closely
followed the Christ hymn in Phil. 2. It therefore understood the incarnation
of the Son of God as his course towards the humiliation on the cross. The
incarnation of the Logos is completed on the cross. Jesus is born to face his
passion. His mission is fulfilled once he has been abandoned on the cross.
So it is impossible to speak of an incarnation of God without keeping this
conclusion in view. There can be no theology of the incarnation which does
not become a theology of the cross. God did not become man according to
the measure of our conceptions of being a man. He became the kind of man
we do not want to be: an outcast, accursed, crucified. Ecce homo! Behold
the man! is not a statement which arises from the confirmation of our

63
humanity and is made on the basis of 'like is known by like'; it is a confession
of faith which recognizes God's humanity in the dehumanized Christ on the
cross. At the same time the confession says Ecce deus! Behold God on the
cross! . . .
The nucleus of everything that Christian theology says about 'God' is to be
found in this Christ event. The Christ event on the cross is a God event. And
conversely,the God event takes place on the cross of the risen Christ."13
Theology, if it is to be biblical, can only be hammered out in the light of the cross. Any
kind of Christology that does not find its center in the cross is heretical.
Paul, the apostle, summed up his preaching ministry this way:
"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior
wisdom [like the Greeks] as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ
and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:1-2).
To separate the person of Jesus from His death is to tear apart the very fabric of Holy
Scripture which centers its message in this momentous Event. As Paul Althaus stated,
". . . the full and undiminished deity of God is to be found in the complete
helplessness, in the final agony of the crucified Jesus, at the point where no
'divine nature' is to be seen."14
This is the paradox of the Christian God who is both God and Man—the God-Man.
This is a very serious issue since if the liberals were to be successful the very essence of
the Christian Message would be at stake.
If the incarnate Christ (1 Jn 4:1-15) can be uprooted from His redemptive purpose in
history then He cannot be the Mediator between God and man (1 Ti 2:15) but is reduced
to a mere man whose well intentioned mission was aborted. Thus, as Scottish theologian
Thomas F. Torrance put it, "the whole Gospel of Jesus' saving mediation between God and
man collapses."15
Christ's sacrifice on the cross was of infinite value only because Jesus Christ is God.
Only as God would He have eternal attributes. A mere man, no matter how good, would not be
good enough to pay the price man owed God for his sin. The psalmist put it:
"No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him—the
Ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—that he should live
on forever and not see decay" (Ps. 49:7-9).

64
As God, Jesus Christ was able to pay the eternal price.
Don Richardson in his book, Peace Child, communicates many of the elements of
redemption. As missionaries Don and his wife, Carol, went to the Sawi people of Irian Jaya,
Indonesia. This Sawi tribe was made up of headhunting cannibals who were still living in the
Stone Age and who were isolated from everyone except nearby tribes. Individual tribes among
the Sawi people were locked in a centuries-long war in which they tried to outdo each other in
every imaginable form of ruthless revenge.
Momentary peace was achieved only when a son from one tribe, referred to as a "peace
child," was given to another tribe as a peace offering. The practice was that the two leaders of
their tribes would exchange sons and their own names. After the exchange the people from each
tribe would gather around and lay hands on their respective peace child, thereby confirming their
acceptance of the peace. At that point the two tribes would come together and exchange names
and gifts, symbolizing peace and unity.
The peace, however, was usually short-lived since death of a peace child was fairly
common in the disease-infested jungles of Irian Jaya. Such death released a tribe from its peace
commitment. Thus revenge quickly set in again whereby cannibalism was not uncommon.
Don Richardson saw in the peace child a powerful analogy to Jesus, the perfect and
eternal Peace Child. He told the Sawi people:
"I kept saying to myself, 'O that they could make peace without this painful giving
of a son!' But you [the Sawis] kept saying, 'There is no other way!' . . . You were
right!
When I stopped to think about it, I realized you and your ancestors are not the
only ones who found that peace required a peace child. Myao Kodon, the Spirit
whose message I bear, has declared the same thing--true peace can never come
without a peace child! Never!”16
Because Myao Kodon wants men to find peace with Him and with each other, He
decided to choose a once-for-all [peace] child good enough and strong enough to establish peace,
not just for a while, but forever! The problem was, whom should He choose? For among all
human children, there was no son good enough or strong enough to be an eternal [peace].17
Don Richardson then went on to tell these cannibals how Jesus was God's Peace Child
who died and was raised from the dead in order to give us eternal life and thus eternal peace.
Apart from Jesus' saving work we are left with pure morality rooted in the inherent
goodness of man and helped along by the example of Jesus. Professor Torrance perceptively
analyses such a religion.

65
"If Jesus Christ is only morally related to God himself, then the best he can be
is a kind of moral Leader who through his own example in love and righteous-
ness points us to a better moral relationship with the heavenly Father, while the
atoning sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on the Cross can be understood only in
terms of an external moral relationship, as a demonstration of the love of God
operating as some kind of judicial transaction between God and Jesus for the
sake of mankind. Moreover, if we draw out the consequences of that basic
assumption further, we find that the doctrines of the Church and sacraments,
and of the Christian life, have all to be understood only in terms of moral
relations.
The Church then becomes little more than a way of gathering people together
on moral grounds or socio-ethical issues, a very human society formed out of
individuals who are externally connected with each other through common
ideals and a common way of life, while the sacraments are 'means of grace'
only in the sense that they help to cement moral relationships and promote
Christian patterns of behavior in brotherly love in response to the Fatherhood
of God."18
Torrance goes on to identify those who fall into this category:
"I have in fact been describing views of salvation, church, sacraments and a socio-
moral way of life, uprooted from or related only in an attenuated way to the
evangelical and Christological substance of the Faith, that are characteristic of
modern Liberal Protestantism but also of ways of thinking that have affected a
host of theologians and churchmen in the Roman Catholic Church in our day as
well."19
Added to these would also be members of cults since they do not fully embrace the deity
of Jesus Christ.
In his summary of his study of New Testament Christology, British New Testament
scholar I. Howard Marshall shows that it was the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth that provided
the basis for Christology. He concludes:
"The evidence supports the view that it was the resurrection of Jesus which gave
the decisive stimulus to Christological thinking . . . The earliest Christology
stressed the way in which he fulfilled the Old Testament promises of a coming
deliverer. It saw in Jesus the agent of God entrusted with the power to save and
to judge, and it confessed him as the Lord to whom was given absolute authority.
From these statements it was a short step to the application to him of the same
authority and nature as God, and to the realization that, in whatever weak sense
these traits might be seen in other messengers of God, he possessed them in a
unique way as the Son of God."20

66
To see Jesus in mere moral and ethical terms—as One who lived as an example, who
died as a martyr, but whose resurrection is only found in our fond memories of Him is to
emasculate Him. For His virgin birth and His perfect life only find spiritual and eternal
significance if His death was an atoning sacrifice for man and that He actually rose that third day
victorious over death, sin and Satan. The birth of Jesus Christ has only salvific (the possibility of
salvation) value if it is seen in the shadow of the cross and the empty tomb. In God's perspective
all three events—birth, death, resurrection—are but one Event.
THE WITNESS OF HISTORY
"I have never been interested in an historical Jesus. I should not care if it was proved
by someone that the man called Jesus never lived, and that what was narrated in the
Gospels was a figment of the writer's imagination. For the Sermon on the Mount
would still be true for me."21
--Mahatma Gandhi
Some skeptics claim that the gospels do not purport to record history in the first place;
rather, they were intended as pious myths and legends. Such a claim simply flies in the face of
the nature of the gospel literature. The gospels do not read like myths. Christian philosopher and
apologist J. P. Moreland shares his experience in addressing myth.
"In my doctoral program, I was walking into the library one day, and I ran across
a student who was reading the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. I went over
to him and I said, 'What in the world are you doing?' And he said, 'I have a master's
degree from Harvard in business, and I have a master's from UCLA in classics, and
an under-graduate degree in classics from Harvard. I'm finishing my Ph.D. degree
from UCLA in classics, and I was reading the Greek New Testament here recently.'
He was Jewish, and he went on to say, 'I became a committed follower of Jesus of
Nazareth. And I just wanted to come over here to USC because I knew there were
Christian graduate students studying philosophy.' I asked, 'How did you become a
Christian?' He said, 'Dr. Moreland, I have studied myth most of my education. I
know the earmarks of myth; that's all I study. My undergraduate training was in
mythology; my graduate training has been in mythology. And I was practicing
Koine Greek reading the Gospel of Luke, and I got halfway through it, and as a
Jew, I said, 'My God, this man really did these things. What am I going to do?
This is history. It reads like history. It doesn't read like myth. I know what myth
tastes like because all I do is read it, and that is not myth.'"22
Similarly C. S. Lewis, an Oxford don who was professor of Medieval and Renaissance
literature at Cambridge, was an expert in the field of mythology and testified:

67
"I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life.
I know what they are like. I know that none of them is like this [the New Testament
record]. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage—
though it may no doubt contain errors--pretty close to the facts; nearly as close as
Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known
predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern,
novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The
reader who doesn't see this simply has not learned to read."23
The idea that the New Testament picture of Jesus is a late "mythological" distortion of
the "real Jesus" (who was in all probability simply a moral teacher) hardly squares with the
evidence. The historical data points us to the Jesus presented in the Bible in rather
straightforward narrative language.
Wolfhart Pannenberg has argued convincingly that a historian can find the factuality and
truthfulness of the Christian message as long as he is not guided by his own prejudices:
"As long as historiography does not begin dogmatically with a narrow concept of
reality according to which 'dead men do not rise' [or any other supernatural event],
it is clear why historiography should not in principle be able to speak about Jesus'
resurrection as the explanation that is best established of such events the disciples'
experience of the appearances and the discovery of the empty tomb."24
The supernatural features in the story of Jesus can be validated by the historian. The
factuality of the resurrection can be attested to by the historian while its spiritual significance
must be left to the theologian and the person in the street who has the witness of the biblical
record available to him.
The historical method must be open to the principle that every effect must have a
sufficient cause. By so doing it is only logical that it allows for transcendent causes when
immanent causes are insufficient. Since redemptive history (history of Jesus' redemptive life and
work) is inextricably interwoven with ordinary history, and since Jesus Christ is the culmination
of revelation as He became part of history by becoming flesh (man—Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2), then the
historical method is a valid method for validating Scripture and in some cases even interpreting
Scripture.
This, of course, does not mean that there are not limitations to the historical method.
There are. In the main it only answers "what," usually not "how," and certainly not "why." The
theologian and philosopher are the ones who deal with the issues of "how" and "why"—issues of
the meaning and significance of what took place.

68
Since in some cases historical facts also yield logical deductions, the historian must be
open to such evidence. Thus the historian, whose task is to pass on to succeeding generations
what has taken place in history, must follow the facts to their logical conclusions. In dealing with
salvation-history (the biblical record) he must, therefore, not only be open to the factual evidence
of the biblical record, but he must also be open to the significance of Jesus which is suggested to
him by the evidence. As I. Howard Marshall puts it:
"And that significance may be expressed in terms of the supernatural without the
historian feeling that he has to sacrifice his intellect to faith."25
There is no necessary dichotomy between faith and reason, religion and intellect, Jesus of
history and the Christ of faith. Such a dichotomy is the creation of those who are predisposed to
a Western worldview which does not leave room for transcendence, for the supernatural.
I. Howard Marshall in his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, affirms:
"So the reader of the Gospels is brought face to face with the biblical Jesus as the
Son of the living God. The accounts, seen in the light of the resurrection, call out
for his decision and invite him to faith. And the object of his faith is then the Jesus
whose existence and ministry have been confirmed and illuminated by historical
research, but whose significance is only fully seen in the light of that experience
of the risen Lord which has colored the interpretation of Jesus offered in the
Gospels and the rest of the New Testament and which continues to illuminate
The mind of the believer. For as we have seen, ultimately the earthly Jesus is
inadequate. Christian faith joyfully embraces the Jesus of the Bible, assured that
the biblical accounts have a firm basis in history, but knowing that 'the Jesus of
the historians' is not enough; only the biblical Jesus Christ, the earthly and the
heavenly Lord, is adequate as the object of faith."26
The Jesus of history is the Christ of faith!
The Bible, therefore, is the carrier or vehicle—the instrument—prepared by God to reveal
to us His message through the ministry of His Spirit—the Holy Spirit.
The message is the gospel—the GOOD NEWS:
"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you
received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved,
if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

69
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that
He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Co 15:1-4).
Notice that the Gospel that is to be believed is the gospel "according to the Scriptures"
(v. 4). Also notice the centrality of the Person and Work of Jesus. It was His death,
burial and resurrection that saves. But it saves only as we respond to this message in faith. When
we believe the witness of Scripture to the saving act of Christ (not only that He died and rose
again, but that He died for our sins and rose again victorious over sin, death, and Satan) then
Christ comes to indwell us.
THE WRITTEN AND THE LIVING WORD
This is so because in Jesus there is the marriage or joining of His Person and His Word.
One cannot logically accept His person and reject His Word. This is so because it is in the
preaching of the inspired witness of Holy Scripture about Jesus that He comes to the believing
heart. This is true because the written witness of the life of Christ (Lk 1:1-4) is the extension
of the spoken word. Christ offered Himself in the words which He spoke:
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me
has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death
to life" (Jn 5:24).
Just as Christ offered Himself in the words He spoke, so Christ is now offered by the
written word of special revelation—the record of His spoken word—Holy Scripture. The only
Lord we can believe in is the Lord who is shown in the pages of the Bible. All one knows of the
Living Word is what the written Word has revealed. The Living Savior comes to people only
in the garments of Scripture. The greatest miracle of God is that when the Christ of the Bible is
faithfully preached the living Lord truly comes to believing hearts.
It is told of Leonardo de Vinci, that when he was ready to depict the face of Christ in his
masterpiece, "The Last Supper," he prepared himself by prayer and meditation. Yet when he
raised his brush to give expression to his religious devotion, his hand trembled.
Only such an attitude and reaction is proper and right when one tries to paint a
theological picture of Jesus of Nazareth. The attempt to understand, proclaim, and teach who He
is, His Person—His nature and character, His perfections and sufferings, His mission and
ministry—will always fall short of what is worthy of Him. Yet it is a noble and needful
undertaking in these last days when false prophets and false teachers are zealously and fervently
disseminating their "Jesus" and their "Gospel."

70
5. INSPIRATION, AUTHORITY, CANONICITY AND HERMENEUTICS

71
INSPIRATION
"The test of truth is the known factual evidence . . ."1
--Jacob Bronowski
So far I have emphasized that we must believe in the Jesus shown to us in Scripture since
this is where we are presented with a portrait of Jesus. This brings up the question of authority.
At least three questions come to mind:
1. How do we know that the Bible claims divine authority?
2. If the Bible claims such authority, how do we know it is true?
3. How do we achieve accurate, authoritative interpretation?
After all, claims to authority are found everywhere. What is so different about the Bible
that we should take its claims seriously? Whose interpretation is correct and thus authoritative?
The Nature of Inspiration
Our understanding of inspiration is key to the doctrine of Scripture which forms the basis
of our Christology. In fact, inspiration provides the basis of our whole theology. Even liberal
theologians would generally agree with this statement.
Three Views of Scripture
There are essentially three views of inspiration and thus Scripture.
The Liberal View regards the Bible as a purely human book. It is the record of the religious
experiences of some believers in the past. There were some people, especially in Israel and later
on in the Christian church, who had some deep religious experiences and a growing awareness
and understanding of God. They recorded these experiences and this awareness in writing (what
is recorded in the Bible), and because of the depth of their experiences, their writings are of great
value for all succeeding generations. They are even authoritative, but in a relative and limited
way. The testimonies are creative, insightful and often stimulating, but must always be checked
by our own experiences and insights. Thus their authority is purely subjective and never final.
What I myself experience is final.
Liberals who are even willing to speak of revelation at all believe in general revelation in
which God reveals Himself everywhere and to all people, but they say, Jesus Christ is one of
the many ways to God. God can be discovered like a fact of nature and can be found in all
religions.

72
The Neoorthodox View (Karl Barth and Emil Brunner) and to some extent the
Neoliberal View (Rudolph Bultmann) sees the Bible as a thoroughly human book. Yet unlike
the old or classical liberal view the Bible is not only the record of subjective, human experience;
it is primarily the witness to the revelation of God in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. As
"witness" the Bible is merely a human document and thus is fallible (though Karl Barth found
great reluctance in pointing out any errors and proposed that such an enterprise was too difficult,
too subjective and useless), yet when God's Spirit uses this witness and brings it "home" to us,
this human and fallible witness becomes God's Word, God's revelation to us. The Bible, then,
becomes rather than is, God's Word.
This means that the authority of the Bible is relative and absolute at the same time. On
the one hand its authority is relative since it is a human witness to revelation. On the other hand
revelation takes place when it pleases God to speak through this witness by His Spirit. Thus
authority is absolute when God Himself addresses us.
Barth has correctly warned conservatives of finding in the Bible a mere textbook of
dogmatic truth rather than a living attestation of Jesus Christ. He has justifiably warned against
losing sight of Jesus Christ as the true theme and center of the Bible and pointed out the tendency
of fundamentalists and evangelicals to show little interest and appreciation for the
illumination of the Holy Spirit and His work.
Barthian expert Geoffrey Bromiley points out that Barth's resistance to any static
conception of Scripture whereby the written text is abstracted either from God or from His Word
shows that Barth tends to ascribe
". . . more validity to the present inspiring of Scripture by the Spirit in its reading
and hearing, although he finds satisfactory objectivity both in the person of the
Holy Spirit and also in the authors as the unique witnesses to Christ who are
given a place in the event of revelation itself."2
Thus Barth finds "inerrancy" (without error) both irrelevant and misleading. Yet, while
he believes in the possibility of error, he sees no absolute position, no superior platform, from
which to establish actual errors and gives no place to conjecture about alleged mistakes or
difficulties. Therefore, as Bromiley points out, he really does "not follow his own rule and
deduce the possibility of error from its reality!"3
The evangelical or classical view sees the Bible as the Word of God. Although it is the
Word of God in the words of men, God Himself speaks to us in these human words. One of the
clearest expositions of this view is given by B. B. Warfield of Princeton Seminary earlier in this
century in his volume The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. The Bible is not "man's report
to us of what God says, but the very Word of God itself, spoken by God himself through human
lips and pens."4

73
This is called the "classical" view because it has been held by the church until the
eighteenth century, when higher criticism started and theologians denied this view in order to
make room for their own critical approach. Church history is clear that this classical view was
held by the church fathers during the patristic era, by the theologians of the Middle Ages, by the
Reformers and the fathers of the post-Reformation period and by conservative and evangelical
theologians of today. It is also the view held by the Roman Catholic Church. In its Dogmatic
Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II declared:
"The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and present in the text of
sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
For holy mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as
sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and
entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Ti 3:16; 2 Pe 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God
as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."5
Protestants regard this view of Scripture as weakened by other authorities that are added
to the Bible, namely, the apocryphal books and the Magisterium (the church's teaching function)
to give an authentic and infallible interpretation of Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic position
that such a view is not weakened in that it does not believe that it can have a magisterial teaching
that contradicts Scripture. Yet history testifies that the Roman Catholic Church has in fact
changed some theological positions that were previously considered infallible.
The Classical or Evangelical View
In Scripture we see a unity of thought and purpose suggesting that one Mind inspired
the writing and compilation of the whole series of books (a library of 66 books). It bears on its
face the stamp of its Author. It is the Word of God in a unique and distinctive sense.
The Bible is not a record of man's attempts to find God (liberalism), but of God's divine
self-revelation to man.
The church's doctrine of inspiration obviously must start with the self-witness of the
Bible itself. The Bible teaches that the Bible was "inspired" by the Holy Spirit:
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the
prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
(2 Pe 1:20-21)
Both the Law and the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Scriptures purport to come from
God. The New Testament links the giving of messages through human speakers or writers with
the activity of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration thus takes place naturally from the divine source and
authority—the inworking of the Holy Spirit.

74
In the New Testament it is made clear that divine authority extends to the whole of the
Old Testament. Jesus shows His disciples "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself"
(Lk 24:27). The psalmist speaks "in the Spirit" (Ps 110; Mt 22:43). And
". . . men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
(2 Pe 1:20-21)
This linking of the biblical writings with the Holy Spirit means that they are brought into
direct relationship with the work of the Spirit of God to bear witness to Jesus Christ. This is
true of the Hebrew Scriptures with its prophetic testimony since Jesus Himself said of these
writings: "These are the Scriptures that testify about Me" (Jn 5:39).
This is also true of the New Testament as the apostles looked back on the events they had
witnessed and testified to the centrality of the person and ministry of Jesus. John points out in his
gospel that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the apostles all they had learned
from Jesus (Jn 14:26). In fact, the Holy Spirit is their coworker (Ac 2:4; 4:8). Peter classifies the
epistles of Paul with the Scriptures which certifies the divine authority of this written testimony.
In 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 Corinthians 3 Paul develops the point that the Holy Spirit who
gave the Scriptures is the living Lord, whose voice must be heard in and through Scripture if
its message is to be understood and received. If the message is really from the Holy Spirit, it
cannot be received merely by the natural understanding. Without the Holy Spirit it can be read
only on the level of human writings. What is given by the Spirit must be read by the help of the
Spirit ("in the Spirit"). To the objective inspiration of Scripture there corresponds the subjective
illumination of the understanding.
The word "inspired" then, is not to be confused with the common usage of the word
where we may say Shakespeare was "inspired" to write great plays, or when we may refer to
Beethoven as having to be "inspired" to be able to compose such great symphonies. Inspiration,
in the biblical sense, is unique.
"Men spoke from God," says Peter, "as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The
Bible is the product of God Himself. Here are not mere human words and ideas, but God's divine
character and will revealed through words.
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) comes from a Greek word meaning "breathed out by
God" or "God-breathed." The origin of the words of Scripture is God Himself. John Stott
explains:
"The meaning, then, is not that God breathed into the writers, nor that He somehow
breathed into the writings to give them their special character, but that what was
written by men was breathed out by God. He spoke through them. They were His
spokesmen."6

75
Verbal Inspiration
Historically the church has regarded the words as inspired. This means that the whole of
Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the biblical record was given by divine
inspiration. The implication is that the inspiration of Scripture cannot correctly be affirmed as a
whole without its parts, or of some parts but not the whole. It is of one piece.
This rests on the Jewish view which attaches importance to the very letters. This high
view of inspiration is seen in the great care in the transmission of the text. Without the concept of
verbal inspiration variations might have been not only more numerous but also much more
serious.
Liberalism contends that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is
rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. It also holds that the corruption of human
culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration. It is the conservative
position that God, who made mankind in His image, has used language as an adequate means of
communicating revelation.
Some argue that what really matters is what is said, not how it is said. The content of
Scripture, its ideas, truths, facts and insights, is what is inspired. For the rest, the writers have
complete freedom to state these as best they can according to their own background and
linguistic ability. This view holds that while the words are not inspired, what they express is.
Such a view tries to protect the Bible from being a mechanical document in which there
was no serious regard for the people "involved" in the writing process. Thus they were mere
secretaries that mindlessly or mantically dictated what God told them to write.
This is not the position of many who hold to verbal inspiration. It does not mean that the
writers of Scripture were mere writing machines (mechanical theory of inspiration). God did
not just dictate His words to them and they mindlessly wrote them down. It is obvious from the
writings themselves that each writer's personality is involved. Each writer has a style of his own.
Jeremiah does not write like Isaiah, and Peter hardly writes like Paul. Their educational and
cultural background seeps through in their writings.
The Bible, then, is confluent—both the words of men and the word of God. It has dual
authorship. It is God's Word about Himself which He has transmitted to us not by suspending the
faculties of the writers, but by working through them. Thus the Bible is a very human book.
However it is divine in that God worked through the instrumentality of human personality, but
so guided and controlled men that what they wrote is what He wanted written.
The liberal aversion to verbal inspiration is seen in their attempt to make a distinction
between words and content. If words were not inspired then we would be engaged in a process of
abstraction from history as though words had little or nothing to do with the abilities, experiences
and circumstances of the human writers. In such a case they would be transcendent oracles.

76
The irony is that such a view reduces inspiration to a mantic (mystical as in divination)
approach, the very thing liberals have accused conservatives of teaching. Such an approach also
reduces inspiration to a purely human endeavor of piecing together what "might have happened."
Without careful attention to words the whole endeavor of biblical inspiration comes tumbling
down as there is no safeguard against the latest theory or "discovery."
There are no justifiable grounds for the separation of form and content. The whole
enterprise of exegesis supposes their conjunction.
Inspiration does not mean that the words are inspired rather than their content, but that
there is no such thing as the one without the other. The biblical message does not consist of
general abstractions which can come in all forms. Rather it relates to what is said and done by
God in the working out of His purpose of grace and judgment. Thus it has the characteristic of
historicity and particularity. While it can be argued that at times what is said might have been
expressed in other ways; it is, in fact, put in this particular way. Although this may seem
accidental, it is not, for words give form to the story or message. Thus the form is not expendable
since it makes content possible.
Verbal inspiration is important in that it shows us that Scripture is dealing with God's
word and work in history, not with abstract truths or insights. This leads to a serious reckoning
with the humanity of the writers as the background, circumstances, style, even the vocabulary
(i.e. Luke's use of medical terms gives credence to his claim to be a physician) are looked at
closely. All such information gives us insight into the meaning of what is written. Exposition is
not approached in general. There is painstaking linguistic study, translation, exegesis, and
interpretation. Only such an approach provides an objective reference. Thus fanciful conjecture
must yield to factuality.
Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy
Biblical inspiration implies infallibility. Historically the word "infallibility" meant
"reliability in achieving an end" or "entirely trustworthy for the purposes for which it is given."
This is a good definition as long as the "purposes" are discovered inductively and not arbitrarily
narrowed to salvific matters, as if to imply that the Bible is not trustworthy when it impinges on
matters of history, science—the external world.
It is the broadening definition of infallibility which makes a clear distinction between
what is religious or spiritual and what is scientific or factual that has led to the coinage of the
Word "inerrancy." The purpose is to protect the Bible from undue accommodation to the
prevailing liberal approach to truth claims. The meaning is used in the narrower sense of "that
which does not lead into error" or "that which does not contain error."
Theological and spiritual giants have held to the view that the Bible is infallible or
inerrant. Augustine (A. D. 396-430) stated that

77
". . . most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything
false is found in the sacred books. That is to say that the men by whom the
Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing put down in these
books anything false. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority
one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books,
which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not
by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally,
the author declared what was not true."7
This is what led to the so-called "all or nothing" or "domino theory of inspiration."
Verbal inspiration is the first domino. The logic is that if you question that in any way the other
tenets of Christian theology inexorably fall. If there is one error or fault then there is no way to
know whether there may be others as well. For the most part history proves this to be true. Yet
occasionally the chain reaction stops, for reasons conservatives cannot explain.
Conservatives have often been unfair to those who disagree on theological issues such as
verbal inspiration by their inclination to take a person's present position then logically extend it,
and finally judge him for where his logic makes him end up. But he may never go beyond this
present point in his thinking he may never end up anywhere near where "logic" puts him.
Conservatives need to be cautioned that each person stands or falls to his own Master. That
Master does not see dominos; He sees our hearts as clearly as He knows our hearts. He wants to
help us stand, not prove by logic that we'll topple.
Conservatives have also tended strongly toward fundamentalistic or evangelical
rationalism in which they have tried too hard to rid the Bible of any semblance of uncertainty.
Many believe they have handily "proven" beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible is the
Word of God. In their relentless pursuit for proof they have invented desperate answers based
upon questionable logic and unwarranted reasoning. Such a fervor is more a testimony to their
own doubts than to their sturdy faith.
Other giants in the field of theology who held to verbal inspiration were such men as
Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224-1274) who said "nothing false can underlie the literal sense of
Scripture."8 Martin Luther declared, "The Scriptures have never erred."9 John Wesley wrote,
"Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may well be a thousand. If
there is one falsehood in that Book it did not come from the God of truth."10
The problem with nonbiblical terms such as "inerrancy" is that they present problems that
seem rather alien to Scripture itself. There is the danger to overstating a doctrine because of what
is implied by these terms. We must be careful not to impose a Western standard of scientific
accuracy on an Eastern manuscript. Many Westerners force alien "accuracy" to a document that
simply was never intended to be scrutinized and analyzed by such a scientific approach. Thus
problems are created by a wrong methodology.

78
Western historiography, for instance, pays attention to historical events in an extremely
detailed and linear fashion which is foreign to Eastern historiography whereby history is
interpreted history. The data of Scripture often includes approximations, free use of quotations
(not verbatim word for word repetition), language of appearances, different accounts of the same
occurrence that do not contradict, etc. This must be kept in mind when using such terms as
"infallible" and "inerrant." In view of the Western materialistic and reductionistically
rationalistic mindset that is usually brought to the word "inerrant," I will use the word "infallible"
as the better of the two.
The Bible is infallible in that God's word is true and has the power to accomplish what
it says. Isaiah says that it will accomplish what God pleases:
"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without
watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the
sower and bread for the eater, so is My word that goes out from My mouth:
It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve
the purpose for which I sent it" (Isa 55:10-11).
Scripture cannot fail in what it is meant to do; it is infallible. This means that Scripture
can be relied upon to achieve certain ends. Its promises and warnings will be fulfilled. Its
account of God's words and works is authentic. Its teachings are true. The Bible does not mislead
its readers. It does not teach what is false or erroneous. It can be relied on implicitly.
This naturally leads to the question of whether there are limits to infallibility. Many of
those engaged in literary and historical study of the Bible have put this question to the church
acutely. In their analysis of the books they have found various difficulties in squaring biblical
statements with scientific and historical findings. At times they have found it rather difficult
to integrate certain biblical narratives with secular data, and some of their archeological findings
have raised questions they have not been able to answer.
Biblical data has been massive in clearing up many supposed errors that simply do not
stand up to close investigation. Evangelical biblical scholars have done a credible job in carefully
studying the intratextuality of Scripture and provided reasonable, logical, though sometimes
extremely sophisticated and complicated, answers to nagging problems of various texts of both
the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Biblical scholars such as F. F. Bruce,
Gleason Archer, Charles Ryrie, and Larry Richards have addressed the difficult texts and given
ample reason for confidence in the infallibility of the biblical record.11
The church did not use inerrancy to substantiate inspiration but vice versa. Therefore
some "difficulties" are not fatal to its position.

79
There is no denial that there are some problems that as yet do not yield a ready
explanation. This should not unnerve us as we recognize that many times in the past problems
resolved themselves when more data became available. The logical position is that where there
are apparent conflicts, we must humbly hold the problem in abeyance rather than quickly
accuse Scripture of contradiction or defensively conjure up simplistic answers. The honest
position is to admit our present inability to explain and await the possibility of new data. The
presence of problems does not logically prevent us from accepting the Bible as the Word of God.
As E. J. Carnell reasoned:
"There is a close parallel between science and Christianity which surprisingly few
seem to notice. As Christianity assumes that all in the Bible is supernatural, so
the scientist assumes that all in nature is rational and orderly. Both are hypotheses--
based, not on all of the evidence, but on the evidence 'for the most part.' Science
devoutly holds to the hypotheses that all of nature is mechanical, though as a
matter of fact the mysterious electron keeps jumping around as expressed by the
Heisenberg principle of uncertainty. And how does science justify its hypothesis
that all of nature is mechanical, when it admits on other grounds that many areas
of nature do not seem to conform to this pattern? The answer is that since regularity
is observed in nature 'for the most part,' the smoothest hypothesis is to assume
that it is the same throughout the whole."12
Liberals and Barthians (neoorthodoxy) have often criticized conservatives for using
"proof-texting" as a vehicle to substantiate their conclusions. Their point is that this is an
illegitimate and unscholarly methodology whereby conservatives cite proof texts to ensure that
the answers will lead to conservative rather than liberal conclusions.
It is certainly true that conservatives are sometimes guilty of this just as liberals are guilty
at times of their misuse or abuse of footnotes in scholarly works. Proof texts and footnotes must
be used properly. They must not be used out of context nor in part when the whole might change
the meaning. They must accurately convey what is intended by the original author.
Some of these so-called "errors" are created by Westerners who do not understand the
Eastern mindset and thus press for detailed accuracy that is foreign to the biblical manuscript. It
must be admitted, however, that there is no absolute proof in these matters. We cannot
demonstrate inspiration by demonstrating infallibility in an absolute sense. Even though the
accusation of unreliability can be easily met, historical, literary or scientific demonstration does
not have the absolute character which would qualify it as a basis of belief.
The liberal position is the argumentation from purpose. They contend that since Scripture
is meant to teach us about God, not about biology, geology or botany, it is only factual or
accurate in communicating about religious matters. Ancient forms, possibly myths, are said to be
used to convey truth or to effect existential encounter. Thus it does not make sense to insist on
the historical factuality of what belongs to form.

80
The problem with this position is that it brings into question religion and theology itself.
Does it make sense to trust doctrine if the facts are unreliable? Is it logical and safe to believe
someone in hidden matters if what the person says concerning plain facts are false after all?13
These are false distinctions. This is an unnecessary dichotomy. There is no warrant for
distinguishing between facts and truth, between that which is religious and secular. All are of one
piece. The Bible simply does not regard itself as mythological or as a book of nonhistorical
truths. Rather at its very core the biblical revelation is historical. Even though many of the
details given in Scripture may be incidental, the gospel has to be factually as well as doctrinally
true if it is true at all.14
Liberalism constantly brings in alien criteria and then try to answer questions when
there is no answer. It is futile to ask questions of Scripture which it was never attempting to
answer in the first place. A wrong question will lead to a wrong answer.
Statements do not have to be precisely scientific to be true.15 An example would be
the popular statement, "the sun rises." Obviously this is phenomenological (as they appear to be),
not scientific language. On its own terms then the statement is true even if it does not meet
modern scientific analysis.
Furthermore the Bible is written in various genres. Even though there is little reason to
believe there is myth (the modern definition which equates it with nonreality) in the Bible, it
would be incorrect to treat all the writings of Scripture the same. To treat poetry as a factual
record or to dismiss the historicity or even the truthfulness of poetry because it is not a factual
record shows a complete ignorance of the nature of literary language.16
Different Kinds of Literature to Interpret
In order to understand the writer's aim, it is vital to understand the nature of the literature
he is writing. It is helpful to understand something of the general characteristics of this nature
and of the methods of writing them.
History
Christianity is an historical religion. History is, therefore, central to the Christian faith
since God has been revealed through historical people and historical events. Much of the Bible is
devoted to describing this revelation of God. These parts should be taken seriously as the history
of God's dealings with His people and not treated simply as books full of interesting moral
stories.
Although the biblical historians were concerned to tell us what happened in the past, they
were not primarily concerned, as modern historians, with economic and political issues, nor do
they always intend to give precise information on chronology and numbers.

81
Much of Old Testament historical writing was called "prophecy" by the Jews. The
author's intention was not to record history for its own sake, but to instruct and to build up the
readers in the faith by teaching them about God's dealings in the past, and by interpreting
history. We should not, therefore, demand from biblical historians’ information which it is not
their intention to tell us.
The gospels, for instance, should not be regarded as biography in the modern sense since
the evangelists do not give us details of Jesus' childhood, His appearance, etc. They are bringing
out the theological significance, the "good news" about Jesus, and so they concentrate on what
they see as the most important events and sayings of His ministry and this is why, for example,
they emphasize His death.
The incorporation of whole sections verbatim from other writers without specific
acknowledgement was not regarded as improper plagiarism as it would be today. Also, two
different accounts of the same event may be put alongside each other without any attempt to
reconcile or combine them. As with the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, the two expressions are
not reduced to a single composite picture by the author, but are left side by side so that the reader
can get more from the two together than from one alone.
Prophecy
Today when we think of prophets we tend to think of men who "foretold" the future. But
the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures were not just men with God-given foresight, they were
men with hindsight and insight into God's past and present activity. They were primarily
"forth-tellers" who spoke about the situation of their day such as the sins of the people and God's
will--His plan and purpose for His people.
Why were the prophets allowed to see and to proclaim God's future purposes and plan? It
was not to satisfy the people's curiosity, but rather to command them to speak of God's future
because of the immediate relevance of that future to the present. It was the revelation that God
was going to act in future judgment that gave urgent force to the prophet's call to the people to
repent. It was the revelation that God would one day redeem His people, which was the basis of
the prophets' message of hope to the faithful.
The predictions of the prophets, then, were extremely relevant to those who heard them.
These predictions enabled those who were willing to prepare for what was coming.
For us who live on the other side of the fulfillment of many of the Old Testament
prophecies, they may not all be a guide to future events, but they still are of value in reminding
us of the nature of our God. He is the Lord of the future and the Lord of history, and He reveals
Himself and His will to His people.

82
Poetry
Some of the Old Testament books are mainly, if not entirely, poetic. In reading poetry we
must be careful not to attempt to interpret details literally.
Hebrew poetry is characterized by its figurative language, by its rhythmic stresses on
certain syllables and particularly by its parallelism. In the latter, two or more lines of verse are
grouped together with the first line being echoed, complemented, developed or contrasted by
those that follow. When we see this it is important that we realize that it is a poetic device and
therefore we should not read too much into it like looking for the subtle difference between two
synonyms.
Wisdom Literature
The books of Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes fall into the category of wisdom literature
which is a form of writing found in other Near Eastern literature as well as in the Bible. Such
literature contains careful observations and reflections about life. It may deal with life in general
as in Ecclesiastes, or about a particular problem in life such as the problem of suffering in Job, or
it may deal with practical questions of everyday life as in many of the Proverbs.
In interpreting Ecclesiastes it would not be proper to treat it as a straight philosophical
statement about life. Instead it is an account of man's struggle with the question of meaning in
life. In the same way it would not be correct to take Proverbs as though it were a book of
instructions to the believer like Paul's instructions to Christian churches. A proverb is more likely
to be an observation about life than a command to be obeyed. When it comes to Job it is vital to
realize that opposing points of view are being advanced by different speakers and the reader
must be careful to distinguish between the views being criticized as inadequate and those being
recommended.
Letters
During the New Testament period there were a number of formal rules for letter writing
as there are to a lesser extent today. Paul follows the usual practice of his day by the way in
which he begins and ends his letters, and also by his practice of dictating them to a scribe then
merely adding a personal postscript or salutation in his own handwriting (Ro 16:22; Col 4:18;
2 Th 3:lf.).
In some parts of his letters Paul answers points from a letter that has been sent to him
(1 Co 7:lff.). In fact, in 1 Corinthians he seems to be going through a letter the church in Corinth
had sent, answering it point by point (7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) and sometimes even quoting from it
(8:1,4). By understanding the nature of letters we recognize that Paul's letters are more practical
advice given to a specific situation than exhaustive discourses on a given subject.

83
Apocalyptic
The books of Daniel and Revelation are good examples within the Bible of a type of
Jewish literature generally called "apocalyptic." The word "apocalypse" means "revelation," and
apocalyptic writing generally contains accounts of supernatural revelations or visions. These
usually are about things to come and are given by God to the writer usually through an angel.
To the modern reader one of the most remarkable things about this type of literature is its
vivid and extraordinary symbolism. It is filled with beasts and seals, rivers and mountains and
stars, personages--both celestial and infernal, and also the frequent use of numbers (e.g. number
seven in the book of Revelation). Such pictorial language enables the writer to portray whole
movements of history and supernatural realities that could not otherwise easily be explained. The
hope of apocalyptic literature is for God's final and certain victory to take over all evil and
rebellion in His creation.
In interpreting apocalyptic literature it is vital to recognize that this is an instinctive type
of literature and must not be interpreted literally. It is also important that we learn as much as
possible about the significance of the symbolism used (e.g., a "beast" is frequently used in
apocalyptic literature to symbolize a nation). Such an understanding of symbolism can be gained
through a careful study of biblical apocalyptic literature and also by consulting commentaries
and other works of reference which draw upon extra-biblical sources.
Basically, two errors face us in interpreting apocalyptic writing. One approach is to
ignore it because we find it so strange and difficult to understand. In doing so we neglect a
significant part of God's revealed truth. The other dangerous attitude is that we become
excessively fascinated by it and therefore give it more prominence in our thinking than can be
justified by Scripture. While Jesus used apocalyptic literature Himself (e.g. Mk 13), He also
warned against those who foolishly speculate about the end times (Mt 24:26ff; Mk 13:4) and
explained that it is not for man to know about the "times or dates" which the father has set by His
own authority (Ac 1:7).
Purpose
The purpose of writing is another crucial issue in coming to terms with the factuality and
truthfulness of the biblical record. Even though the scope of the dissemination of the knowledge
of Scripture is not encyclopedic, nor is it merely inculcating abstract truths. In its historical
accounts there is a great deal of history that includes incidental data on a wide range of topics.
This does not mean that they are treated as textbook information; rather within the broader
context of Scripture, and according to the literary genres used, the statements of Scripture are
reliable.
Objectivity is key in correctly handling Scripture. When it is interpreted according to its
own nature, criteria and purpose, it is infallible.

84
Too often the Bible has been subjected to the positivist position, which is a type of
empiricism which states that the only reality is that which can be verified by physical
observation. This is imposing its own narrow view of "factuality" instead of allowing the Bible
to be seen and evaluated on its own terms.
Ultimately the infallibility of Scripture is that of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is
inspiration that guarantees infallibility, not vice versa. It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that
guarantees the infallibility of the biblical documents as they were written in this certain way for a
specific purpose. This invalidates faulty criteria so often set up by modern theology which is a
wrong methodology to use in validating or invalidating Scripture.17
Inspiration and Authority
Scripture claims authority for itself. The phrase "It is written" followed by a quotation is
a frequent argument in the Bible. "According to the Scriptures" is the phrase that is used most
often in referring to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The Bible is not written to express opinions. The gospels are accounts of the life and
ministry of Jesus. The epistles are not opinions that people can choose from; rather they are
authoritative rulings on doctrine and practice. The book of Revelation is not merely written to
create and feed our curiosity about future events; it assures us that God is sovereign as it paints
pictures (the nature of apocalyptic language) to give us insight to what lies ahead and provides
opportunity to prepare for His coming. It even has a solemn warning against adding or
subtracting from the book (Rev 22:18-19).
Scripture was given by the Holy Spirit and is thus used by the Spirit to accomplish His
end: "to make people wise unto salvation" (2 Ti 3:15). Therefore Scripture is the supreme rule of
faith and practice. Everything necessary for salvation is found in it, both explicitly and
implicitly. Things which are contrary to Scripture, therefore, are not to be believed or done.
Scripture is the final judge in controversial issues. As A. W. Tozer put it:
"We can use all kinds of tools and methods for getting at the meaning of the
Scriptures; but once the meaning is discovered, that meaning judges us—we
never judge it."18
Since the Bible is a testimony to God's word and acts, it not only has important historical
value, but also demands faith and obedience. Therefore it does not merely pass on important
information but makes an authoritative demand.
This is not surprising since Scripture is uniquely God's word and testifies to His acts. As
God's word it is not only an authentic record but also presents God's message and claim with
divine conviction and power. Since the author is God Himself the claim He makes has universal
relevance and validity.

85
Scripture is uniquely reliable because of its nature, function, and origin. Since it is
inspired by God Himself it has a reliability that is foreign to mere human writings. Even though
it is not encyclopedic in its scope of knowledge, what the Bible communicates about God in His
word and work is absolutely reliable. This reliability also includes incidental matters (historical
information) as long as it is seen within the context and purpose in which they are given.19
God's authoritative word continues as it has both a static (the written biblical record) and
dynamic side (His living voice). It is the authority of the Holy Spirit that we encounter as He
uses Scripture as a continuing word and work. Thus the voice of Scripture is the voice of God.
Geoffrey Bromiley summarizes inspiration and authority this way:
"In the last analysis, then, Scripture's authority is God's authority. The Bible is
no paper pope. It is the writing by which God, who spoke and acted definitely
in Jesus Christ, still speaks and acts by the Holy Spirit. It is the organ by which
Christ Himself does His work and rules the church in a holy continuity of
doctrine and practice.
One dares to say that Scripture is the supreme, unique, infallible, and absolute
norm because it is God who gave it and God who uses it in this role. God
Himself is the supreme, unique, infallible and absolute norm. He discharges
this normative function through holy Scripture."20
EVIDENCE FOR INSPIRATION
There are numerous reasons why we can be assured that the Bible is inspired by God—
God-breathed. Some may argue that such evidences are unnecessary and even contradictory to
faith. What is faith? The writer to the book of Hebrews put it:
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
(Heb 11:1)
The two aspects of faith here are assurance ("being sure") and certainty. The word
assurance is also translated "substance" (hypostasis) which means literally "to stand under, to
support." This word gives the sense of something foundational, basic, a concrete reality upon
which other things are built. The root word stasis means the place or setting, like a standing
pillar upon which other stones are placed. Faith, then, is to a Christian what a foundation is to a
house. It gives confidence and assurance that he will stand. Instead of faith being an imaginary
product of the mind fabricated out of its own need, it is a solid assurance of that for which we
hope because it is based upon reality. Faith then is the basis and the substructure of all that the
Christian life means and all that the Christian hopes for.

86
When the writer says that faith is also the "certainty of what we do not see" he points to
the importance of evidence since "certainty" (pragmatos elegchos) is also translated "evidence,"
"proof" or "conviction." The word gives the sense of something that has been tested and
scrutinized and proven true and valid. Faith, then, is based upon that which has been tested and
found real. It is the certainty, the inward conviction, from God that what He has said is true and
that what He has promised He will provide. Faith, in addition to being the basis of all that we
hope for, is that by which we test things that are unseen.
Internal Evidence
In literally hundreds of passages, the Bible declares or assumes itself to be the Word of
God, from Deuteronomy 6:6-9 to Revelation 22:18.
In the Hebrew Scriptures alone the writers of Scripture introduce their message more than
3,800 times by such statements as "The Lord spoke," "The Lord said," "the Word of the Lord
came." This averages 4 1/2 times per page. In the New Testament the expressions used are "in
words which the Spirit teaches," "as it is in truth," "the Word of God," and "the commandments
of the Lord."
The writers tell us repeatedly that God told them to write and that they did write all that
He gave them (Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nu 33:2; Dt 31:24; Jer 30:1-2; 36:1-2,4, 27-32; 1 Co
14:37; Heb 2:2; Rev 1:11; 2:1,8,12,18 etc.). Some ask, "Why should we believe them?" Because
they were credible eyewitnesses of the events they recorded.
John claims in his first letter:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands,
concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and
testified to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and
was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also
to you" (1 Jn 1:1-3).
The men who wrote the Bible saw and touched the people and the things which they have
handed down to us.
Some have argued that these writers possibly elaborated a little or exaggerated the events
they originally observed. The problem with this is that the impression these people have made on
the world is not that of deception, but of honesty. The whole impact of these men on our world
has been to make it a more transparent and a more truthful world. If anything, most of us who
read their material carefully are impressed with the brutal honesty of their statements.

87
Moreover, they themselves were conscious of the danger of exaggeration and of the
charge that they were making the stories up, and they categorically denied this. As Peter says in
his second letter:
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
For we received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to
Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is My Son, whom I love; with Him I
am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when
we were with Him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the
prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a
light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in
your hearts" (2 Pe 1:16-19).
We tend to suspect the testimonies and opinions of people who are going to gain from our
acceptance of them. These biblical writers, however, gained nothing but death and persecution
from the message they proclaimed. If they had been content to leave out parts of their message
such as Jesus' resurrection, they may well have been permitted to teach like other Jewish Rabbis
the lessons their Master had taught them. But their truthfulness is reinforced by the fact that they
suffered for the very things they proclaimed.
Authority
The writers of Scripture also claim absolute authority and perfection of their
writings (Dt 28:58-59; Isa 8:20; Gal 1:20; Rev 22:18-19). Such a claim can originate only in
blind conceit, wild fanaticism, sincere but wrong, or a profound conviction that they spoke as the
oracles of God.
We also see books of the Bible claiming that another book is written with absolute
authority (Jos 1:8; 8:31-32; Ezr 3:3; Ne 8:1; Da 9:1-2,11,13; Zec 7:12; Mal 4:4; Ac 1:16; 28:25;
1 Pe 1:10-11). Peter puts the writings of Paul on par with "the other Scriptures" (2 Pe 3:15-16).
This recognition of one book by another is an important indication of the unity of the Bible.
The Old Testament is declared by New Testament authors to be inspired and thus
authoritative (2 Ti 3:16; 2 Pe 1:20-21).
Jesus Himself regarded Scripture as divine and therefore authoritative. He states
emphatically concerning the Hebrew Scriptures:
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished" (Mt 5:18).

88
Jesus quoted Scripture as final authority, often introducing the statement with the phrase,
"It is written," as in His encounter with Satan in the temptation in the wilderness (Mt 4). He
spoke of Himself and of events surrounding His life as being fulfillments of the Scriptures (Mt
26:54,56). In referring to the Old Testament He declared with finality,
". . . the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10:35).
To reject the Bible as the Word of God is to be in disagreement with the One who is the
eternal God, the Creator of the universe.
Scripture, therefore, is the supreme rule of faith and practice. Everything necessary to
salvation is found in it. The voice of Scripture is the voice of God. Scripture's authority is God's
authority.
The Bible can be rejected only by rejecting its claims to be God's Word!
External Evidence
Unity
The unity of the Bible is external evidence that the Bible is the very Word of God.
Though it was written by more than 40 authors over a period of about 1,600 years, it is
nevertheless one book, not simply a collection of 66 books.
Its writers came from all walks of life—kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen,
physicians, statesmen, scholars, poets, and farmers. They lived in different cultures, had very
different experiences, and often were quite different in personality and character. Yet the Bible is
a continuity which can be observed from Genesis to Revelation. It has one doctrinal system, one
moral standard, one plan of salvation, and one program for the ages.
As Christians we believe that the main theme of the Bible is the prophetic anticipation,
presentation, realization, and exaltation of the Person of Jesus Christ.
To account for such an amazing book as the Bible, with its continuity and unity of
development by natural means, would demand a greater miracle than inspiration itself. Even
though the varied personalities of the human authors are evident in their writings, the continuity
of theme and purpose can be accounted for most plausibly by the guidance and inspiration of the
Holy Spirit.
Extent of Biblical Revelation
The extent of biblical revelation is another indication of divine inspiration. The
unfolding of truth is inexhaustible. The poet Coleridge testified, "The Bible finds me at a deeper
depth of my being than any other book." Abraham Lincoln said,

"In regard to the Great Book I have only to say that it is the best gift which
God has ever given to men. All the good from the Saviour of the world is
communicated to us through this book."
89
The German philosopher Goethe testified,
"I esteem the gospels to be thoroughly genuine, for there shines forth from
them the reflected splendor of sublimity proceeding from the person of
Jesus Christ, and of as divine a kind as was ever manifested upon earth."21
Even though many books of the Bible were written in the early days of human knowledge
and development when its authors were not aware of modern discoveries, what they wrote has
never been seriously contradicted by later discoveries (this does not mean that there are not
certain historical questions that remain unresolved). That is amazing and is also incredible how
these ancient writings of Scripture are so adaptable to modern situations.
Biblical truth bypasses mere human discovery as it reaches from the distant past to the
future revealing facts which only God could know. The comprehensive truth presented in the
Bible is not to be compared with any other literature in human history.
Fulfilled Prophecy
As we have already seen in the previous chapter, a further indication that the Bible is the
Word of God is in the remarkable number of fulfilled prophecies it contains. These are not
vague generalities given by modern fortune tellers that are susceptible to easy misinterpretation.
Numerous Bible prophecies are very specific in detail and the authentication and veracity of the
prophet rests on their accuracy. Scripture itself makes it clear that fulfilled prophecy is one of the
evidences of the supernatural origin of the word of its prophets (Jer 28:9; Dt 18:21-22).
The God of the Bible—The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—sets Himself apart from
other gods or deities by His ability to prophecy:
"I am the Lord; that is My name! I will not give My glory to another or My praise
to idols.
See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they
spring into being I announce them to you" (Isa 42:8-9).
Only Almighty God can foretell the course of history. God challenged the idols Israel
was worshiping to do the same:
"'Present your case,' says the Lord. 'Set forth your arguments,' says Jacob's King.
'Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former
things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome.

90
Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may
know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be
dismayed and filled with fear'" (Isa 41:21-23).
The litmus test of a real deity is the ability to demonstrate a knowledge of history before
it occurs. Isaiah, the prophet, repeats over and over again that the ability to tell the future is
unique to the God of Israel:
"'This is what the Lord says—Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no God. Who then is like
Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me what has
happened since I established My ancient people and what is yet to come--yes
let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not
proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any God
besides Me?'" (Isa 44:6-8).
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that cannot
save. Declare what is to be, present it—let them take counsel together. Who
foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I,
the Lord? And there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no
other" (Isa 45:20-22; see also 46:9-10; 48:3-7,12,14).
Jesus refers to the predictive prophecies about Himself in His conversation with two
disciples on the road to Emmaus:
"How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have
spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was
said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself" (Lk 24:25-27).
The most outstanding example of predictive prophecy about Christ, the Messiah, is found
in Isaiah 42:13-53:12. Detail is given concerning His life, His rejection in ministry, His death,
His burial and His reactions to the unjust judicial proceedings.
Only the God of the Bible has the ability to accurately predict the future. No other
religious writings can make such a claim with integrity, with factual data to back up such a
claim.

91
Reliability or Accuracy of the Biblical Record
The reliability or accuracy of the biblical record is other evidence that the Bible is
uniquely inspired—God-breathed. The various evidences are staggering.
Archeological Evidence
Discoveries of modern archeology have conclusively shown the authenticity of the
biblical record.
Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archeologist, has written:
"It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted
a biblical reference."22
He continued by referring to
". . . the almost incredible accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly
so when it is fortified by archeological fact."23
Similarly William F. Albright, formerly Professor of Archeology at John Hopkins
University, affirms:
"There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity
of Old Testament tradition. The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by
important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain
phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited.
Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details,
and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of
history. . .
As critical study of the Bible is more and more influenced by the rich new
Material from the ancient Near East we shall see a steady rise in respect for the
historical significance of now neglected or despised passages and details in the
Old and New Testament."24
As biblical scholars have studied ancient documents written during the same period of
history as the Bible, they have discovered that, in comparison to other ancient writings, the text
of Scripture has enjoyed miraculous protection from alterations so that none of its major
doctrines is affected by the variants (the differences or discrepancies between the handwritten
manuscripts).

92
Some critics have argued that the Bible cannot be trusted at all since there are variants.
But difficulties should not constitute objections. Unsolved problems are not necessarily errors.
While difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to be addressed, until such a time as
we have total and final light on any issue, we are in no position to affirm that here is a proven
error or unquestionable objection which thereby brings into question the infallibility and trustworthiness
of the Bible. It is common knowledge that countless "objections" or apparent
contradictions have been fully resolved since the first of this century.
According to Albright:
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools
of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear
periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has
established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased
recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."25
An example of further textual evidence throwing light on the accuracy of the biblical text
would be a copy of the text of Isaiah found in the middle of the twentieth century among the
Dead Sea Scrolls. This copy is estimated to have been written about a thousand years earlier than
the oldest text of Isaiah available at the time of the discovery. When the two manuscripts were
compared they showed an amazing degree of harmony thus showing the miraculous degree of
preservation of the text during this gap of almost a millennium. The Scrolls are made up of some
40,000 inscribed fragments from which more than 500 books have been reconstructed.
The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were judged and destroyed by God according
to the book of Genesis. Liberal scholars claimed that this story should be viewed merely as
teaching a moral lesson rather than an historical account since these cities had not been found or
identified. Yet in recent times with the excavations at Ebla, a city in northern Syria (dating from
300 to 200 B.C.), these cities have been uncovered. Over 20,000 tablets were found with
inscriptions which refer to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as trading partners with Ebla.
The Hittites, for centuries unknown except for references in the Hebrew Scriptures, were
considered fictitious or erroneously named.
Archeologists in this twentieth century have confirmed that such a people in fact did exist
and once lived in the area of what we now call Turkey.
Millar Burrows of Yale claims that
". . . archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability
of the Scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found his respect for the
Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine."26

Sir Frederick Kenyon in his book The Bible and Archeology claimed:
"The authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament
may be regarded as finally established. . . . The Christian can take the whole
Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the
true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to
generation throughout the centuries."27
93
British New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce has noted:
"Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been
vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that
archeology has confirmed the New Testament record. . . . for the most part
the service archeology has rendered to New Testament studies is the filling
in of the contemporary background, against which we can read the record
with enhanced comprehension and appreciation. And this background is a
first-century background. The New Testament narrative just will not fit into
a second century background."28
The legal proceedings against Jesus and Paul narrated in the New Testament correspond
identically to what is know known of Roman practice during that period of the first century A.D.
F. F. Bruce is amazed at the level of knowledge and testifies that the accuracy extends even "to
the more general sphere of color and atmosphere. He [Luke] gets the atmosphere right every
time."29
From his second missionary journey, Paul refers to the city magistrates of Thessalonica
by the term "politarchs." Since this title does not occur anywhere in other literature it was
assumed by many that Luke coined the term because he did not have first-hand knowledge of the
area. Liberal scholars used such a reference as another example of the inaccurate history of the
New Testament. Since the late 19th century at least nineteen inscriptions with "politarchs" as the
correct title of magistrates in Macedonian towns have been uncovered by archeologists. Luke
was historically accurate. F. F. Bruce in citing several pages of other examples as well says that
Luke's "sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his
pages is one of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy."30
Sir William Ramsay, regarded by many as one of the greatest archeologists ever to have
lived, states concerning Luke as a historian:
"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trust-
worthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. . . .
Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."31
Kenyon expressed what many thought may have been an overly optimistic statement
when he made the claim:

"Archeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved
confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain
from an increase in knowledge."32
94
The four biographies of Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written within the
lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries (no later than A.D. 90). This means that there simply was not
enough time for myth and legend to accrue and distort historical facts. A. N. Sherwin-White, a
scholar of Ancient Roman and Greek History at Oxford, has studied the rate at which legend
accumulated in the ancient world, using the writings of Herodotus as a test case. He contends
that even a span of two generations is not sufficient time for legend to wipe out a solid core of
historical facts. The story of Jesus, as we have seen, was established well within that length of
time.
It would be incredible for a mere legend about Christ to have gained the circulation and
to have had the impact it had, without a shred of basis. For someone to claim deity, to forgive
peoples' sins and to have risen from the dead is a story too wild and fantastic to get off the
ground if there were still people around who knew such a person.
Historical Evidence
There is a vast difference between non-Christian scriptures and the Christian Scriptures.
Zoroaster's "Avesta," the Confucian classics, Gautama's "Upanishads," the Mohammed's Koran,
and the Church of the Latter Day Saints' "Book of Mormon" are basically philosophical in
nature. It is true, however, that in the case of the Mormons, Joseph Smith makes claim to a
"historical" revelation by Jesus to him personally. These religions or cults contain the subjective
experiences and visions of their authors. It is from these mystic dreams and meditations that the
non-Christian scriptures derive their so-called "information" about the Creator of the world.
Since these are philosophical in nature, they are unverifiable. No one can confirm or deny
these subjective visions, for they exist primarily in the personal experiences of their authors. In
fact, in all these non-Christian religions (or cult in the case of the Mormons), the prophet is more
important than the god whom he claims to reveal. This is carried to its extreme in Buddhism,
which is really an atheistic technique for obtaining happiness, since Buddha virtually left out the
idea of god altogether.
Also, none of these religions claim that a personal relationship with the Creator of the
world is possible today. They emphasize their creed, their method, their opinions, but not man's
need or opportunity to get to know the Creator in a personal way.
Unlike all other religions of the world which provide visions, dreams and opinions which
cannot be verified, Judaism and Christianity, because they are historical religions, provide
historical facts which can be verified through archeology and through comparison with other

95
contemporary history books. The Bible can and must be subjected to the same type of historical
scrutiny given to other writings of antiquity. When it has undergone such examination it has
stood up to the scrutiny admirably.
The pages of the gospels contain scores of references to geographical locations, all of
them substantiated by what is known of these areas. They contain innumerable references to and
brief descriptions of contemporary characters, such as Ananias, the Herods, Pontius Pilate, and
Tiberius Caesar, not one of which can be shown to contain historical errors.
The gospels were written in an age of careful historical composition. Among
contemporary historians were Tacitus of Rome, Plutarch, the greatest of the Roman biographers,
Strabo of Greece, and by far the greatest of all ancient Jewish philosophers and historians,
Flavius Josephus.
Swedish scholars H. Riesenfeld and B. Gerhardsson insist that the gospel traditions were
transmitted orally with the greatest care in the period between Jesus and the emergence of the
written gospels. In a major study, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written
Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (1961), professor Gerhardsson claimed
that the followers of Jesus used the traditional techniques devised within Judaism in order to
ensure the accurate transmission of oral traditions. He concedes that in the course of the
transmission of traditions about Jesus that there was ongoing interpretation in the attempt to
understand the words and deeds of Jesus more fully. However, he insists that this process of
alteration and reinterpretation is entirely consistent with his claim that early Christianity has
handed down the gospel narrative as "memorized text," that is, accurate text. This is so because it
used the same painstaking process observed in the transmission of Jewish oral traditions.
Professor Eduard Meyer (formerly of the University of Berlin), generally recognized as
our century's greatest authority on ancient history, was not at all a believer in Christianity. His
verdict cannot be said to have been given in an attempt to defend the doctrines of the Christian
faith. Yet he said,
"It is evident that for our history of Jesus we have by no means to reckon merely
with representations of the record of the second apostolic generation, but are
taken back far beyond that into the midst of the first generation—people who
personally had known Him intimately and still preserved a lively recollection of
Him; and that these old recollections lie under our eyes in manifold forms . . .
there is not ground at all for refusing to accept these oldest traditions as
historically trustworthy in all essentials and in their chronological ordering of
the history."33
Craig Blomberg in his scholarly book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, reasons:

96
"Whether by giving the gospels the benefit of the doubt which all narratives of
purportedly historical events merit or by approaching them with an initial
suspicion in which every detail must satisfy the criteria of authenticity, the verdict
should remain the same. The gospels may be accepted as trustworthy accounts of
what Jesus did and said. One cannot hope to prove the accuracy of every detail on
purely historical grounds alone; there is simply not enough data available for that.
But as investigation proceeds, the evidence becomes sufficient for one to declare
that what can be checked is accurate, so that it is entirely proper to believe that
what cannot be checked is probably accurate as well."34
The "Gospel Perspective" series (Gospels Research Project), on which Blomberg's study
has heavily drawn, is commended with widespread approval among more than 500 members of
two international societies of biblical and theological scholars—the British based Tyndale
Fellowship, Cambridge, and its counterpart in North America, the Institute for Biblical Research.
These scholars resolutely affirm that the greater scrutiny the gospel record is put to, the firmer
their conviction becomes that the gospels are accurate and thus trustworthy.
The evidence is compelling that the portrait of Jesus presented in the gospels is as New
Testament scholar R. T. France put it,
". . . a portrait of a real man in the real world of first-century Palestine, and yet
one who so far transcends his environment that his followers soon learned to
see him as more than a man."35
There is sufficient reason to be fully confident that the gospels not only claim to be
presenting fact rather than fiction, but can, in fact, be checked in numerous places as to their
historical accuracy. Thus they are the work of responsible and well-informed writers.
Textual Evidence
Bibliography
Our acceptance of the central claim made by Jesus that He is God the Son is dependent
on whether the New Testament documents are reliable historical sources about Jesus.
Bibliography addresses this issue of the historicity of the New Testament as it deals with the
accuracy of transmission of the New Testament documents over the centuries. The argument
holds that the twentieth century Bible that we have today is an accurate reproduction of the first
century Greek New Testament. To make the determination that the historicity of the New
Testament is so substantial that it is completely authoritative for us today, biblical scholars
examine three areas of textual evidence: the number of manuscripts, the dating of manuscripts,
and the accuracy of the copying.

97
The Number of New Testament Manuscripts
Why is it that so many people uncritically accept the writings of the great classical
writers such as Plato, Homer or Aristotle while they categorically reject the Bible? This is ironic
since there are relatively few manuscript copies of ancient works that are available for study
today.
The 643 manuscript copies of Homer's Iliad contain the largest amount of copies of any
ancient work. But such an amount is highly unusual since there are only twenty copies of Livy's
History of Rome, only about ten manuscripts of Caesar's War Commentaries, seven for Plato's
Tetralogies, and merely a couple of copies for Tacitus' minor works.
How does the New Testament compare? It is vastly superior! The Greek manuscripts,
whether of a portion or of the whole of the New Testament, total nearly 5,300. Of these, 276 or
more are called "uncial manuscripts." These are written in capital letters. In addition, there are
more than 2,768 "minuscule manuscripts," which are written in small letters more or less joined
together in the flowing style of ordinary handwriting.36
There are also more than 2,146 Greek lectionaries in existence. These contain groupings
of portions of the New Testament for appropriate Scripture lessons for church worship. They are
being given more consideration for textual study than they were a few years ago. There are also
more than 81 papyri containing portions of the New Testament text.37
In addition, there are more than 19,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts in Latin,
Syriac, Armenian, and other languages. This means that there are more than 24,000 hand-written
copies of the New Testament that have survived. There are 8,000 copies of the Vulgate (a Latin
translation of the Bible done by Jerome from A.D. 382 to 405) and more than 350 copies of
Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (from A.D. 150-250 with most copies
being produced from A.D. 400s).38
The contrast between the manuscript evidence for the New Testament and that of
other ancient writings is monumental. Is it not ironic that hardly anyone ever questions, much
less examines, the accuracy of the texts of other works, yet readily claims that the New
Testament text cannot be trusted? The real culprit is not the lack of textual evidence of the
Christian Scriptures, but ignorance and prejudice. Sir Frederic Kenyon, eminent scholar of
textual criticism, addresses this double standard:
"Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal
Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles,
of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends
on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament
are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."39

98
The Dating of the New Testament Manuscripts
Another issue which affects the transmission of copies of manuscripts is the date of their
writing. There is general consensus that the further removed in time copies are from their
originals, the less likely it is that they are authoritative because of errors such as additions and
deletions. It may be argued that the chance for copyist's errors are increased because of the vast
amount of New Testament manuscripts, but such a large number of manuscripts actually
increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors and recovering the original
wording.
By comparing the New Testament manuscripts with classical manuscripts we get a
perspective on this issue. Caesar's War Commentaries was written about 50 B. C., yet no
manuscripts were available for study before the 9th century. This is a time gap of more than 900
years. In fact, most of the Greek writings that have been accepted as historical have even greater
gaps averaging between 1000 to 1500 years, while Latin works have a slightly lesser time gap. It
is believed that the shortest span of any ancient writing is probably that of Virgil whose oldest
copy known was found about 300 years after his writing. Such a time gap in the dating of
ancient manuscripts is considered "brief."40
Many find the fact that there are no preserved copies of any classical work for several
hundred years after the date of original composition disconcerting. Yet hardly anyone brings
such works into question. These very people are often dumbfounded when they become aware of
the dating of the New Testament manuscripts. There is general agreement that the books of the
New Testament were written over a period of 50 years. The earliest book was probably written
around A.D. 47 or 48. Year A.D. 100 is a liberal estimate of the latest possible date for the
completion of all of the books of the New Testament. While the range of all other ancient
literature is between 300 to 1500 years, the John Rylands papyrus of the New Testament, which
is a fragment containing a few verses of the gospel of John, dates about A.D. 125. This is
astounding in that there are only 35 years between its writing and discovery. In all probability the
person who used this copy may have known, and even been taught by, the author—apostle
John.41
Other manuscripts such as the Bodmer and Chester Beatty papyri were found between
A.D. 176 to 250. These major works which contain major portions of the New Testament
represent copies then found within 100 to 150 years of their originals. The Codex Sinaiticus was
found in A.D. 350 and contains virtually all of the New Testament as well as Codex Vaticanus
from A.D. 325-350 which contains almost the entire Bible.42 Thus Sir Frederic Kenyon
comments:
"The net result of this discovery . . . is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier
manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it
becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book
has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text, and no unbiased
scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound."43

99
The following charts illustrate the huge contrast between several ancient works and
the New Testament as to the time interval---the date of writing of the original and date of
the discovery of its copies.
The New Testament towers far above all other ancient writings in manuscript evidence
and brief time span. There was virtually a continuous chain of copies from the originals to its
mass production. If the text was not essentially accurate in its likeness to its original autographs,
when would they have become corrupted since there are copies in every century which date back
to the beginning of its writing? Thus biblical scholar F. F. Bruce justly concludes:
"The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the
evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one
dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular
writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."44
The Accuracy of the New Testament Manuscripts Copied
Bruce Metzger, former professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton
University, has published his research concerning this question of textual credibility. His study
involved the comparison of the many manuscripts of three ancient works: Homer's Iliad of the
Greeks, the Mahabharata of the Hindus, and the New Testament of the Christian religion. To
simplify the comparison the copies of these three works were divided into lines of ten words
each. The writings varied in length from 15,600 lines for the Iliad, to 20,000 for the New
Testament, and 250,000 for the Mahabharata.Variations that did not affect the meaning of the
text were ignored, such as spelling differences, word order, etc. But all differences in the
manuscripts affecting the reader's understanding were counted.
The finding of distortion is telling as professor Metzger reported that 764 lines of the
Iliad were corrupted—a distortion rate of around 5%, the Mahabharata was found to have at
least 26,000 lines corrupted—slightly more than a 10% distortion rate, whereas only 40 lines, or
1/5 of 1% (o.2%) of the New Testament were found to be distorted. This means that the New
Testament is 25 times more accurately copied than the Iliad, which in comparison to other
ancient works, is considered "good." Furthermore, textual expert F. F. Bruce contends:
". . . the variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of
the New Testament affect no material question of historical fact or of Christian
faith and practice."45
The rate of distortion of manuscripts due to errors in copying is miniscule
In his book, The Text of the New Testament, professor Metzger states:

100
"The works of several ancient authors are preserved to us by the thinnest possible
thread of transmission . . . In contrast . . . the textual critic of the New Testa-
ment is embarrassed by the wealth of his material."46
Metzger also claims that the quotations in the commentaries, sermons, etc. by the early
church fathers form an extensive body of literature and so conform to the text that if the text of
the New Testament were destroyed they would provide an authentic witness:
"Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our
knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be
sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New
Testament."47
Kenyon justly concludes:
"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain:
Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts
of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in
the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the
true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these
ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."48
Comparisons of hundreds of existing manuscripts of the Old Testament reveal several
variations in the text, many of these are only different orthography or older forms of the endings
of the same Hebrew words. Regarding the New Testament, it has been pointed out by
F. J. A. Hort, one of the greatest authorities in the field of New Testament textual criticism, that
". . . the proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt
is no less than seven-eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore,
formed in great part by changes of order or other comparative trivialities,
constitutes the whole area of criticism."49
B. B. Warfield claims that ninety-five of these variations in the New Testament text
"have so little support that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in
the sense of the passage in which they occur."50
F. F. Bruce in his book, The Books and the Parchments, points out that if no objective
textual evidence is available to correct an obvious mistake, then
". . . the textual critic must perforce employ the art of conjectural emendation—
an art which demands the severest self-discipline. The emendation must
commend itself as obviously right, and it must account for the way in which the
corruption crept in. In other words, it must be both 'intrinsically probable' and
'transcriptionally probable.' It is doubtful whether there is any reading in the New

101
Testament which requires it to be conjecturally emended. The wealth of atte-
station is such that the true reading is almost invariably bound to be preserved
by at least one of the thousands of witnesses."51
F. F. Bruce affirms:
"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a
wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."52
As additional ancient manuscripts of the Bible are being discovered and processed,
scholars are able to eliminate the effects of the fewer and fewer variants on the text and to
establish a text of Scripture that resembles increasingly what the original autographs must have
been.
In applying the stongest "criteria of authenticity" to the gospel record it still remains
intact. The various methods of "criticism" (synonymous with academic analysis and thus need
not imply, as it often does in popular language, any negative value judgments about the contents
of Scripture)—form criticism, textual criticism, redaction and midrash criticism—in no way
damages the credibility of the Bible as reliable history. The entire canon (66 books) emerges
unscathed.53
Logic
F. F. Bruce says concerning the primary-source value of the New Testament records:
"The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of . . . first-hand testimony,
and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their
constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some
writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when
so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not
happened.
And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon
with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main
facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk
inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at
once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary,
one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal
to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these
things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22). Had there been any
tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of
hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."54

102
The records we have of Jesus, therefore, can be relied upon without hesitation. They are
historically trustworthy.
Then why do so many people, including scholars, reject the testimony of Scripture? Their
antisupernatural worldview blinds them to the compelling evidence. And their naturalistic
presuppositions (i.e. dead men don't rise) makes it impossible for them to be open to any amount
of historical testimony which might substantiate what they have narrowly labeled myth.
This does not mean that the historical method proves that Christianity is true, but it does
remove impediments to faith and can also help believers achieve a more informed understanding
and reasonable confidence in the unique authenticity, and thus authority, of the biblical record as
claimed by the Christian religion.
The Survival of the Bible
The survival of the Bible through time is another pointer to its authenticity. Although it
does not prove that the biblical record is genuine, if it did not survive through time it would
prove that it was not authentic. After all, how could God provide His revelation and not have it
available to His people?
Even though the Bible was written on material that perishes and had to be copied and
recopied for hundreds of years before the invention of the printing press, this did not diminish its
style, correctness nor existence. Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more
manuscripts which serve as evidence than any 10 of classical literature combined. No documents
of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament. Bernard Ramm
says concerning its accuracy:
"Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. With their
massora (parva, magna, and finalis,) they kept tabs on every letter, syllable,
word, and paragraph. They had special classes of men within their culture whose
sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect
fidelity—scribes, lawyers, massoretes. Who ever counted the letters and syllables
and words of Plato or Aristotle? Cicero or Seneca?"55
The Bible has withstood the vicious attacks of its enemies as no other book. Many have
tried to burn it, ban it, and outlaw it from the days of Roman emperors to present day Communist
dominated countries.
Voltaire, the noted French infidel who died in 1778, said that in one hundred years from
his time, Christianity would be swept from existence and passed into the annals of history. It is
Voltaire, however, has passed into history, while circulation of the Bible continues to increase in
almost all parts of the world.

103
It is ironic that only 50 years after the death of Voltaire the Geneva Bible Society used
his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles.
Changed Lives
What transformed the scared, frightened band of disciples into flaming evangelists?
These peasants, shepherds, fishermen, and tax-collectors betrayed and denied their Master and
then failed Him miserably as they were ready to throw away everything to flee in despair to
Galilee. Yet suddenly they were changed overnight into a society of missionaries who "turned
the world upside down" (Ac 17:6). What made the difference? Their belief in the resurrection of
the Carpenter of Nazareth.
What made these former cowards (Jesus first found them hiding behind closed doors)
willing to daily risk their lives as they proclaimed the message of salvation? Why did they
undergo hardship, persecution, pressure, and martyrdom? According to Josephus, the firstcentury
Jewish historian, James, Jesus' brother, died a martyr's death because of his faith in his
brother. This was so even though he was an unbeliever and opposed his brother Jesus during
Jesus' life. Why such a revolutionary change? What was it that caused this Jew to suddenly
believe that his brother was the Messiah, the Son of God? What made him willing to die for such
a belief? The most reasonable explanation is the Easter story. Because this crucified Carpenter
rose from the dead on the third day He was able to appear to James and to 500 other
eyewitnesses (1 Co 15:5-8).
What made a promising young Pharisee renounce his adherence to Jewish distinctives?
This adherence had given him the confidence that God approved of him (Php 3:4-6). Only
factors which would have caused Saul of Tarsus to follow the Carpenter of Nazareth can be
found in his motives and circumstances before his conversion. But since there must be an
appropriate cause or set of causes to explain Paul's spearheading the Gentile missionary
endeavors of Christianity, it is most reasonable to honor the explanation Paul himself gave for
the change. What led to that change, says Paul, was that the risen Jesus, whose followers he had
been relentlessly persecuting, appeared to him as one possessing the power of the supreme deity
and commissioned him to be His apostle, His spokesman on earth (Ro 1:5-7; 15:15ff.; Gal 1:15-
17; Eph 3:2ff.; 1 Th 2:13-16).
Changed lives is yet another evidence that the Bible is inspired by God Himself. Just as
the early followers of Jesus were transformed by their faith in Him as the crucified and risen
Lord, so followers throughout the centuries since have been changed as they have put their faith
in the Jesus presented in Holy Scripture.
The dramatic influence for good in the lives of millions of those who have put their trust
in the Bible as God's Word is an attested fact of history. Scores of those who have been moral
wrecks, victims of alcohol, drugs, immorality and crime have been marvelously redeemed
through the power of the Word of God. Their changed lives attest to the truthfulness of the claim
of Scripture itself:

104
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword,
it penetrates even to the dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the
thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb 4:12).
Wherever the Bible has been consistently applied, it has dramatically changed the
civilization and culture of those who have accepted its teaching.
Unique and Supreme Person
The unique and supreme Person of the Bible is the final evidence for the authenticity
of the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible is a supernatural book revealing the Person and glory
of God as manifested in His Son Jesus.
A person like the Jesus presented to us in Scripture never could have been the invention
of mere mortal men. His nature and personality never could have been conceived by the wisest
and holiest of mankind. His perfections never could have been imagined by finite man.
There are some obvious similarities between the Bible as the written Word and Jesus as
the living Word. Both are supernatural in origin with the perfect blend of the human with the
divine. Both have a transforming power over those who believe. Divine perfection is embodied
in each. The revelations they disclose are as simple as the mental capacity of a child and yet as
complex as the infinite treasures of divine wisdom and knowledge.
Self-Authenticating
While external evidences can be helpful for a historical belief, they are not compelling
for saving faith. The evidences without direct authentication will never be sufficiently
convincing, that is, they will never have the apologetic force to sanction belief because the
historical evidences support faith only within faith. Faith is the establishing of the evidences, not
vice-versa.
The main task of apologetics is, therefore, not to convince the faithless, but to instruct the
faithful. The place of apologetics is to verify faith at the practical level. It is Christ alone, through
the work of the Holy Spirit in the unbeliever, not apologetics that leads to faith. External
evidences merely point the way.
One of Barth's basic presuppositions when it comes to the truth of the Christian faith is
that if something external to the Word of God is necessary to establish the Word of God as true,
then that external support is greater than the Word of God. According to him, it is a very weak
Word of God that needs external supports. If the lion needs gophers and rabbits to announce his
kingship, then the lion is no longer king of the beasts. Barth's maxim is that what establishes is
greater than what is established. Since there can be nothing greater than the Word of God, the
Word of God establishes itself.56

105
While Barth may have overemphasized Christology and unduly undercut any apologetic
task, he is right in his emphasis that God's truth is self-authenticating. As Barth points out, if
Christianity is tested for truth, then the test is greater than Christianity. Truth is truth whether
anyone acknowledges it or not. Barth is right to say that apologetics does not establish truth.
However, even with its limitations it can be helpful in providing pointers to the truth.57
The preaching of the Living Word then comes in the dependence of the messenger on the
Message—Jesus Christ. John Calvin recognized this as he said:
"Therefore, as we cannot possibly come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit, so
when we are drawn we are both in mind and spirit exalted far above our own
understanding. For the soul, when illumined by him, receives as it were a new eye,
enabling it to contemplate heavenly mysteries, by the splendour of which it was
previously dazzled. And thus, indeed it is only when the human intellect is
irradicated by the light of the Holy Spirit that it begins to have a taste of those
things which pertain to the kingdom of God; previously it was stupid and senseless
to have any relish for them."58
Faith is not compelled by the evidences, nor by the preaching, but by the Christ of the
message. It is only as man in Christ sees himself overcome by fear and/or love and grace that he
is drawn to believe and trust.
Faith is created when a person is illumined by the Holy Spirit and the grace of God
floods his heart and mind.
Geoffrey Bromiley sets the biblical record in perspective as he states:
"The prophetic and apostolic word is the word of divine wisdom by which all the
rationalism of man is summoned in repentance and renewal. The historical record
of the Bible is the account of the divine dealings with man which alone give
meaning and direction to all other history. The theme of the Bible is the incarnate
Word in whom alone we find truth, freedom, and salvation, and to whom the
written Word conforms in divine and human structure. The inspiration of Scripture
is genuinely the work of the sovereign Spirit, whose operation cannot finally be
subjected to human analysis, repudiation, or control, but who remains the internal
Master of that which He Himself has given, guaranteeing its authenticity, and
declaring its message with quickening and compelling power."59
Where God's own revelation of His truth does not convince, there man's apologetics
cannot succeed either. When the preacher Charles Spurgeon was asked by a feverish young man,
"Dr. Spurgeon, how can I defend the Bible?" the great expositor replied: "How do you defend a
lion? Let it out of its cage and it will defend itself!"

106
The Bible, however, is not to be worshiped (bibliolatry) since worship only belongs to
God in the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Still it is to be our authority, our standard,
our rule of faith and practice.
There is, then, strong evidence that the Bible is inspired by God. Yet what finally makes
us believe that the Bible is the Word of God is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. By examining
the evidences we can gain information which will hopefully instruct and clarify our understanding
of the nature of the Bible and show the reasonableness of its claims. Yet more
importantly, by reading the Bible itself, we come to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired if
we are open to its message. For then we begin to sense that it is God Himself who is speaking to
us through the Book. We have an experience similar to that which the two disciples had on the
road of Emmaus as they asked each other:
"Were not our hearts burning within us while He talked with us on the road and
opened the Scriptures to us?” (Lk 24:32).
THE CANON: HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE
Even if we acknowledge that the Bible is the inspired, authoritative Word of God, how do
we know that the books we have in the Bible are the books that God intended as the Written
Word?
This brings up the issue of the canon, how we got our Bible. Since the Bible did not
magically fall out of heaven, like the Koran (the Holy Book of Islam), how did it get put
together? Who decided which books should be included? How do we know that the Bible
contains only those books God intended?
The term "canon" has come to be applied to the writings that make up the Bible.
"Canon" is a Greek word denoting a straight rod and came to be used for a bar, ruler, measuring
stick, standard, or model. This word was used to refer to those books which were "measured" by
a "standard" and accepted as divinely authoritative. These divine books were recognized as Holy
Scripture.
How was it determined whether a book qualified to be a part of the Old Testament? It had
to meet the following criteria:
● Divinely Inspired—A sense of the supernatural (authoritative)
● A Record of Actual Facts—Authentic
● Belongs to the Time and Place of the Writer--Genuine
● Accepted as Divinely Inspired by the people of God (those who belong to the church
universal)
The writings of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the other prophets were stored in the
tabernacle and venerated. Later writings often were appended to earlier ones.

107
How about the New Testament? How was it determined whether a book qualified to be a
part of it? It had to meet the following criteria:
● Apostolic Origin—Teaching based on apostolic witness
● Consistent in Doctrine with the standard already possessed in the Old Testament and in
the teachings of the apostles.
● Their Central Subject is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ
● Its Message had a Moral Effect as demonstrated by their power within the Christian
church.
The Old Testament
When it comes to the Old Testament only writings from God's recognized prophets were
collected. The New Testament makes this crystal clear:
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times
and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son" (Heb 1:1).
"We have the word of the prophets made more certain. . . . Above all, you must
understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own
interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke
from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pe 1:19-21).
Jesus Himself set the example for the church's acceptance of the "Jewish" canon by His
constant appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures. He affirmed Old Testament Scripture as a whole and
in its parts had come to fulfillment in Himself (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27; Jn 5:39; Ro 3:31). Such a
"Christological" interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures moved the church to proclaim that it,
and not Judaism, was the proper custodian and interpreter of the Old Testament canon. For Paul,
the apostle, the reading of the Old Testament was meaningful only in the light of the historical
appearances of Jesus Christ (1 Co 10:1ff.; 2 Co 3:6ff.).
The Jews were repeatedly exhorted to listen to and obey the prophets as God's
spokesmen. God accredited their messages with supernatural signs and fulfilled prophecies. True
prophets, therefore, were allowed no margin of error. Unless they were 100 percent correct, they
were to be killed. Disobeying a prophet brought several penalties (Dt 13:1-5; 18:17-22).
All the Old Testament writers were recognized prophets of God who were commissioned
by Him to proclaim His message through verbal proclamation and through the written word.
The early church was not ignorant or naive concerning who was a true prophet and who
was a false prophet.

108
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false
teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on
themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth
into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they
have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their
destruction has not been sleeping" (2 Pe 2:1-3).
The Herbrew Scriptures ("sacred writings") became a complete collection when the last
books were written in Ezra's time (about 425 B.C.). According to Jewish tradition, Ezra collected
the remaining Old Testament books after the Jews returned from the Babylonian Exile. Those
who invaded had scattered or destroyed many copies about 70 years earlier. A council of 120
devout Jews ("the Great Synagogue") was formed to restore the system of worship among the
Hebrews. It was these spiritual leaders who made the final collection of the Old Testament canon
according to Jewish tradition.
Many centuries before Christ the Jews revered the same Hebrew Scriptures they have
today. It was, and continues to be, the basis for their law and worship.
From the time of Moses to the time of the first printing press (over 3,000 years) all copies
of the Hebrew Scriptures were written by hand. Scribes had to follow extremely strict rules in
copying the ancient manuscripts. The painstaking process included:
"A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, and prepared for
the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. These must be fastened together
with strings taken from clean animals. Every skin must contain a certain number of
columns, equal throughout the entire codex. The length of each column must not
extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of 30
letters. The whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words should be written
without a line, it is worthless. The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any
other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. An authentic copy must
be exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. No word or
letter, not even a yod (the smallest letter), must be written from memory, the scribe
not having looked at the codex before him. . . . Between every consonant the space
of a hair or thread must intervene; between every new parashah, or section, the
breadth of nine consonants; between every book, three lines. The fifth book of
Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so. Besides this,
the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, wash his whole body, not begin to write
the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, and should a king address him
while writing the name he must take no notice of him."60

109
So-called "common copies" for private use also were made with great care but could
include marginal notes. The Talmud (Jewish Commentary covering a period between 400 B.C.
until A.D. 500) specified that any biblical manuscript (which was a handwritten copy) that
contained one mistake, or was worn out from constant use, must be ceremonially buried.61
HEBREW BIBLE VS. OTHER BIBLES
Even though the Hebrew Bible has fewer books (24), it has exactly the same content as
other versions of the Old Testament (39). The reason is that the Hebrew Bible combines the pairs
of the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah into one book each.
The Minor Prophets (12) are also grouped into one book, The Twelve.
The Protestant version of the Hebrew Scriptures stems from the Septuagint, the Greek
version of the Old Testament. It was translated into Greek about 250 B.C. This is a witness to the
fact that the Old Testament canon was completed before that time.
WHY IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE BIGGER?
For the first 1900 years after the completion of the Hebrew Scriptures, only 39 books
were considered sacred. Judaism has definitively rejected the apocrypha. Two Jewish sources
state the composition of the Old Testament canon as that of the 39 books as we know them
(II Esd. 14:19-48 [117 B.C.]; Josephus CAP i.8 [39-46] [A.D. 90]) and omit the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical books. It was not until A.D. 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church added
other books to the canon.62
These added books are known as the apocrypha which means "hidden." These were
produced between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. These apocryphal books were rejected until the
Council of Trent, in reaction to the Protestant Reformers, they added some of them to the Roman
Catholic Bible in 1546. The apocryphal literature provided justification for such practices of the
Roman Catholic Church as praying for the dead and receiving forgiveness of sins by doing good
deeds.
Since some pieces of apocryphal literature were added to existing books of the Hebrew
Scriptures, the Roman Catholic Old Testament has 46 separate books compared to the
Protestant's 39 books.
THE APOCRYPHA
___________________________________________________________________________
APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE AS:
______________________________________________________________________________
1. The Wisdom of Solomon (ca. 30 B.C.) Book of Wisdom
2. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach—132 B.C.) Ecclesiastes
3. Tobit (ca. 200 B.C.) Tobias

110
4. Judith (ca. 150 B.C.) Judith
5. I Maccabees (ca. 100 B.C.) I Maccabees
6. II Maccabees (ca. 110-70 B.C.) II Maccabees
7. Baruch (ca. 150-50 B.C.) Baruch 1-5
8. Letters of Jeremiah (ca. 300-100 B.C.) Baruch 6
9. Additions to Esther (140-130 B.C.) Esther 10:4-16:24
10. Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.) Daniel 3:24-90
(Song of Three Young Men)
11. Susanna (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.) Daniel 13
12. Bel and the Dragon (ca. 100 B.C.) Daniel 14
13. Prayer of Manasseh (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.) Prayer of Manasseh63
The Old Testament apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament and was not even
accepted by Jerome whose Latin version of the Bible (ca. A.D. 400) became the official Bible of
the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546. While the apocrypha provides
helpful and interesting history between the times of the Old and New Testaments, it does not
claim to be the work of prophets much less Scripture itself.
A group of Jewish scribes called the "Massoretes" devoted their lives to preserve the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They carefully copied the best manuscripts available during
the period between A.D. 400 and A.D. 900. They invented a system of marking vowels since the
Hebrew language only had consonants. This was a way to preserve the proper pronunciation of
words.
Because of their great reverence for the Holy Scriptures, the Massoretes went through an
extremely careful process in their translation work. Not only were the words counted on each
page of every book of the Hebrew Scriptures, but so were the number of letters even to the
point of indicating the center letters. They wanted to make sure they were completely accurate in
producing their copies of sacred Scripture.
The official recognition of our present canon or canonical Scriptures as the act by which
the church gave them their canonical status took place at The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 and
was quickly repromulgated by the Third Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397. Since this time, there
has been no serious questioning of the authenticity of the canon until recently in which there is
an onslaught of criticism by liberal scholars and nonscholars who claim that the present New
Testament canon was made up arbitrarily. Is their criticism valid? A careful look at the historical
process of canonicity will provide overwhelming evidence for the authenticity of the present
New Testament canon.
The true criterion of canonicity is inspiration. If Scripture means the written record of
the authoritative word of God, whatever was given by inspiration of God was Scripture, and
whatever did not come by inspiration of God was not Scripture.
But how can inspiration be demonstrated?

111
The New Testament
First, the inspiration of these documents may be supported by their intrinsic content.
They all have for their central subject the person and work of Jesus Christ. Some may object
that any prominent person of antiquity could be immortalized by such a body of literature. This
is not a valid objection since there is no indication that Jesus of Nazareth was considered
important by the leaders and the teachers of His day other than what is presented in the New
Testament. Thus there is no reason why the writings concerning Him should survive in the
hostile Roman world.
The New Testament itself admits that the message about Jesus Christ was "to the Jews a
stumblingblock, and to the Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23). To His contemporaries Jesus
meant no more than any other person who aspired to Messiahship. Yet the fact remains that a
great religion grew from such humble beginnings. May this suggest a divine plan? Can a faith, or
an organized religion, be built and sustained on the kind of Jesus described by liberalism, a Jesus
who is a mere man? Such is highly improbable. But a Jesus who is both God and man provides a
logical explanation.
The message concerning the person of Jesus Christ was unique. Cults centering in
individuals was quite common in the first century, yet these individuals who were either
mythical or historical, did not endure as people to be worshiped. This unique message centers in
the books that are called "canonical." The early church found that the precision of narrative, the
depth of teaching, and the concentration on the person and work of Jesus Christ provided a
discernible difference between the canonical and the noncanonical books.
Second, inspiration is also corroborated by their moral effect. Wherever the message of
what we now have come to know as the canon has permeated and spread, the church has
expanded and brought with it a moral cleansing of society. Even though every person who
claimed to be a Christian was not a paragon of virtue, nevertheless when compared to the moral
standards of paganism, Christianity stood out distinctly. The power of the New Testament truth
(Truth: Jesus Christ) radically changed their lives.
Internal Testimony
Third, the historic testimony of the early church will show what value was placed on
these books that we now call canonical.
Several New Testament authors assumed a certain amount of canonical authority. In
Galatians Paul asserted that his gospel was "not something that man made up. I did not receive it
from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal
1:11-12). In 1 Corinthians Paul defined "the gospel" as a message "which I received I passed on

112
to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He
was buried, that He was raised on the third day according the Scriptures" (1 Co 15:3-4). Paul did
not originate this Gospel; it was "received."
In 1 Thessalonians, one of his earliest epistles, Paul said, ". . . we preached the gospel of
God to you" (1 Th 2:9). This is the same gospel he defined to the Corinthian believers. He then
added, ". . . when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it
not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God" (1 Th 2:13). Here is a claim
from a New Testament book that the message proclaimed by Paul in the New Testament is
(1) the word of God, and (2) that it produced an effect upon those who believed it. This
confidence in the authority of the message led Paul to write a second letter to the believers at
Thessalonica and warn them:
"If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him.
Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard
him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother" (3:14).
Paul adjured the Thessalonian community to read his letter "to all the brothers" (5:27).
He directed a letter to be circulated to other communities beyond the original destination
(Col 4:16). This leads to the assumption that Paul would have considered any given letter as
generally authoritative since he preached, as he affirmed, the same gospel to all (1 Co 4:17).
Even in the case where he does not have a specific command from the Lord and thus his
command is secondary to the "word of the Lord" (7:12ff; 9:17ff.), it is nevertheless a command
that may stand alongside the command of the crucified and risen Lord. Paul acts as one whose
apostolate is from God and thus clearly hears the word of God and teaches it with such
confidence and conviction that rejecting his message is tantamount to rejecting Christ Himself
(Mk. 8:38) and can only result in damnation (Gal 1:8).
This does not mean that all apostolic writings which were authoritative and thus
canonical must have been preserved. It seems that at least three of the Pauline letters did not
become a part of the canon (1 Co 5:9; 2 Co 2:4; Col 4:16). There have been some persuasive
arguments in recent years to show that 2 Corinthians 6:14-17:1 corresponds to the letter Paul
referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and that 2 Corinthians 10-13 may represent the "painful" letter
mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:4. It is possible, however, that a writing that was authoritative was
either superseded or simply not included in a collection. It is clear that the gospel writers, in their
authoritative account of Jesus, did not include all the tradition available to them. John, in his
gospel, hyperbolically affirms that a "world" of material was not included (Jn 21:25).64
It is clear then, that from the very outset of his writing Paul considered his own letters as
the authoritative word of God.
The epistles of Paul early became a part of the canon as Peter testifies to it as a body of
literature to be received "as the other Scriptures" (2 Pe 3:15-16).

Although not all the writings of the New Testament contain similar allusions to
possessing the authority of Scripture, they all do possess characteristics that are selfauthenticating.
The gospels, for instance, when compared to the apocryphal books, show a
sobriety in their treatment of the miracles of Jesus (i.e. stories of the miracles Jesus is said to
have performed as a child) that makes their claim to canonicity all the stronger.
113
External Testimony
It is generally believed that the earliest document which quotes any of the books of the
New Testament was I Clement, which was itself considered canonical by some Christians. This
was found in Codex Alexandrinus which was written from Rome to the church in Corinth around
A.D. 95. Clear allusions are made in this document to the Gospel of Matthew, Romans,
1 Corinthians, and Hebrews.65
The evidence is strong that Ignatius of Syrian Antioch (A.D. 116) knew all of Paul's
epistles. He quoted Matthew and also possibly made allusion to John.
The Didache (The Teaching) which was produced during the first half of the second
century appealed to both Matthew and Luke as well as many other New Testament books.
The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) quoted Matthew and used the formal phrase, "it is
written" to introduce quotations from the book.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 130), in reference to the canonical books expresses his
preference for the living "word of the Lord." In reference to other books he said, "For I supposed
that things out of books did not profit me so much as the utterance of a voice which liveth and
abideth."66
The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140) is an early allegory which alludes to the book of
James.
Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 150) also showed familiarity with Matthew, Acts and Paul's
epistles and quoted from 1 Peter and 1 John.
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), a Syrian Greek who had been a philosopher, made
references to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and many of the Pauline epistles. He stated that
the "Memoirs of the Apostles," what we now call "the Gospels" were read every Sunday in
the worship of the church along with the Hebrew Scriptures. Martyr's pupil, Tatian, composed
the first "harmony of the Gospels," called The Diatessaron. This book became a standard work
used by the early church for many years.67

114
By A.D. 170 Irenaeus showed that there was no question that the books of the New
Testament were authoritative. The rapid growth of Gnosticism and other heresies ushered in a
flood of apologetic literature which continued for at least 80 years until the time of Origen (A.D.
250). These leaders became apologists who turned to the apostolic writings as their basis of
authority in opposing the heresies that threatened the teachings of the early church.68
Irenaeus made great use by quoting liberally from all four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of
Paul (200 times), several General Epistles, and the book of Revelation. He claimed that there
were only four gospels and that anyone who taught differently was teaching heresy. He criticized
Marcion for claiming that Luke and the epistles of Paul were the only books that were authentic.
Thus by implication he accepted not only those writings acknowledged by Marcion, but others as
well. The only books of the New Testament that Irenaeus did not allude to were Philemon and
3 John.69
Melito of Sardis (prior to A.D. 180) speaks of the "books of the Old Covenant" presupposing
"books of the New Covenant" as an authoritative counterpart.70
Athenagoras of Athens (also prior to A.D. 180), in his treatise on the resurrection, appeals
to Paul's work in I Corinthians 15 as if it were canonical.
The Scillitan Martyrs (A.D. 180) in their trial before being sentenced to death by the
proconsul of Carthage, answered that the books they were treasuring were "the books and
Epistles of Paul a just man." If it is a fair presumption to conclude that the "books" they referred
to are the Old Testament Scriptures and the Gospels, then it appears that the Pauline Epistles had
not fully attained the status of Scripture, at least in this locality.71
Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200) quoted as proof of truth from all of the New Testament
except Philemon, James, 2 and 3 John.
The early church father from Alexandria, Origen (A.D. 185-250), was well acquainted
with several cities beside his own as he traveled extensively in Rome, Antioch, Caesarea, and
Jerusalem. He divided these books into two classes: the homologoumena, which were without
doubt genuine and thus accepted by all the churches, and the antilegomena, which were
disputed and thus not acceptable to all the congregations. Even though he did not draw the lines
of the canon as closely as they were drawn later, he showed that the selection process for
canonicity was already going on.72
Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 265-340) followed Origen by drawing a line between the
canonical, the genuine, and the apocryphal, the questionable.
Although these men did not always agree on every book as to its canonicity, they were by
no means "uncritical recipients of unreliable rumor."73

115
The Easter letter ("Festal Letter") of Athanasius, the Alexandrian theologian (A.D. 367),
for the first time provides a list in which the 27 books of the present New Testament canon are
declared to be the canonical collection. Here he distinguished sharply between "God-inspired
Scripture . . . handed down to our fathers by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the
word from the beginning"74 and the "so-called secret writings" of heretics. In referring to the
New Testament books Athanasius stated, "These are springs of salvation . . . let no one add to
them or take away from them."75
This decree was very influential in fixing opinion in the Eastern Church. Jerome's
translation of the Greek Scripture into Latin at the request of the Roman bishop Damasus
included the canonical 27 books. In Africa the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), of which
Augustine was an influential member, also acknowledged the present 27 books as the canon. The
Council of Hippo reiterated the same decision in A.D. 419.76
At approximately the same time, churches throughout the empire formed a unified
decision by fixing the limits and contents of the canon.
It would be a mistake, however, to see this as conferring canonicity. The decisions of the
church were merely the recognition or acknowledgement of the intrinsic authority and power
of these writings. As J. I. Packer put it,
"The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave
us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly
he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make
it up."77
Voices have been raised, and are being raised, that suggest that the New Testament canon
should be reopened for church evaluation. Should the church accept the legacy of the historical
development of canonicity or should she call this history into question?
Some point to the seeming reluctance with which certain books like Philemon, Hebrews,
James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude were taken into the canon as evidence that these were spurious
and thus canonicity was not so certain. Rather because Philemon, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are all
so brief they would seldom be quoted and thus did not seem to carry as much weight.
Also, these writings were directed at individuals whose location may have been obscure.
Unlike the larger letters that were sent to sizable churches or that were circulated throughout the
provinces, these smaller epistles did not get the attention unless there was a demand for them or
until the persons or groups to which they belonged called them to public attention. In the case of
the book of Hebrews, the uncertainty of its authorship initially brought its authenticity into
question.

116
There is no reason to open up this issue of canonicity. The claims that have been made
(especially of late by such people as A. N. Wilson, Bishop Spong, the Jesus Seminar, etc.) are
unwarranted and ludicrous. In their deconstruction of the story of Jesus they draw on a variety of
early Christian writings that have been dismissed as apocryphal and irrelevant by serious biblical
scholars. They draw from such writings as the "Gospel of Peter" and the "Gospel of Thomas."
They rely heavily on these fringe writings which favors Jesus as a sage.
Church history informs us that canonicity was a painstaking process whereby the
churches and their leaders did not accept every manuscript that happened to bear the name of an
apostle or that professed to relate previously untold history and teaching. As New Testament
scholar Merrill Tenney puts it:
"The existing canon emerged from a large body of oral and written tradition and
speculation and made its way in the churches because of its inherent authenticity
and dynamic power."78
Karl Barth has pointed out that it was not so much the case of the church choosing which
books belonged to the canon, but rather that the books themselves, because of their intrinsic
authority and power, "forced themselves upon the early church." In the final analysis, the only
task the church fathers had was to recognize this.79
It has been the conviction of the church that this history, provided by the canonical
books, were set in motion, and has been superintended, by God who will not lead His church into
error. Jesus has built, and continues to build, His church upon this canonical Scripture as people
hear their Lord speak in the Old Testament and the New Testament canon.
HERMENEUTICS (INTERPRETATION)
Our theology is supposed to be based upon our principles of biblical interpretation
(hermeneutics). Too often the reverse is true. Cultists in particular read their deviant theologies
into the biblical text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.
It is the purpose of hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) to provide the
student of Scripture with basic guidelines and rules for "correctly handling the word of truth"
(2 Ti 2:15).
Some people argue that the reason they do not read and study the Bible is because it is
too difficult to understand. While it is true that certain parts of it are difficult, most parts are quite
simple. If you can read the newspaper, you can read the Bible. In fact, there are probably more
difficult words and concepts expressed on the front pages of the newspaper than on most
pages of the Bible.

117
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart point out in their book, How to Read the Bible for All Its
Worth:
"The most important ingredient one brings to that task [of interpretation] is
enlightened common sense. The test of good interpretation is that it makes good
sense of the text."80
The dictum: "The plain thing is the main thing, and the main thing is the plain thing"81
goes to the heart of the issue of interpretation. For it is the aim of interpretation to know the plain
meaning of the text. What is obvious and straightforward in the text is the most significant point
for the reader to grasp.
The Golden Rule of Interpretation
"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
Therefore take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless
the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and
fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise."82
This rule of interpretation is called the "literal-historical," "literary-historical" or
"grammatical-historical" method. This rule is based on the premise that God, in revealing His
Word, did not intend that the reader be confused. Rather, like any other teacher or parent, He
uses the obvious meanings of words to convey His thoughts with the greatest clarity to His
children. Otherwise the meaning of Scripture would only be available to the expert (biblical
scholar).
Metaphysical cults, theosophical cults, divine science cults, pantheistic cults (New Age
Movement) all base their interpretation of Holy Scripture on the theory that the meaning of
Scripture is plural. The first meaning is the ordinary historical or grammatical one; and the
second meaning is the one the cultist brings to Scripture from the particular metaphysical system
or religious system he is pushing.
The emphasis on the unity of the sense of Scripture puts an end to this cultic abuse of
Scripture. Unless Scripture can be interpreted in a literal way there is no basis for control—
anyone can interpret it anyway one prefers. The literal method acknowledges the importance of
the basic meaning of words and follows regular rules of grammar.
Principles of Interpretation
1. THE PRIORITY OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. The Scriptures were written in
Hebrew (Old Testament), and Greek (New Testament). All Bible study must take into
consideration the difficulty in translation, and all translations are subservient to the original
languages.

Cults are often guilty of using a word or phrase from a biblical translation and then
examining and interpreting it as if the revelation had been given in that language.
118
Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, for instance, says that the name
"Adam" consists of two syllables, A dam, which means an obstruction, in which case Adam
signifies "the obstacle which the serpent, sin, would impose between man and his Creator."83
Such meaning for the word or name Adam is pure nonsense.
Mary Baker Eddy also interprets the word "evening" as "mistiness of moral thought;
weariness of mortal mind; obscured views; peace and rest."84 This is an illustration of someone
who mistakes literal language for figurative language and vice versa. Mormon theologian James
Talmage interprets the prophecy that "thou shalt be brought down and speak out of the ground"
to mean that God's Word would come to people from the Book of Mormon which was taken out
of the ground at the hill of Cumorah.85
2. THE ACCOMMODATION OF REVELATION. In order for God's truth to be
understood by the human mind, God had to put His truth in human language which has its
limitations. His truth, therefore, is always greater than any language about Him.
Figures of speech are often used to communicate some concept with an ear catching,
imaginative comparison. "Trees clapping their hands" (Isa 55:12) is a powerful way to express
extreme joy. The danger, for the uninformed and lazy student, is that such an expression is
interpreted literally thus thinking that the prophet is merely talking about leafy motion. We
always must look for the intention behind a figure of speech.
3. PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. The Bible sets forth the movement of God in
history, with the initiative coming from Him and in which God brings man up from the infancy
of the Old Testament through the maturity of the New Testament. This does not mean that the
New Testament is superior to the Hebrew Scriptures; it means that the revelation begun in the
Old Testament finds its completion or fulfillment in the New Testament.
4. OBSERVATION. We must discover what the passage is saying, not make it say what
we want it to say. We must read things "out of" the text (exegesis), and not read things "into" the
text (eisegesis). We must come to discover, not prove.
Lack of observation will often lead to strange interpretations. The Mormons, in their
missionary manual quote the Parable of the Virgins (Mt 25:1-13), to show the concept that
"mortality is a probationary period during which we prepare to meet God."86 This is overspecification
in that it is a more detailed or specific conclusion than is legitimate in view of the
biblical text.
The main point—the message—of this parable is something far less specific in that all it
says is that human beings should be prepared at any time to meet God or to witness the Second
Coming of Christ.

119
Hasty generalizations is a temptation especially when it comes to predictive prophecy.
The stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph in Ezekiel's prophecy (37:15-23) are interpreted by the
Mormons to mean the Bible and the Book of Mormon.87 Lack of careful observation leads
easily to inadequate evidence in which a hasty generalization is drawn from too little evidence.
An example would be Jehovah's Witnesses teaching that blood transfusion is unbiblical. The
biblical data which they use to support this teaching fails to speak directly to the issue and
certainly does not substantiate their teaching.
5. HISTORICAL SETTING. The Bible was written to specific people at a specific time.
It is therefore vital to take into account the history and culture of that time. Jesus' statement, "It is
finished' (tetelstai) in John 19:30 meant more than the end of the crucifixion. That phrase was
written across tax receipts to indicate that full payment had been received. Our understanding of
words, phrases, and actions is enriched as we get a better grasp of the culture and customs of that
day.
6. CLEAREST INTERPRETATION. Obscure and difficult passages must always be
understood in the light of passages that are obvious and clear. We must never interpret the other
way around. When two or more equally probable interpretations exist, the simplest and clearest
interpretation must have the preference.
Truth builds on truth. It does not contradict it. Although Mark 16:16 might seem to
require water baptism for salvation, several other passages (Eph 2:8-9; 1 Co 1:10-17; Titus 3:5)
establish the clear standard or requirement of salvation: by faith alone. Such apparent
contradiction (paradox) challenges us to dig deeper in our understanding of Mark 16:16. As we
do so we find that this verse belongs to a section (vv. 9-20) that is not included in the most
reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses.
7. IGNORANCE. No one understands everything in the Bible. Some truth is beyond our
human capacity to grasp. Some passages are extremely difficult to interpret. This is especially
true of prophecy. Therefore it is all right to say, "I don't know."
8. CHECKING OTHER SOURCES. Since we all have blind spots and prejudices, we
need to check our interpretation with biblical studies of the past and present (commentaries).
Those who show a disdain for commentaries or other sources of biblical understanding only
show their arrogance. Why should we not take advantage of the painstaking research of some of
the most gifted scholars throughout church history? Do we really think that our quick and
superficial "study" of a text is necessarily superior to that of those who have given their entire
lives to study Holy Scripture? It is arrogance that would keep us from using the tools God has
made available to us.
9. DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION. The
interpretation of a passage is one; the application is many. Any passage has only one meaning
though it often may have many applications.

120
10. OBJECTIVE TRUTH, NOT SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. We must interpret
experience in the light of Scripture, not vice versa. Scripture, rightly interpreted, is true primarily
because God says it is true. The approach, "It must be true because I have experienced it" does
not take into consideration the fact that Satan is a master counterfeiter (2 Co 11:12-15), and his
deceptions include experiences. Also, just because some experience is true and valid for you,
does not mean that it would be for someone else. Scripture, rightly interpreted, is true primarily
because God says it is true.
11. CONTEXT. Each verse must be studied in relation to its chapter and each chapter
must be studied in relation to its book and each book must be studied in relation to all the other
books (66) that make up the Bible. Just as any part of the human body can only be properly
explained in reference to the whole body, so any part of the Bible can be correctly explained only
in reference to the entire Bible.
The importance of context is often illustrated with the example of the person who would
open the Bible to any page put the finger on a verse and apply it to herself. She began by putting
her finger on the verse that states, "Judas hung himself." Next she flipped to another part of the
Bible and pointed her finger to the verse, "Go and do likewise." Finally in desperation she turned
to another section of the Bible, flipped it open, put her finger on a verse which stated,
"Whatsoever you do, do it quickly." Two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with
each other may be put together as if one were a commentary on the other. The Mormons, for
example, tie Jeremiah 1:5 together with John 1:2,14 and thus imply that both verses talk about
the premortal existence of all human beings. This is unjustified since Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of
God's foreknowledge of the prophet Jeremiah (not his premortal existence). John 1:2 on the other
hand refers to the preexistence of God the Son and in no uncertain terms refers to human beings
in general.
These couple of examples, emphasize the importance of context. Without careful
attention to context Scripture becomes reduced to pretext whereby we use it to prove our
preconceived ideas. Rather we must allow God to speak through Scripture and attempt to hear
and understand and then apply His Word to our lives. The issue is not what we would like
Scripture to say, but what it actually says that counts. If the argument regarding canonicity and
divine inspiration of the 66 books constituting the Bible is valid, a necessary corollary is that the
Bible sets forth a coherent or unified message. God's spokesmen who came later in history not
only provided new material, but they reemphasized facets of earlier revelation as part of the
whole counsel of God.
Paul, as one of the last revelatory spokesmen, regards anyone who teaches a message
contrary to what has already been given as worthy of hell (Gal 1:8f.). Paul also considered the
teaching which he gave as being so in line with the message of the earlier spokesmen that he
used quotations from these earlier sources of revelation to affirm his point (Ro 3:9) that all the
people of the earth are under sin (vv. 10-18).

121
Later revelatory spokesmen also viewed their interpretation of contemporary revelatory
events to reflect so accurately God's moving of redemptive history toward its final climax that
they could view an event whose occurrence and meaning they reported to be a partial or
typological fulfillment of prophecy uttered by an earlier revelatory spokesman (e.g. Ac 2:16-21;
Joel 2:28-32 [Mt 3:1-5]).
In establishing the unity of the Bible, each literary unit of the Bible must be allowed to
contribute its teaching to every other literary unit.
Thus it is only as we handle Scripture through the literary-historical method of
interpretation that we come to a knowledge of divine revelation in the same way we come to
knowledge about everything else in our experience, namely, by a process of trying out various
possibilities until coherency or unity is attained.
We must grapple with difficult passages of Scripture until we find it fitting in with the
rest of Scripture. If we are unable to do so, we must humbly acknowledge our limited
understanding and allow for mystery as we recognize, as Paul did, that "we only see but a poor
reflection as in a mirror . . . [that we] know in part" (1 Co 13:12). Instead of pressing Scripture to
fit our own preconceived ideas or opinions, there are times when we must humbly bow before
Him whose Word is much greater than our understanding of it. We dare not come to conclusions
that contradict Scripture since God, who inspired Scripture, does not contradict Himself. We
must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture!
The Role of the Holy Spirit as Interpreter
What, if any place, does the Holy Spirit play in this issue of interpretation? Since it is the
Spirit of God who gave Scripture, He speaks in and through it. This is indispensable to sound
understanding. The Spirit does not replace the task of interpretation. After all, He speaks through
the text of Scripture. Knowledge of the text and its natural sense is thus demanded. Yet it is
possible to have this and still miss understanding in the deeper sense. This is where the help and
guidance of the Spirit are needed.
The Spirit is God's Spirit bearing witness to God's word and work in Jesus Christ. He
takes the word of Scripture and makes it clear to the heart, the mind and the will—the whole
man—in its total reach and dimension. God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain.
A certain condition, therefore, is necessary in order to have a deep and fruitful experience
with the Word of God. The condition is our yielding to the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. The
Bible guards itself from presumption and scholarly unspirituality as its deeper truths are
luminous only to the illuminated (1 Co 2:14-15).

122
The same Spirit who inspired its writers now waits to illumine its readers. This is a
challenge to study it with prayerful teachableness, and is a pledge to Spirit-given enlightenment
when we do (Jn 14:26; Eph 1:18).
We all need illumination from the Holy Spirit. Even the best-intentioned among us can
slip easily into a self-sufficient attitude in our learning the Bible. This results in information and
knowledge without wisdom and insight.

123
6. THE PREEXISTENCE OF JESUS THE CHRIST

124
THE PREINCARNATION OF CHRIST
Preincarnation denotes the time before Jesus Christ was embodied with flesh and bodily
form. The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ existed before His incarnation.
● "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word
was God" (Jn 1:1).
● "Jesus said unto them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am'" (8:58).
● "And now, Father, glorify Me with Your own self with the glory which I had with You
before the world was" (17:5).
● "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15).
● "He is before all things . . ." (v. 17).
THE PREINCARNATE CHRIST'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD THE FATHER
His Relationship to God in Essence
John 1:1 teaches us that in the beginning the Word was with God, indeed, the Word was
God. The word used here in John is logos indicating that Christ is the Word. The logos indicates
the eternal character of Jesus Christ and thus proves His pre-incarnation.
● As logos, He was in the beginning, thus having an existence that is beyond
time—eternal.
● As logos, He was with God, thus having a personal existence in eternal communion
with God.
● As logos, He was with God, thus in nature He is very God in essence.
Logos is a philosophical term denoting "reason" and "speech" to express the
manifestation of an unseen God. It includes the modes by which God makes Himself known to
man. Therefore logos or Word, has come to mean the Word as a divine Person, Jesus Christ.
The Problem of Christ being "begotten" or "firstborn"
John 1:14 states that Jesus is the "only begotten from the Father." Colossians 1:15 says
that He is the "firstborn of all creation." The Arians used these statements to prove that Christ
was a created being and not coeternal with the Father.

125
The Greek word for "begotten" or "firstborn" is prototokos which comes from protos
meaning "first" and tikto meaning "to bear" or "to bring forth." It means firstborn in terms of
time. Prototokos is applied particularly to the firstborn of a father or mother (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7)
but also includes the firstborn of animals (Heb 11:28). It is further the designation of Christ as
the Son of God before the creation (Col 1:15-16; Heb 1:5-6).
The statement, "For in Him all things were created" (Col 1:16) is translated, "For in Him
all [other] things were created" by the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation. By
inserting the bracketed word "other" they attempt to resolve the contradiction between Christ
being the "firstborn" and the "creator." This is pure invention as there is no justification for such
interpretation based on related passages which contradict it.
Since when do we have the right to insert alien words to fit our own preconceived ideas?
Cults are forced to such an invention because they realize that if all of creation is mediated
through Christ, it cannot be true at the same time that He was created as the first creature. One is
not created because he creates other things. If that were true, then the Jehovah God of the
Jehovah's Witnesses would have to be created because He created—Jesus. If Paul had meant that
Jesus was the first-created being, he would have used the word protoktistos.
The word "firstborn" in reference to Jesus Christ in no sense indicates that Christ was a
created being except in the physical sense at His incarnation (Lk 1:35; Jn 1:14). In Revelation
3:14 Jesus is called "the ruler of God's creation." The Greek word for "ruler" is arche which can
be correctly translated "origin" and is rendered that way in John 1:1 of Jehovah's Witnesses
original New World Translation. The idea then in Revelation is that Jesus Christ is the origin, the
one from whom everything else originates, and ruler of the creation of God.
This fits in well with other passages that declare Christ as the creator of all things (Col
1:16-17; Heb. 1:2). Christ is the firstborn of all creation since He is the new creation by
ushering a new order of humanity: the virgin born Son--conceived without sin (Lk 1:35), the
last Adam (1 Co 15:45,47) who is the fulfillment of the divine promise of God (Isa 7:14; 9:6;
Mic 5:2), and the Redeemer of the world (Col 1:14).
The Greek word prototokos may also denote preeminent or one prior to creation.
Christ is preeminent over and prior to creation and thus not created. Jesus Christ cannot be both a
creature and the Creator.
"Firstborn" is often used in the sense of preeminence. The nation Israel was the firstborn
of all the nations of the earth, but obviously not the first in order of time (Ex 4:22). It is said that
King David was the firstborn, yet we know that he was not the oldest son of Jesse (Ps 89:27).
Even though Ephraim was the firstborn in God's sight, he was not the child born first to Joseph
(Jer 31:9). In the same way, as God the Father's firstborn Jesus is the preeminent one.

126
Furthermore those passages which state "this day have I begotten you" such as Psalm
2:7, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 cannot possibly have any reference to time as they all indicate
a time reference that is not consistent with another. The passages contain the idea that "eternally,
now, forever, You are My Son." They are to be understood in an untimely sense and regarded as
an eternal act of God. If we tried to interpret Acts 13:33, for example, as meaning that Christ
was made the Son of God by resurrection we would have a contradiction with the Scripture that
states that He was the Son of God when He was born (Lk 1:32).
The word firstborn is used in the same context in referring to Christ as "the firstborn from
the dead" (Rev 1:5). Obviously Christ was not literally raised from the dead first since there
were people raised before Him in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Firstborn
cannot mean first-one-born from the dead (Lk 1:18). Rather, it means that He was the one raised
with power and authority over death, sin, and Satan—or as verse 18 concludes, "that in all things
He may have the preeminence." This means that Jesus is the first one to rise in a glorified body
(not a spirit form—Lk 24:39-40), the very type of body Christians will one day possess (1 Jn
3:2). Jesus is preeminent because He created everything, and because everything was created for
Him.
To Jesus belongs the double advantage of being "firstborn"--both as the heir and owner
of all things, and as the beginner of all things. He is also the final destination of all things
since He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8,22; 22:13). All things
were created by Him and for Him (Col 1:16).
God has from eternity communicated the whole indivisible substance of God to the Son,
thus it may rightly be said that
"God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him" (Col 1:19).
His Relationship to God as Distinguished from the Person of Jehovah
There are several indications in the Old Testament that the person distinguished from
Jehovah is also called Jehovah, and therefore must have been the pre-incarnate Christ.
● "And Jehovah said . . . But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save
them by Jehovah their God” (Hos 1:6-7).
● "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah
out of heaven" (Gn 19:24).
These and other verses indicate that the "Jehovah" mentioned apart from Jehovah could
only be the preincarnate Christ.

127
THE PREINCARNATE CHRIST'S RELATIONSHIP TO CREATION
As to Creation, Christ is the Firstborn of all Creation
● "Christ is the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15).
● "He was the "firstborn among many brethren" (Ro 8:29).
● "Christ is the "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).
Because He is the "firstborn of all creation" He is thus before all creation. The idea is
similar to the explanation given to the phrase above in John 1:14 of Christ being the "only
begotten of the Father," Christ is distinguished from other creation as being before creation in
point of time. But there may be something more indicated in these passages:
● The verses that teach that He was the firstborn of all creation prove that He
existed before He became man—His preincarnation.
● The verses that state that He was the firstborn into the world prove that He existed
in point of time as a man with flesh and blood—His Incarnation.
● The verses that speak of Him being the firstborn from the dead teach and prove
His resurrection since the word "firstborn" in this instance refers to "the first one
born—come alive" from the dead.
The Bible opens with the statement:
As to Creation Christ is the Creator
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gn 1:1).
Jeremiah calls Jehovah "the Creator of all things" (Jer 10:15).
Isaiah, the prophet, states that God only is the Creator:
"The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. . . . This
is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the
Lord who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread
out the earth by Myself" (Isa 40:28; 44:24).

128
Yet the writer of Hebrews states that Christ is the One "through whom He made the
worlds" (Heb 1:2). This is corroborated with John's teaching that "all things were made through
Him [Jesus Christ]; and without Him was not anything made" (Jn 1:3; see also Col 1:16 and Ro
11:36). These verses give the reason for Christ being given the title "the first begotten of
all creation" (Col 1:15).
Jesus, then, is the Creator of heaven and earth. Creative power—the ability to create
something by fiat (out of nothing)—only belongs to God. People are able to make things out of
something else, but cannot create by fiat. This is so because man is a created being himself. This
is also why angels cannot create since they are also created beings.
The created cannot create; only the Creator can create. The fact that Jesus is the Creator
means by definition that He is of the divine order.
Thus He is the Creator (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16), Framer of the world (Heb 11:3), and the
Sustainer or Preserver (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3).
The Preincarnate Christ's Relationship to Theophanies
A theophany is an "appearance" of or "manifestation" of God. An appearance of Christ is
called a "Christophany."
The Angel of Jehovah
Practically all of the theophanies appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, with the Angel of
Jehovah (Yahweh) being mentioned any number of times. The meaning of the word "angel" is
"messenger" (Gn 16:10-13; 18:16-22; 22:11-12; 24:40; 48:16; Ex 3:2; 23:20-25; 32:34; 33:21-
23; Jos 5:13-15; Jdg 13:3-20; Isa 63:9; Da 10:13; Zec 1:11,12; Mal 3:1).
In all of the references mentioned above there is manifestation of God. The question
arises, "Is the Angel of Jehovah Jesus Christ?" The contention is made that if the Angel of
Jehovah is God and also distinct from God, then the Angel of Jehovah may well be the Son,
Jesus Christ.
Indications that the Angel of Jehovah may well be Jesus Christ
● The fact that the Angel of Jehovah never appears after the incarnation is a strong
argument that the Angel of Jehovah is Christ.
● The fact that the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament is the visible manifestation of
God indicates quite strongly that the Angel of Jehovah is Christ inasmuch as Jesus Christ is the
visible manifestation of God in the New Testament.

129
Old Testament: God heard—Angel seen—Spirit works
New Testament: God heard—Christ seen—Spirit works
The reasonable deduction in the above argument is that the Angel of Jehovah may well
be Jesus Christ.
● John 1:18 teaches that no man has seen God (His essence) at any time, therefore the
Angel of Jehovah is not God the Father or the triune Godhead, but probably the "messenger"
(Word) of God manifest as the preincarnate Christ.
● The Angel of Jehovah was in bodily form when seen, whereas the Spirit is not
characterized by physical attributes, therefore the Angel of Jehovah is not the Holy Spirit.
The above arguments give strong indication that the Angel of Jehovah was the
Preincarnate Christ.
The Preincarnate Christ's Relationship to the "before time" Covenant
The term, "before time" is a simple paraphrase of the fact that God made some kind of a
covenant with Jesus Christ before His incarnation.
● "In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal."
(Titus 1:2)
● "And all that dwell on the earth shall worship Him, every one whose name has been
written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that has been slain."
A better translation of this verse reads: "of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world."
● "Who was foreknown from the foundation of the world . . ." (1 Pe 1:20).
Are Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel the Same?
By comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is evident that Jesus Christ and Michael the
archangel are not one and the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists
claim.
The fact that Michael in Hebrew means "one who is like God" does not in any way mean
that this identifies him with Jesus. One of Jesus' names—Immanuel—means not merely "one
who is like God," but "God with us." The name "Michael," therefore, rather than giving
evidence that he should be identified with Jesus does the very opposite. For Jesus is not merely
"like" God; He is "God" ("Immanuel")!

Even if we were to grant that God the Son had a name before His birth as a baby, why
assume that "Michael" was His name? God challenged His hearers with the question:
130
"To whom then will you compare Me or shall I be equal? (Isa 40:25)
No archangel would qualify since an archangel would be a created being and thus not on
the same plane with an uncreated divine Creator. Jesus sets Himself apart from the angelic world
repeatedly. One example is His announcement about the uncertainty of the time of His return:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the
Son, but only the Father" (Mk 13:32).
Jesus Christ is above angels as is argued at explicit length at the beginning of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. This book demonstrates forcefully the preeminence of Jesus over angels as well
as people. By what kind of logic can one identify Jesus as "a god" and at the same time refer to
Him as "an angel," even an "archangel" or "chief prince" (Da 10:13)? Such terms in reference
to angels are quantitative. Jesus, even if He were only "a god," would be qualitatively different.
He would belong to a radically different order.
To identify Jesus as an archangel because He is superior among the angelic world would
make as much sense as identifying a human being like John the Baptist as an angel since he is
"the greatest man that ever lived" according to Jesus (Lk 7:28). There is a giant leap from the
angelic world to the world of divinity just as there is a giant chasm between the world of angels
and people.
If Michael and Jesus Christ are the same, that would mean that there are other beings
equal in authority to Christ. It is not necessarily true that because Messiah and Michael are both
referred to as "princes" that they must be the same person. The same Hebrew word translated
"prince" which is given to Michael is also given to Abner (2 Sa 3:38), who was not even a
member of human royalty. Would this mean that Michael, the archangel, and Abner, the military
general, were the same person because both were described as "princes"?
While the Greek word arch can mean "ruler," in and of itself this hardly serves to
demonstrate that Jesus Christ and Michael, the archangel, are the same person. There is no
evidence in Scripture that Michael exercised any kind of authority over the rest of God's angels.
Matthew 25:31 which mentions the "Son of Man" coming in His glory with all His angels does
not even mention Michael. Nor is there any parallel with Genesis 1:28 where man is given
dominion over "every living creature" on the earth. Michael is nowhere mentioned as having
been given the same sort of dominion over the angelic hosts as Adam was over the animal
kingdom.
Although the expression, "The Lord rebuke you" occurs in both Zechariah 3:2 and
Jude 9. The Lord Himself speaks in Zechariah while Michael, the archangel, is the speaker in
Jude. This, however—making the same statement to the same individual—does not prove that

131
Christ and Michael are the same person. For example, the prophets Isaiah and Micah both wrote,
". . . they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. . . ." (Isa
2:4 and Mic. 4:3). Does that mean, therefore, that Isaiah and Micah are the same person?
Jehovah's Witnesses also cross reference 1 Thessalonians 4:16 with John 5:25-29. Those
who hear the voice of the archangel in 1 Thessalonians include the "dead in Christ,” who already
possess eternal life. The "dead" that John refers to do not possess eternal life but receive it when
they hear (and believe) Christ's voice. In 1 Thessalonians all who hear the voice will meet the
Lord in the air and be with Him forever. According to John, however, some of those dead who
hear Christ's voice will not go to be with Him but will suffer damnation. Thus the two passages
do not speak of the same thing and thus cannot be used to give evidence that Michael, the
archangel, is the same person as Jesus Christ.
There is no legitimate reason to identify Michael, the archangel, as the "captain of the
host of the Lord" of Joshua (5:13-15). This person was none other than God Himself.
Throughout Scripture angelic beings consistently refused worship which was due to God alone
(Rev 22:8-9). Not only was Joshua's worship not rejected, but he was instructed to render
worship as to God (v. 15). While it is true that Michael does command angels in Revelation 12:7,
this does not necessarily mean that he is their supreme commander. Since both a captain and a
general may command groups of men in a military force it is presumptuous to make a captain a
general.

132
7. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part I
Names, an Early Christian Hymn, the Virgin Birth

133
THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST
Incarnation is from the Latin (incarnatus, Gk. sarkosis) meaning "enfleshment" or
becoming flesh, the assumption of humanity or the union of human nature with the divine in one
person. The term "flesh" points to our entire created (not fallen) human nature. As St. Augustine
points out "in the assumption of humanity nothing was lacking that belongs to human nature."
The incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth means that God came to this earth as a human being in the
person of Jesus. As one of the better-known Christmas carols states:
"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail the incarnate Deity!
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel!"1
Biblical writers expressed this truth in various ways:
● "The Word became flesh . . ." (Jn 1:14).
● "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" (Gal 4:4).
● "Who existing in the form of God . . . emptied Himself, took
on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of a man . . ." (Php 2:6-7).
It is the fact of the incarnation which rescues Christianity from being merely a
philosophy or a system of ethics and makes it an historical religion. The incarnation means that
God invaded time and space. He came to a podunk town in Palestine about two thousand years
ago.
J. I. Packer rightfully calls the incarnation the most difficult doctrine because it is the
"supreme mystery":
". . . the real difficulty, because the supreme mystery with which the gospel
confronts us . . . lies, not in the good Friday message of atonement, nor in the
Easter message of resurrection, but in the Christmas message of incarnation. The
really staggering Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man—
that the second person of the Godhead became the 'second man' (1 Cor. 15:47),
determining human destiny, the second representative head of the race, and that
He took humanity without loss of deity, so that Jesus of Nazareth was as truly
and fully divine as He was human. Here are two mysteries for the price of one—
the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and
manhood in the person of Jesus. It is here, in the thing that happened at the first
Christmas, that Christian revelation lies. 'The Word was made flesh' (John 1:14);
God became man; the divine Son became a Jew; the Almighty appeared on earth
as a helpless human baby, unable to do more than lie and stare and wriggle and

134
make noises, needing to be fed and changed and taught to talk like any other child.
And there was no illusion or deception in this: the babyhood of the Son of God
was a reality. The more you think about it, the more staggering it gets. Nothing in
fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the incarnation."2
C. S. Lewis of Oxford University wrote:
"If you want to get the hang of the incarnation, imagine what you would feel
like if you had to become a cockroach or a garden slug."3
Evidence for the Humanity of Jesus Christ
Greek mythology is full of stories of gods who walked the earth giving the impression
that they were men. They looked like men. They talked like men. They acted like men. But when
the need arose they cast off their pretense, manifested their powers, and revealed their divinity.
They were not really men, but gods in disguise.
Some early Christians, the Docetists (who are not without their modern cousins such as
Christian Science) thought of Jesus in this way. He was God, looking like man, but not really
man. But as we have already seen the Christian Church decisively rejected all such views and
labeled them rank heresy. Jesus was truly a man.
Peter Bayne beautifully put it:
"Jesus Christ has trod the world. The trace of Divine footsteps will never be
obliterated. And the Divine footsteps were the footsteps of a Man . . . not
an angel, not a disembodied spirit, not an abstract ideal, but THE MAN
JESUS CHRIST."4
Christians have too often taken the edge off Jesus' humanity in their portrayal of Him. In
His humanity Jesus comes off as dehumanized. Believers sometimes talk about Jesus Christ as
though He had walked down from heaven a ready-made man, with a complete outfit of true ideas
in his Head; as though He had only pretended to be a babe in the cradle. New Testament scholar
R. T. France put it:
". . . at least in popular [evangelical piety] there is a strong tendency to a form of
unacknowledged docetism, a Jesus about whom the 'real' truth is that he is God
and whose humanity is a convenient temporary vehicle, but not to be taken very
seriously when it comes to discussing the possible limitations on his knowledge or
his power, or the degree of his conditioning by the cultural milieu of first-century
Palestine."5
But that is not the picture we find in the Bible. Jesus is not superhuman. He did not walk
six inches above the ground. Jesus is as much man as He is God. He is the God-Man.

135
REPEATEDLY CALLED "MAN"
One of the most obvious reasons why we believe Jesus is a man is because He is called
that repeatedly. In Greek there are two words for "man." There is anthropos, which is the generic
word for man as a human being, as a representative and specimen of humanity. There is also the
word aner, which describes a man more specifically as a husband and a father, as an individual
person, as a male member of the human species. Both of these words are used in reference to
Jesus in the New Testament.
Some may argue that it would not be so surprising for Jesus to be called a man by those
who did not know Him very well, those who had never come into close contact with Him, after
all, they simply did not know that Jesus was not a real human being. He only seemed to be. The
fact is that those very closest and most intimate with Jesus also called Him "man." His cousin
John the Baptist called Him "man" when he first saw Him:
"This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man (aner) who comes after me has
surpassed me because He was before me'" (Jn 1:30).
The invitation of the woman of Samaria was:
"Come, see a man (anthropos) who told me everything I ever did. Could this be
the Christ?" (4:29)
The man who was born blind in explaining his cure said:
"'The man (anthropos) they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes" (9:11).
When Pilate presented Jesus to the maddening crowd in his futile effort not to have Him
crucified, he said:
"Behold the Man (anthropos)!" (19:5).
In his first recorded sermon Peter spoke of Jesus as
"Jesus of Nazareth was a man (aner) accredited by God to you by miracles,
wonders and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves
know" (Ac 2:22).
The Pastoral Epistles were written during a time when Christian thought—theology—
about Jesus was more highly developed. Paul stated in one of his Pastoral Epistles:
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men (anthropon), the
man (anthropos) Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

136
Notice how Paul uses the very same Greek word for man (anthropos) in reference to men
in general and to Jesus specifically. The early followers had no hesitation in using the word
"man" of Jesus. After all, they found Him to be fully and naturally a man.
Jesus did not seem to be some kind of intermediate person in which both the human and
the divine was intermingled. Jesus did not impress these early disciples as a kind of demigod—
neither fully human nor fully divine—proposed by many Greeks. He did not strike them as
someone so divine as to be inhuman. There simply was nothing unnatural or abnormal about
Him. It simply cannot be denied that those who lived with Jesus, those who traveled with Him,
talked to Him, and ate with Him found Him to be genuinely human. He was one of them. Any
Christology that denies such an historical fact is heretical.
EARLY CHRISTIAN HYMN
The humanity of Jesus lies at the very core, the very foundation, of the Christian religion.
One of the early Christian hymns states:
"Beyond all question,
the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory" (1 Ti 3:16).
Jesus Christ is here called "the mystery" of our active piety or godly living. Christ is the
mystery not only because had He not been revealed to us, we would not have known Him
("mystery" being a "revealed secret"), but also because He transcends our comprehension (Eph
3:18-19). The more we know Him, the better will we be able to discern the mysterious,
unfathomable character of His love and of all His attributes, yet never fully in this life.
It is this immeasurable greatness of Christ which forms the subject of the hymn from
which Paul quotes.
The hymn begins with the humanity of Christ:
"He appeared in a body" or as the King James Version has it:
"He was manifested in the flesh."
We will focus on this declaration later and develop it more fully.

The second line of the hymn states:
"[He] was vindicated by the Spirit."
137
VINDICATED BY THE SPIRIT
While most people did not see His glory since He was despised and rejected by men (Isa
55:3), He met God's demands according to the Spirit of God. Christ's own perfect righteousness
and the validity of His claims were fully established by God. Having received God the Father's
approval at the start of His ministry with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the "flesh" (the
weakened human nature in a physical body) He performed miracles, cast out demons, etc. by the
power of the Holy Spirit. Yet it was by means of His resurrection from the dead that the Spirit
fully vindicated the claims of Jesus that He was who He claimed to be—the Son of God:
". . . regarding His Son, who as to His human nature was a descendent of David,
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the
Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord” (Ro 1:3-4).
The third line of the hymn states:
"[He] was seen by angels."
SEEN BY ANGELS
This means that all of Jesus' words and actions were clearly witnessed by the angels.
They had an interest in His birth (Lk 2:9-14). They witnessed His triumph over Satan when He
was tempted in the desert (Mt 4:11). Angels addressed the disciples after His ascension (Ac 1:10-
11). They welcomed Him back to heaven (Rev 12:12). They were intensely interested in the
whole program of redemption (1 Pe 1:12). And they witnessed His glorious resurrection, the
crowning act of all His life and ministry on earth (Mt 28:2-7; Mk 16:5-8; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:12,
13).
While the best of people's minds were clouded by unbelief, the angels saw clearly the
mission and ministry of Jesus. They knew Him as the glorious Lord.
The fourth line states concerning Jesus:
"[He] was preached among the nations."
PREACHED AMONG THE NATIONS
It was the resurrected Christ who, before His ascension, issued The Great Commission:

138
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations."
(Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:15; Lk. 24:47-48; Jn 20:21; Ac 1:8)
The one who was not esteemed but despised by people began to be universally heralded
as the Savior of the world on and after Pentecost. He was not the exclusive possession of any
race or nation, He belonged to the whole world.
Jesus also, according to this hymn,
". . . was believed on in the world."
BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD
The miraculous expansion of the church is here stated with utter simplicity. A mere 70
years following Jesus' death and resurrection the gospel had gone out to the ends of the then
known world. People since then from virtually every tribe and nation have worshiped Jesus as
their Lord and Savior, which had been predicted by the prophets (Gn 12:3; Ps 72:8-11; Am 9:11-
12; Mic 4:12).
TAKEN UP IN GLORY
Jesus not only appeared in a physical body, met every demand of the Holy Spirit in the
sight of the angels, was believed on throughout the world, but the last line of the hymn states that
"[He] was taken up in glory."
The story of Jesus begins in heaven and ends in heaven. He came from heaven to be born
as a little baby on earth. He lived as a servant. He was branded as a blasphemer. He was crucified
a heretic and criminal on a cross. He rose from the dead with the nailprints in His hands. And He
ascended to heaven as the God-Man with those nailprints still upon Him. Once God the Son
becomes a man He remains a man. He never ceases to be a man. In eternity Jesus Christ remains
the God-Man, God incarnate.
The crowning act of Jesus' mission and ministry here is seen as the Ascension where
Jesus was taken up in glory:
"While the echo of men's voices, 'Crucify, crucify,' had scarcely died, heaven
opened wide its portals, and, upon receiving back its victorious King, resounded
with the echoes of the jubilant anthem, sung by ten thousand times ten thousands
and thousands of thousands, 'Worthy is the Lamb!"6
This hymn of the early church then is a hymn of adoration of the Christ. It is a confession
of Christ's glory from His incarnation to His coronation.

The first line of the hymn states:
139
HE APPEARED IN A BODY
"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body."
Or as the King James Version has it,
"He was manifested in the flesh."
Paul introduces the hymn by stating that its message is "mysterious." This should not
surprise us. The footprints of the divine will always leave us with mystery. The "enfleshment of
God Almighty" is incredible, incomparable, and staggering to the human mind. How could it be
otherwise?
A PARADOX
The Christmas story is filled with paradox—a seeming contradiction. Think with me.
● The God of the universe who spoke this world into existence by the breath of
His mouth became a tiny infant whose first breath was a cry.
● God the Son who had glory with God the Father before the world existed (Jn 17:5)
came down from the heights of that glory to the gory depths of earth's humiliation.
● Christ, who was larger than the universe, became an embryo.
● Christ, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, was born in a stable.
● Christ, the infinite God, became confined to human skin.
● "Christ, the Ancient of Days, became the infant of days."7
● Christ, who created the angels of heaven was made lower than them.
(Col 1:16; Heb 2:7)
● Christ, who said, "Before Abraham was, I am" was born at least 2000 years after
Abraham.
● "Christ, who belongs to all centuries, was born in the first century."8
● "Christ, who belongs to all races, was born a Jew."9
● Christ, who belongs to all countries, was born in Bethlehem.

140
● Christ, who sustains life itself, is dependent upon the nourishment of a young peasant
girl.
● "Christ, the Infinite, is contained in Jesus, the finite."10
● Christ, who made all flesh, became flesh and will always remain flesh throughout
the aeons of eternity.
"All praise to Thee, Eternal Lord,
Clothed in a garb of flesh and blood;
Choosing a manger for a throne,
While worlds on worlds are Thine alone."
--Martin Luther
Is it any wonder that Paul calls this paradox a "mystery"?
It is vital, as this hymn points out, that the incarnation is understood as the whole event
of Jesus Christ, His life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension; not merely His birth. For His
life, His ministry, His death, His resurrection, His ascension—was carried out as a human being
as well as a divine being. He was as fully human as divine.
As we have already seen, how Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man is the problem of
problems. Such a mystery quickly shows us the bankruptcy of human logic. Therefore it is
important to remember that the early church first proclaimed the doctrine of the incarnation in
its common worship, not in theological speculation. Christian doctrine must always end in
doxology.
Paradox—seeming contradiction--is the inevitable result when we finite human beings try
to explain in human categories the mysteries of God's being. Trying to express God's nature in
human terms is like trying to draw a map of the surface of our globe on a flat sheet of paper.
There is bound to be distortion in every part. Yet even as we recognize the inevitable distortion,
the map does convey to us essential truth regarding this area of our world. Though we cannot
fully comprehend the incarnation, we can learn of its essential truth.
The reason for the mystery is that we have no analogies to it in our own nature or
experience. Illustrations of such matters are only partial and often confuse rather than clarify. It
is a truth of revelation which like many others must be accepted by faith, waiting the dawn of
eternity for fuller knowledge, for a full and complete explanation.
"I know not how that Bethlehem's Babe
Could in the Godhead be;
I only know the Manger Child
Has brought God's life to me."
--Farrington

141
We Westerners are extremely impatient with mystery. We are always trying to formulate
systems, categories, formulas. God cannot be fully comprehended by our categories. He cannot
be boxed in! At all costs we feverishly try to disarm tension. In our efforts to attain clarity and
logical precision, we risk eliminating important aspects of the mystery we are trying to
comprehend. Namely, that Jesus the Christ is the God-Man.
At the shrine of the intellect we sacrifice truth in shrouded mystery. As sophomoric,
beginning philosophers we're like a puppy dog tearing things to pieces that we do not
understand. We try and force pieces to fit together so that our beliefs, our doctrines, easily fit into
our neat formulas. But God cannot be torn apart to be disproved nor can He be forced into our
neat, packaged way of thinking. God is mysterious. He is unfathomable. His ways are higher
than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9).
GOD LIMITED TO A HUMAN BODY
The English deist, Anthony Collins of the 17th century, met a common countryman one
day while out for a walk. He asked him where he was going, "To church, sir." Then he followed
up the question, "What are you going to do there?" The countryman replied, "Worship God." At
that point the educated Englishman asked him, "Is your God a great God or a little God?" The
quick response was, "He is both, sir." This puzzled the deist who asked, "How can He be both?"
The simple answer he received was:
"He is so great, sir, that the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him; and so little
that He can dwell in my heart."
Infidel Collins later admitted that this simple answer from the countryman had more
effect upon his mind than all the volumes which sophisticated theologians had written against
him.
The God of the Bible as a spirit is the Creator of all things and yet as a Redeemer
indwells the heart of His believing creatures in the person of Jesus Christ.
ORTHODOXY
While we conservatives, whether evangelicals or fundamentalists, have been busy
repudiating the liberals for their deemphasis on the deity of Jesus Christ, we likewise, have in the
process deemphasized the humanity of our Lord. Both are equally heretical (1 Jn 4:1-3; 5:1).
John, because he was writing to defend Christianity against Docetism, started out with a
strong testimony of the reality of Jesus' humanness. John refers to three of the five physical
senses:

142
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we
proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and
testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father
and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so
that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father
and with His Son, Jesus Christ" (1:1-3).
Fellowship with each other and God the Father and His Son Jesus is impossible apart
from the belief in the humanity of Jesus. For if we do not believe in the real humanity of Jesus
the Jesus we try to have fellowship with is not the Jesus presented to us in Holy Writ.
A later development of Docetism called Gnosticism taught that the Spirit of God merely
came upon the man Jesus at the time of His baptism, remained with Him during the years of His
ministry, and then deserted Him just before the crucifixion. Other forms of Gnosticism taught
that Jesus only seemed to be a man, but actually was not one. Jesus was a phantom or a ghost—a
spirit being—but not a real human being. He did not really possess a material body, did not
therefore really die, etc.
Another heretic, Marcion, who is known for his rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures as
well as parts of the New Testament, also threatened the early church with his teachings which
rejected the teaching that Jesus' body was made up of dust—earthly material.
Manichaeanism, another heresy which influenced Augustine in his early years, made
inroads into Christianity by teaching that Christ's body was composed of "heavenly" but not true
material flesh.
The early church developed creeds and held councils to combat such heresies. The
Apostle's Creed states:
". . . suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried . . . born of the
Virgin Mary . . ."
This ties Jesus to history. It points out that Jesus suffered under the reign of a specific
Roman governor—Pilate—and to emphasize the sufferings of this Jesus which only a human
being could go through. The phrase, "born of the Virgin Mary" did not originally emphasize the
supernatural aspects so much as the fact that Jesus was born, that He was human, that He was a
man.
THE DESCENT OF GOD THE SON
Greater is the descent of God the Son, the second Person of the Godhead, to earth than if
we were to become a cockroach.

143
One of the reasons we do not comprehend the stupendous condescension of God the Son
when He became the Babe of Bethlehem is that we do not fully understand and appreciate His
humanity.
When God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, became that infant He truly and
fully became a human being. His life, ministry and death was not a charade. He was not play
acting. Once God the Son became a man He is forever fully human.
VIRGIN BIRTH
Karl Barth maintains that the virgin birth marks off the origin of Jesus from the human
race just as His end is marked off by the resurrection. Such a link is logical. Why shouldn't a life
characterized by miracles begin with a miracle just as it ends with a miracle?
John tells us the "the Word became flesh and lived among us" (Jn 1:14). Matthew and
Luke tell us more specifically that it happened at a particular time, in a particular place, in
connection with a particular mother:
● "In the days of Herod the King,"
● "when Quirinius was governor of Syria,"
● "in Bethlehem,"
● "born of Mary."
Therefore when we speak about God's presence and activity in the world, about a man
living among us, we are not talking only about a "spiritual presence" or a "feeling" of God's
nearness or God "in our hearts." We are dealing with geography: He was born in Palestine.
Politically He was born when a census was taken, when there was danger of political revolution,
and He Himself was expected to be a political revolutionary (Mt 2:3-5; Lk 1:51-53).
Economically He Himself was poor as He was born into a relatively poor family (evidenced by
the fact that His parents could only afford pigeons as sacrifice rather than a lamb—a fitting
sacrifice by those with means), born in a barn, and he came to help the poor (1:53; 6:20ff.). The
birth of Jesus points to the fact that we are not just talking about religious ideas and doctrines; we
are talking about history.
The Christmas story, therefore, is anything but the sentimental, harmless, once-a-year
occasion for a "Christmas spirit" that lasts only a few days before we return to the "facts"
of the "real world." Christmas is the story of the radical invasion of God into the kind of real
world where we live all year long—a world where there is unrest, injustice, poverty, hatred,
jealousy and greed.
The oldest of all promises is that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the
serpent:

144
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her
seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gn 3:15).
The "serpent" is Satan, and the "seed" who should destroy him is described emphatically
as the woman's seed. Literally it was the woman through whom sin had entered the race and it is
literally by the seed of the woman that salvation would also come. It was through Eve that sin
entered this world (although Paul in speaking theologically refers to sin coming through "the first
man, Adam") and it is through Mary that salvation for sin is provided. While the promise to
Abraham was that in his seed the families of the earth would be blessed thereby emphasizing the
blessings through the male, here the blessing is given to Mary as she represents the female.
The second promise of a virgin-born son was given by Isaiah:
"The Lord Himself will give you a sign; behold, a young woman [virgin] shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (Isa 7:14).
This is the prophecy quoted as fulfilled in Christ's birth in Matthew (Mt 1:23), and it
seems also alluded to in the glowing promises to Mary in Luke (1:32-33).
Some have objected that the term "virgin" in Isaiah does not necessarily bear this
meaning but rather that it merely denotes "a young unmarried woman." The context, however,
seems clearly to lay an emphasis on the unmarried state, and therefore the translators of the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) understood it this way when they
rendered it as the Greek word parthenos, a word which does mean "virgin."
It is also significant that the Jews themselves do not seem to have applied this prophecy at
any time to the Messiah—a fact which disproves the theory that it was this text which suggested
a story of a virgin birth by the early disciples.
While all other people receive their human nature by natural descent from father and
mother, Jesus is not descended from a human couple, from Joseph and Mary, but from Mary
alone, that is to say, from Mary the virgin that came about through the activity of the Holy Spirit:
"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. His mother Mary was pledged
[betrothed] to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. . . . an angel of the Lord
appeared to him [Joseph] in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be
afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is
from the Holy Spirit'" (Mt 1:18,20).
The Holy Spirit exerted His miraculous power on the Virgin Mary so that she, the virgin,
became mother of the Son of God according to the human nature. It was a miraculous
conception. Luke describes this miraculous occurrence:

was
145
"The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of
the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called
the Son of God'" (Lk 1:35).
For this reason Jesus is called "the Seed of the Woman" (Gn 3:15).
The Christian Church has from the beginning believed and confessed that Jesus Christ
● "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary" (Apostle's Creed)
● "He was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" (Nicene Creed)
● "Of Mary the Virgin" (Chalcedonian Symbol)
The Christian Church has stubbornly clung to this confession against the ancient error of
the Ebionites, Cerinthus, some Gnostics and Arians, and liberal theologians of all shades and
stripes. Their appeal to the "laws of nature" (that such a "miracle" is inconceivable) is silenced,
once and for all by Luke's affirmation immediately following his account of this miraculous
birth:
"For nothing is impossible with God" (Lk 1:37).
Mary herself was perplexed when she was told what was to happen to her:
"How will this be since I am a virgin?" (v. 34).
"The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of
the Most High will overshadow you" (v. 35).
Mary, knowing that by nature it was impossible that she, not knowing a man, should
nevertheless conceive and give a birth. The angel agrees with Mary in this and simply teaches
her to look to God's omnipotence. As to the "laws of nature," it must be kept in mind that God is
not bound by them, but they are bound to God, since the laws of nature are nothing else than
God's operation in and through His creation (Gn 1:11-12; Ps 104:13-14).
This explanation satisfied Mary who responded:
"I am the Lord's servant. May it be to me as You have said" (Lk 1:38).
The phrase "conceived by the Holy Spirit" does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a
substitute for the human male in the conception and birth of Jesus. The Church has never held
that the Spirit is the "father" of Jesus. There are many pagan mythologies about gods having
intercourse with human females producing half-breed offspring which are a combination of both.

But the biblical accounts of the virgin birth are not examples of such mythology. None of the
gospel writers tell us about a Jesus who is somehow superhuman but less than God, a
combination or mixture neither quite human nor quite divine.
146
One of the most common heresies of our time is the belief that Jesus had a human body
but a divine soul or mind, will or spirit. "Outside" or "externally" He was a man, but "inside" or
"internally" He was God. This kind of half-and-half Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible or of
Christian theology. This understanding of Him was espoused by a heresy in the fourth century
called Apollinarianism.
Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ are not given for the
purpose of providing a biological explanation of the two natures. Rather the Word became flesh
purely by the will and word of God. God spoke, and Mary heard and responded. The proper
analogy here is not the physical process of conception and birth but God's creation of all things at
the beginning when He simply spoke and it was done.
The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is not an explanation much less a proof of
what happened and how it happened when God came to us in the form (nature) of a man. The
doctrine is only a way of confessing the mystery that it did in fact happen.
Any person who believes Genesis 1:1 that "in the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth" should have no problem with anything else, with any other miracle. If God can create
this universe out of nothing, surely no miracle is too great for Him to perform. To stumble over
the doctrine of the virgin birth is ludicrous once one accepts Genesis 1:1.
Some have argued that a virgin birth provides no help in explaining the sinlessness of
Jesus. Since Mary herself was sinful (which has been the historic position of the Church, except
for the Roman Catholic Church since 1854 when they introduced the "immaculate conception" of
Mary and then in 1950 began to teach the "assumption of Mary into heaven") it is held that the
taint of corruption would be conveyed by one parent as really as by two. It only takes one parent
to pass on a sinful human nature.
Such an argument overlooks the most important factor—the fact that Jesus was
"conceived by the Holy Spirit." What happened was a divine, creative miracle wrought in the
production of this new humanity which secured, from its earliest germinal beginnings,
freedom from the slightest taint of sin. Paternal generation in such an origin is superfluous since
the birth of Jesus was the birth of a divine Person—already existing in His divine nature as
the logos—but now entering this new mode of existence as divine and human: Godhood and
Manhood. Only a miracle could effect such a wonder!

147
8. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part II
Attributes, Bodily Resurrection, Purpose and Nature of the Incarnation

148
HUMAN ATTRIBUTES
Jesus was fully human in that He shared all the attributes of what it means to be human.
Normal Baby
Almighty God appeared on earth as a helpless human baby, unable to do more than lie,
stare, kick and make noises. He needed to be fed, changed and taught to talk like any other child.
Jesus was born of a woman, therefore He is human (Mt 1:18-2:12; Lk 1:30-38; 2:1-20;
Gal 4:4). He had a human ancestry like any other baby. He was born of the virgin Mary (the only
difference being that He did not have a human father), and was made of the seed of David (Ac
13:23; Ro 1:3). The names of His brothers are given, and His geneology on both sides of the
family is given in detail. Eight days after His birth He was circumcised just as any other Jewish
male baby would be (Lk 2:21). Mary also went to the Temple to have the purification ceremony
performed for her, which was required after childbirth (vv. 22-24).
Normal Boy
While medieval artists could picture the baby Jesus in the manger as a little adult, His
family and friends knew that He was a child and that He was a teenager, before He became a
mature adult. It did not occur to them to question whether it had been necessary for Him to grow
and mature. It is noteworthy that the only chapter in the gospels (Luke) about these early years
twice makes the statement that Jesus "developed" or "grew":
"And the child grew and became strong; He was filled with wisdom, and the grace
of God was upon Him" (v. 40).
"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (v. 52).
Jesus grew up like any other youngster. He had a normal boyhood. Like other boys He
learned His father's trade, that of a carpenter. He was in subjection to His human parents, Mary
and Joseph (v. 51). At the age of 12 He traveled to Jersualem to attend the Passover with His
mother and father. This was probably in preparation for His bar mitzvah the following year (at
age 13), when He would be permitted to join the religious community as a responsible member.
Human Appearance
Jesus, like everyone else, had a normal human appearance. In fact, He was so ordinary in
appearance that the Sanhedrin had to hire one of the twelve disciples (Judas) to point Him out in
the Garden of Gethsemane so they would not arrest the wrong man. The woman of Samaria did
not recognize anything unusual about Jesus' appearance. As far as she was concerned when she
first saw Him, He was just another hated Jew (Jn 4:9).

149
To the two discouraged disciples traveling on the Emmaus road, Jesus was merely another
fellow-citizen, out of touch with recent events (that is, the death of the carpenter of Nazareth—
24:18). Even after the resurrection when Jesus appeared in His glorified body, Mary at first
mistook Him for the gardener (20:15). When His most intimate followers and friends returned
from a fishing expedition, they at first identified Jesus as another person (21:4-5).
In the cases of the disciples, on the Emmaus road and of Mary's, it needs to be pointed
out that Jesus' appearances to them were as the Risen Lord. It is possible that the reason they did
not recognize Him was because He looked a little different, after all, He was now in His
resurrection body. Yet we know from what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus' resurrection
body (glorified body) was basically the same as His preresurrection body. After all, the marks of
His nail prints in His hands and side were still evident as the doubting Thomas found out. That is
how Thomas knew for sure this resurrected Jesus was the Jesus he had known previously (Jn
20:24-29). Probably the most plausible explanation is that Jesus intentionally prevented some of
His followers from recognizing Him immediately. Luke points out that this happened on at least
one occasion:
"As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus Himself came up
and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing Him."
(24:15-16)
As a man Jesus was ordinary in every sense of the word. While John the Baptizer wore
animal skins and ate honey and locust, Jesus did not. His harshest critics were super-religious
and therefore criticized Him for not fasting more and eating less. Jesus' appearance was not that
of a wild-eyed fanatic, a raving religious freak, or an ascetic zealot wearing a peculiar hair style
and strange clothes. He was not odd in appearance. He looked like everyone else.
Because Jesus laid aside His divine glory and dignity (Jn 17:5), He possessed the normal
powers and faculties of man (1 Th 5:23). Jesus spoke of His body (Mt 26:12; see also Heb.
10:5,10), He referred to His soul (Mt 26:38; Jn 12:27), and He spoke of His spirit (Lk 23:46; see
also Mk 2:8; 8:12)—elements essential to humanity.
It is important to see that the humanity of Christ includes the material and immaterial. It
was not that the humanity provided only the body while the deity provided the soul and spirit
in the person of Christ. The humanity was complete and therefore included both material and
immaterial aspects.
HUMAN REPUTATION
Jesus knew Himself to be a man for His response to the first temptation is,
"Man shall not live by bread alone" (Mt 4:4).

150
He referred most often to Himself in human terms. He called Himself "Son of Man"
thirty times in Matthew, fourteen times in Mark, twenty-five times in Luke and eleven times in
John—eighty in all. By that title Jesus linked Himself with man as the representative of all
humanity.
There is a moving passage in which the great Russian novelist Turgenev has described
how once there came to him, in a kind of vision, a swift and wonderful insight into the meaning
of the humanity of Jesus.
"I saw myself, a youth, almost a boy, in a low-pitched wooden church. The slim
wax candles gleamed, spots of red, before the old pictures of the saints. There
stood before me many people, all fair-haired peasant heads. From time to time,
they began swaying, falling, rising again, like the ripe ears of wheat when the wind
in summer passes over them. All at once a man came up from behind me. I did not
turn towards him, but I felt that the man was Christ. Emotion, curiosity, awe
overmastered me. I made an effort and looked at my neighbor. A face like
everyone's, a face like all men's faces. 'What sort of Christ is this?' I thought. 'Such
an ordinary, ordinary man. It cannot be.' I turned away, but I had hardly turned my
eyes from this ordinary man when I felt again that it was really none other than
Christ standing beside me. Only then I realized that just such a face is the face of
Christ—a face like all men's faces."1
"A face like everyone's, a face like all men's faces." That is the full identification of
Jesus with humanity.
Sometimes when others referred to Him as the "Son of God" He immediately added the
title "Son of Man" as if to emphasize His two natures (Mt 26:63-64; Jn 1:49). Jesus was also
called "man" by others (Ac 2:22; 1 Co 15:21).
The title "Son of Man" also finds its Old Testament background in the vision of Daniel in
which the "Son of Man" was a pre-existent heavenly being who comes to earth with the glorious
Kingdom of God. Thus by designating Himself the "Son of Man," Jesus claimed to be the
Messiah; but by the way in which He used the term, He indicated that His Messiahship was of a
very different order from that which was popularly expected. By using the title "Son of Man"
Jesus laid claim to messianic dignity but interpreted that messianic office in His own way.
HUMAN NAMES
Like everyone else Jesus had human names. His primary name "Jesus" is the Greek
equivalent for the Hebrew name "Joshua." Other names given to Him are "Son of Abraham" (Mt.
1:1), "Son of David" (v. 1), and "Son of Man" (82 times in the New Testament).

151
Jesus is repeatedly called and known as a "man."
● He was known as a man (Jn 7:27; 9:29; 1 Ti 2:5).
● He applied the term to Himself (Jn. 8:40).
● Others called Him man (Jn. 1:30; Ac 2:22; 13:38; 1 Co 15:21,47).
● He was known as a Jew (Jn 4:9).
● He was accused of blasphemy for calling Himself but a man (10:33).
● He was still known as a man after the resurrection (20:15; 21:4,50).
● Today he exists as a man (1 Ti 2:5).
● In glory He is known as a man (Col 2:9; 1 Ti 2:5).
● When He comes again He comes as a man (Mt 16:27-28; 26:64-65; 28:31).
● He will judge the world as a man (Ac 17:31).
HUMAN EMOTIONS
Our emotional lives as well as our bodily experiences are a very important part of our
being human. And Jesus had emotions just like all other people. He was joyful (Jn 15:11; 17:13;
Heb. 12:2). He was sorrowful (Mt. 26:37). He was astonished at the faith of the Centurion (Lk
7:9) and at the unbelief of the people of Nazareth (Mk 6:6). At times He could be grieved to
the point of anger (Mt 15:7; 23:27,33; 15:14; Jn 8:44) and even indignation ("deeply moved
and troubled"—Mt 9:30; Mk. 1:43; 10:14; 14:5). And the emotion most frequently attributed to
Jesus is compassion or pity. This is His expression of deep love when confronted by the
desperate need of fallen men and women whether those needs were physical (Mt 20:34; Mk
1:41; 8:2-3; Lk 7:13) or spiritual (Mt 9:36; 14:14; Mk 6:34).
Some of the most human aspects of Jesus' personality is found in those passages where
He is troubled or distressed in one way or another. John tells us that at the tomb of Lazarus He
"groaned in the spirit" (King James Version) or was "deeply moved and troubled" (New
International Version). The verb used here is one that is used of horses snorting. Jesus was
deeply hurt, grieved and angry. John also adds that on this sad occasion Jesus wept (Jn 11:35).
Jesus also wept aloud over the stubborn unbelief of the city of Jerusalem (Lk 19:41).
Jesus was also deeply troubled at the prospect of His death. Luke speaks of Him as being
"under constraint" or "distressed" (New International Version) until His sufferings should be
accomplished (Lk 12:50). John says that His soul was "troubled" (Jn 12:27). In Gethsemane
Jesus longed for human companionship (Mt 26:37f.). As He prayed in the Garden He was in
"anguish" and as He prayed earnestly "sweat like drops of blood" fell to the ground (Lk 22:44).
On the cross Jesus voiced a cry of human desolation as He cried out, "My God, My God, why
have You forsaken Me?" (Mk 15:34). It is a very human Jesus that we see undergoing these
experiences.

152
HUMAN LIMITATIONS
As strange as it seems, Jesus also evidenced human limitations. He was moved by
instincts normal to human beings. The gospel records make plain that He was subject to all the
ordinary sinless limitations associated with humanity. As someone put it:
"There is not a note in the great organ of our humanity which, when touched,
does not find a sympathetic vibration in the mighty scope and range of our
Lord's being, save, of course, the jarring discord of sin."2
Like every other human being, Jesus hungered (Mt 4:2; 21:18; Mk 11:12). Yet the Bible
states that God does not hunger (Ps 50:12). He thirsted (Jn 19:28). But God never thirsts.
After days of hard work, He was weary (Jn 4:6). Yet God is never weary (Isa. 40:28). When
Jesus became tired, He slept (Mt 8:24). But God neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps 121:4). Jesus
was limited in knowledge (Mk 5:30-34; 11:13; 13:32; Jn 11:34). God certainly is not limited in
any category, much less in knowledge. Jesus was also dependent upon His Father for strength,
therefore He prayed (Mk 1:35; Jn 6:15; Heb 5:7). God, by definition, is not dependent on anyone
or anything; He is complete in and of Himself.
Because Christ laid aside His divine prerogatives, His divine glory and dignity, and
submitted Himself to God the Father in every way, His knowledge and power was limited. Jesus
asked questions. And He did so for the most part to find out answers. In many situations He
simply did not know.
Jesus was not like the schoolteacher who, when he asks questions, already knows the
answers and does so only for the benefit of the student. When, for example, Jesus asked the
father of the epileptic, "How long has he been like this?" (Mk 9:21) the clear impression we get
is that He wanted information. He asked the sick woman who reached out to Him, "Who touched
My clothes?" (5:30). At the feeding of the five thousand, He asked the boy, "How many loaves
do you have?" (6:38) He asked this question with the obvious impression that He did not know.
Concerning the date of His second coming, Jesus explicitly stated that He did not know when
this would be (13:32).
At other times, however, He displayed supernatural knowledge. But so did the apostles.
The apostle Peter supernaturally perceived that Ananaias and Sapphira had lied to the Holy Spirit
and deceived the church (Ac 5:3-4,7-9). It is not surprising, therefore, if Jesus knew of the
Samaritan woman's shady past (Jn 4:17f.), that He knew that when Peter went fishing that the
first fish he would catch would have a coin in its mouth (Mt 17:27) or that Lazarus was dead
without anyone telling Him (Jn 11:11-13).
Jesus limited Himself to the knowledge, power, and authority that is available to Him
only through the Spirit of God as He depends solely and fully on the Father.

153
It is because of His complete dependence upon the Father that Jesus spends so much time
in communion with Him in prayer (Mk 1:35; 6:46; Lk 3:21). Sometimes He prayed all night
(6:12), which eloquently shows His sense of need. Even His enemies bore witness to His trust in
God (Mt 27:43). If Jesus needed time with God the Father, how much more do we need it.
ENTIRE SUBMISSION
Jesus' weaknesses or limitations must be seen in the light of His entire submission to the
Father's will. Jesus is not an independent divine person, but a dependent divine human person
who thinks and acts only and wholly as the Father directs.
"For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him
who sent Me. . . . I do nothing on My own but speak just what the Father has
taught Me. The one who has sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I
always do what pleases Him" (Jn 8:29).
The phrase, "what the Father has taught Me" shows the limitations that Christ took upon
Himself in becoming a man and it shows His complete submission to the will and purpose of His
Father.
Jesus did not know independently, any more than He acted independently. Jesus did not
do all that He could have done, because certain things were not His Father's will.
"Do you think I cannot call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal
more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled
that say it must happen in this way?" (Mt 26:53-54).
In the same way Jesus did not know all that He might have known, but only what the
Father willed Him to know. His knowledge and power, like the rest of His attributes and activity,
was limited or subject to His Father's will. Jesus was sent on a mission. He had come to
accomplish God's divine purpose and whatever knowledge was necessary for the fulfillment of
that mission was given to Jesus, but in other matters His genuine humanity gives Him no
advantage over us in our knowledge of the things of God.
Jesus did not live a serene life, knowing all the time all the secrets of the universe,
knowing the thoughts of everyone about Him, knowing the outcome of every course of action in
which He or they were engaging. Jesus did not automatically draw on His inherent divine powers
when He got caught in a difficult situation. Jesus did not use His divine prerogatives to impress
people. He drew upon the divine power only as He looked to the Father in complete
dependence upon the Holy Spirit to meet human need.

154
TOTAL DEPENDENCE
The same knowledge, power and authority that was available to Jesus is now available to
us. Jesus promised:
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded
you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age" (Mt 28:18-20).
The implication here is that because Jesus has committed Himself to be with us forever
that His authority and power is available to us so that we can fulfill the Father's will: Going into
the entire world, discipling and baptizing all nations and teaching them everything Jesus has
commanded. Power for holy living and effective service is available to us as it was to Jesus,
only in complete, utter dependence upon the Father as we yield ourselves to the work of the Holy
Spirit.
We see paradox everywhere as we examine the dependence of the Son on the Father.
Christology is more than anywhere else interwoven with the paradoxical human confession:
"I . . . yet not I, but the Father." On the one hand we have Jesus making His human choice
moment by moment, a choice on which everything depends:
● "The one who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone for I always do what
pleases Him" (Jn 8:29).
● "The reason My Father loves Me is that I lay down My life—only to take it up
again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have
authority to lay it down and to take it up again. This command I received
from My Father" (10:17-18).
Yet on the other hand all Jesus' words and choices depended on God the Father:
● "By Myself I can do nothing. I judge only as I hear, and My judgment is just,
for I seek not to please Myself but Him who sent Me" (5:30).
● "Jesus gave them this answer: 'I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by
Himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever
the Father does the Son also does" (v. 19).
● "Jesus answered, 'My teaching is not My own. It comes from Him who sent
Me. . . . He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he
who works for the honor of the One who sent Him is a man of truth; there
is nothing false about Him" (7:16,18).

155
● "The Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, 'Yes, you know Me,
and you know where I am from. I am not here on My own, but He who
sent Me is true. You do not know Him, but I know Him because I am from
Him and He sent Me'" (vv. 28-29).
● "For I do not speak of My own accord, but the Father who sent Me
commanded Me what to say and how to say it" (12:49).
● "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me?
The words I say to you are not just My own. Rather, it is the Father,
living in Me, who is doing His work" (14:10).
It is remarkable that while Jesus makes the very highest claims possible, He does so in
such a way that they sound like disclaimers. The higher the claims the more they point to God
the Father. Although it is a real man who is making these claims, they are simply not human
claims at all. There is no claim to human achievement or attainment. As Karl Barth points out,
the holiness of Jesus means that He did not treat His own goodness as an independent thing. He
renounces all claim to ethical heroism. His claims are made on the basis of God's grace. This
God-Man is the only man who claims nothing for Himself. But He does claim all for God. This
powerfully shows His total dependence.
HUMAN TEMPTATIONS
Jesus was subject to temptation just as we are. He who made man was to learn what it
felt like to be man. It is ironic that He who made the angel who became the devil (Lucifer) was
in a state (manhood) in which He could be tempted.
At the very beginning of His ministry He was tempted in the desert, and at the end, in
Gethsemane. He was also tempted on other occasions as is evident from Luke's statement that
the devil left Jesus "until an opportune time" (Lk 4:13). The temptations are another important
evidence of the true humanity of Jesus. For as James points out,
"For God cannot be tempted by evil" (Jas 1:13).
Yet Jesus was! And His temptation was real:
"Because he Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who
are being tempted" (Heb 2:18).
Jesus' temptations were not a charade. He was not play acting. He "suffered" when He
was tempted. There was struggle and wrestling as most graphically depicted in the Garden of
Gethsemane. Because of this Jesus knows how enticing and tempting temptation is.

156
To argue that because Jesus was sinless He could not have experienced real temptation is
to assume that if a person does not commit certain sins it must be because he never felt the
appeal of them. But that is simply not true. We can all testify to that. How much more so in the
case of Jesus!
Jesus' temptation was not exactly like ours in that He did not experience the
consciousness of past sin. But neither did Adam, our representative. And he (Adam) fell! Jesus
actually felt the power of temptation much more than we ever have or will. Only the person who
does not yield to a temptation knows the full extent of that temptation.
The person who yields to a particular temptation has not felt its full power because he
gives in before its awful enticement. We reach our limits in withstanding the agonies of the pain
of temptation and collapse before its awesome force. The awful allurement, the tension, is
relieved when we sin.
Jesus is the only human being who has never given in to sin. He is the only one who has
endured to the utmost the strength of temptation. He is the one person who has known and felt
the full power and depth of temptation by the ultimate tempter himself—Satan, and yet did not
succumb. Never was man tempted as He was!
The Bible is clear in pointing out that Jesus experienced every kind of temptation:
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weak-
nesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are,
yet without sin" (Heb 4:15).
"Tempted in every way—just as we are" shows Jesus' identification with us in our
temptations. The only difference, which is a huge difference, is that He was "without sin."
HUMAN SUFFERING
Jesus was able to identify with man in His suffering only because He was and is a man.
It was through His sufferings that He was really identified with men. If Jesus had come into this
world in a form in which he could never have suffered, He would have been different from
people, and because He would have been different from people, He would have been no Savior
for people. Jeremy Taylor put it:
"When God would save men, He did it by way of a man."3
How opposite the Greek idea of God! Whereas the basis of the Greek concept of God is
detachment, the basis of the Christian idea of God is identity. It was through His sufferings that
Jesus identified Himself with man at the deepest core of his (man's) being.

157
Jurgen Moltmann in his book, The Crucified God, states:
". . . a God who cannot suffer is poorer than any man. For a God who cannot suffer
is a being who cannot be involved. Suffering and injustice do not affect him. And
because he is so completely insensitive, he cannot be affected or shaken by anything.
He cannot weep, for he has no tears. But the one who cannot suffer cannot love
either. So he is also a loveless being.
Aristotle's God cannot love; he can only be loved by all non-divine beings by virtue
of his perfection and beauty, and in this way draw them to him. The 'unmoved
Mover' is a 'loveless Beloved'.If he is the ground of the love (eros) of all things for
him (causa prima), and at the same time his own cause (causa sui), he is the beloved
who is in love with himself; a Narcissus in a metaphysical degree: Deus incurvatus
in se. But a man can suffer because he can love, even as a Narcissus, and he always
suffers only to the degree that he loves. If he kills all love in himself, he no longer
suffers. He becomes apathetic. But in that case is he a God? Is he not rather a
stone?"4
Jesus, because He came as a man, came to know all the vicissitudes of life: trials, joys,
losses, gains, temptations, griefs, disappointements, misunderstandings, etc. He entered into
them, understood them, and thereby became a paradigm for us that we should go through these
experiences as He did. It is also an encouragement to us to go to Him in prayer, knowing that He
understands what we are going through:
"For surely it is not with angels that He [Christ] is concerned but with the
descendants of Abraham. Therefore He had to be made like His brothers in every
respect, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service
of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because He Himself has
suffered and been tempted He is able to help those who are tempted" (Heb 2:16-18).
HUMAN DEATH
Jesus had to become a man in order to be able to die. The incarnation made it possible for
Jesus Christ to die:
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wherefore, when He [Christ] comes into the world, He says, 'Sacrifice and offering
is not Your desire, but a body have You prepared for Me for in burnt offerings
and sacrifices for sin You have no pleasure.' Then said I, 'I come (in the volume of
the book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God'" (10:4-7).
A "body" made it possible for Jesus Christ to die. A physical body is essential since that
is very much a part of who or what a person is: body and soul. Only a human being can die a
physical death (except for an animal which also has a physical body).

158
Jesus' humanity made it possible to become a sacrifice for humanity. By assuming a body
Jesus could offer up that body as the perfect sacrifice for man's sin. Thus it is not just His deity
but also His humanity which makes His sacrificial death possible:
"Since the children have flesh and blood, He [Christ] too shared in their humanity
so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is,
the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of
death" (2:14-15).
One of the purposes of Jesus' death is also given: "to destroy him who holds the power of
death--that is, the devil."
By this destruction believers can be freed from their fear of death. Jesus has not only
dealt with our fear of the past but also our fear of the future. Freedom from the fear of death is
guaranteed for those who put their trust in the man Jesus.
J. B. Phillips, while working on his paraphrase of the New Testament, shares how
impressed he was with the deeply human nature of Christ's sufferings as he was translating the
accounts in the gospels:
"The record of the behavior of Jesus on the way to the cross and of the crucifixion
itself is almost unbelievable, chiefly because it is so intensely human. If, as I believe,
this was indeed God focused in a human being, we can see for ourselves that here is
no play acting; this is the real thing. There are no supernatural advantages for this
man. No celestial rescue party delivered Him from the power of evil men, and His
agony was not mitigated by any superhuman anaesthetic. We can only guess what
frightful anguish of mind and spirit wrung from him the terrible words 'My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' But the cry 'It is finished!' cannot be one of
despair. It does not even mean 'It is all over.' It means 'It has been completed'—
and the terrifying task of doing God's will to the bitter end had been fully and finally
accomplished.'"5
It is this suffering and death that helps us to know that Jesus experienced what we
experience. And this was possible only because He is one of us!
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Most cults deny the "bodily" resurrection of Jesus Christ. Like Greek philosophy they
affirm a spiritual resurrection. For instance, the Watchtower of the Jehovah's Witnesses states:

159
"The firstborn one from the dead was not raised out of the grave a human creature,
but he was raised a spirit. . . . if, when he was resurrected, Jesus had taken
back his human body of flesh and blood, which he had been given in sacrifice to
pay the ransom price, what effect would that have had on the provision he was
making to relieve faithful persons of the debt of sin?"6
Instead, at physical death a person ceases to exist:
"For [bodily resurrection] to be possible, of course, humans would have to have
An immaterial soul that could separate from the physical body. The Bible
does not teach such a thing."7
The Jehovah's Witnesses further believe Jehovah "recreated" the "spirit being" who had
once been Michael the Archangel but who now has ceased being Michael to become Jesus. This
Jesus is only a man, though the greatest man that ever lived, and He surrendered His human
existence on the cross. This recreation "involves a reactivating of the life pattern of the
individual, which life pattern God has retained in his memory."
This flies in the face of historic Christianity where the bodily resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth is the pivot on which every other teaching rests. Do away with the bodily resurrection
of Jesus and you do destroy the very foundation and fabric of the Christian religion (1 Co 15:12-
19).
Jesus of Nazareth, however, was raised bodily, victorious over death, sin, and Satan. He
was raised in the same material body in which He had died, but now His body was resurrected
and glorified.
Pointers to a Bodily Resurrection
The gospels go to great lengths to attest that the resurrection of Jesus was a bodily
resurrection. Here lies the significance of the empty tomb. The empty tomb by itself was a
puzzling fact that needed explanation. Mark records that the first reaction of the women to the
empty tomb as well as to the message of the angels was not that of belief and excitement, but of
fear and astonishment (Mk 16:1-5).
Luke tells us of two disciples who knew of the empty tomb but did not believe the
resurrection until they were confronted by the risen Jesus (Lk 24:22-35).
John relates that Mary could not conclude from the empty tomb that Jesus' body had been
raised:
"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and
said, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they
have put Him'" (Jn 20:2).

160
It was not the empty tomb that aroused belief in John, the disciple, it was the
appearance of the grave clothes (vv. 6-8). John adds an explanation,
"They [the disciples] still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to
rise from the dead" (v. 9).
Apart from the appearances of Jesus, the empty tomb was an enigma. The empty tomb by
itself does not guarantee the bodily resurrection of Jesus, on the other hand, the bodily
resurrection of Jesus requires an empty tomb.
Physical Senses
The bodily character of Jesus' resurrection is also attested by the fact that His body made
an impression on the physical senses:
"Suddenly Jesus met them [the disciples]. 'Greetings,' He said. They came to Him,
clasped His feet and Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to [detain] Me, for I have not yet
returned to the Father'" (v. 17).
Jesus complied with Thomas' test to prove the resurrection in that he was to touch the
same body with his own hands:
"Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, 'put your finger here; see My hands. Reach out
your hand and put it into My side'" (v. 27).
Thomas' response was literally, "My [the] Lord and my [the] God" which is translated,
"My Lord and my God." This attests to Jesus' preeminence over death and thus His absolute
deity.
Jesus' body was not only capable of being seen and felt, but His voice was capable of
being heard. Jesus said to Thomas, "see My hands" (v. 27). Jesus addressed Mary of Magdala,
"Mary." The Bible states that Mary "turned toward Him and cried out in Aramaic, 'Rabboni!'"
(which means "Teacher"—v. 16). Could it be that Mary recognized Jesus by the tone of His
voice when He pronounced her name?
Jesus was also capable of eating. This does not mean that He needed to eat, only that He
could if He wished. He ate a piece of fish in the presence of His disciples (Lk 24:22-23). Jesus'
presence was in tangible, visible, bodily form. The phrase "in their presence" suggests that Jesus
ate for the disciples' benefit . . . as a further sign or proof that His risen body was a real physical
body.

161
Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the disciples on one occasion made the mistake of
regarding the resurrected Christ as only a spirit-being. The Bible explains that when Jesus
appeared they supposed they were seeing a spirit (Lk. 24:37). But Jesus calmed their fears by
showing them His hands and feet, announcing that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as
you see I have" (v. 39).
Jesus specifically prophecies the nature of His resurrection:
"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.'
The Jews replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and You are
going to raise it in three days?' But the temple He had spoken of was His body.
After He was raised from the dead, His disciples recalled what He had said.
Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken" (vv. 19-21).
This passage clearly establishes that Jesus' resurrection was physical, since the same
temple (body) that His enemies would destroy is the one He promised to raise up.
The response of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the above passages is:
"Jesus evidently materialized bodies on these occasions as angels had done in
the past when appearing to humans . . . to strengthen the conviction of the
disciples that Jesus had actually been raised."8
Nowhere in Scripture are there any references to angels having a "body." While they can
manifest themselves in "bodily form," they do not possess bodies. Furthermore, to claim that
Jesus "materialized bodies" on various occasions as angels had done makes no sense whatsoever
since His resurrection, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, was not supposed to be bodily.
Why would a physical body be proof of a predicted immaterial resurrection? Such an
explanation makes Jesus out to be a deliberate deceiver by indulging, and even encouraging, His
disciples to hold an erroneous idea of a material body proving an immaterial resurrection.
Paul makes it clear that Christ, now in heaven, still possesses a body since he stated
concerning Jesus Christ:
". . . in Him the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9).
It was at least twenty years after the resurrection that Paul was writing his epistle to the
Christians at Colossae. Yet he uses the present tense of the word "dwell" indicating that deity "is
dwelling" bodily in Jesus even then as he writes. If this is so, then deity is also dwelling in
heaven now and forever. This is the clear meaning of the present tense.
While Paul says little about the nature of our life in the Eschaton (the Age to Come)
when Christ has finally abolished all enemies, he does make it clear that redemption includes
the physical creation:

162
"Creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the
Glorious liberty of the children of God" (Ro 8:21).
This new redeemed order of life lies "beyond history." It will embody a quality of life
such as history has never seen, and which is difficult to imagine—life no longer determined by
the so-called laws of nature, struggle for survival, and the rule of decay and death.
In addressing this immortal existence Paul says a great deal about individual existence.
He describes this in terms of the resurrection of the body. His teaching about resurrection had
been challenged in Corinth, and this leads him to devote considerable space (a whole chapter) to
the nature of the resurrection.
One view that Paul may be opposing is represented by those who could not conceive of
any kind of life after death. It is also possible that he was confronted by certain teachers who
held that the resurrection had already occurred, in which case it would be a "spiritual" and not
bodily resurrection (as in the case of those he was referring to in writing to Timothy—2 Ti
2:18). The most likely teaching that Paul was combating was that of Greek dualism which
accepted the immortality of the spirit after the death of the body but rejecting any resurrection
of the body.
The Resurrection of Jesus as a Paradigm of our Resurrection
Paul addresses such a false teaching by linking together inseparably the resurrection of
Christ and the resurrection of believers at the end of the age. The two primary points he makes
about the resurrection of believers is that their resurrection is bodily and it is a resurrection of a
transformed body. In facing the question, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do
they come?" we should keep in mind that there were certain Jewish teachings which held either
that the resurrection body will be identical to that of the mortal earthly body (2 Macc. 14:46) or
that the same earthly body would be raised and only later transformed (Apoc. Bar. 50:2).
Paul's first point is that the resurrection will be a resurrection of the body. Although
there are no perfect analogies for supernatural truth in the realm of nature, nevertheless Paul
uses a metaphor of sowing a naked seed which dies but from which comes forth a new body
(1 Co 15:35-38). The analogy is imperfect, in that, in the field of agriculture, the bare kernel
planted in the ground carries within itself the power of germination so that death is not the final
word, rather life is perpetuated. The resurrection, after all, is an act of God, not a process of
nature.
To the observer, it is still a great mystery how a dried-up, dead-looking seed of corn is
buried in the ground only to have a beautiful green blade spring forth. And Jesus used the parable
of seeds of grain (Mk 26:29) to teach the contrast between the present and future aspects of the
Kingdom which is entirely God's deed, not a process of nature. The point is that while one body
is buried in the ground, another body springs forth:

163
"But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its
own body" (1 Co 15:38).
Paul continues by saying that the resurrection body will be different from the mortal
body. He begins by pointing out that not all flesh is alike:
"There is one kind of flesh for men, another for animals, another for birds, another
for fish" (v. 39).
Paul is using the word "flesh" as synonymous with the word "body."
Later Paul states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (v. 50), that is,
our present earthly, mortal, decaying, sinful bodies cannot inherit the glorious world of immortal
life. The perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (v. 50). There is a mortal body and an
immortal body.
Paul illustrates this further:
"There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of
the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another; and stars differ from star in
splendor" (vv. 40-41).
Although these illustrations from nature and astronomy do not prove the resurrection,
they do throw light on the fact that there can be a body in the resurrection which is different yet
similar from the mortal body that is buried.
Paul continues by describing the resurrection body. While he does not describe the
composition or matter of the physical body, he does point out its characteristics. The mortal body
is perishable, dishonoring, and weak; the resurrection body will be imperishable, glorious,
and powerful (vv. 42-43). What Paul says about the body is parallel to what he says about the
deliverance of creation from its bondage and decay. Salvation means the salvation of the whole
man, not merely of his soul or spirit.
Here Paul teaches the Hebrew (Old Testament) view of man. In biblical thought, earthly
bodily existence in itself is good. It is an evil only because "creation was subjected to futility"
(Ro 8:20) because of man's sin. Therefore when redemption is complete, the whole creation—the
whole man will be redeemed. As biblical scholar George Ladd put it:
"The ultimate destiny of man is a redeemed, transfigured earth, dwelling in redeemed,
transfigured bodies."10

Paul summarizes his argument by saying, "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a
spiritual body" (1 Co 15:44). When Paul uses the words "spiritual body" he does not mean
spiritual in the sense of "noncorporeal." The translation "physical body" is not quite accurate
since the Greek word has no equivalent term in English.
164
The Greek word is psychikon, from psyche which means "life" or "soul." The physical-the
mortal body—is not made of psyche; it is a body animated by psyche.
In the same way the resurrection body will not be made of pneuma--spirit. It is true that
some Greek philosophers did not consider pneuma to be nonmaterial as we do; they thought of
pneuma as a very fine, invisible, celestial substance capable of interpenetrating all other forms of
being. However such an understanding of "spirit" is totally foreign to Scripture. "Spirit" to Paul
is God's spirit--the Holy Spirit. The resurrection body will be one which is completely animated
and empowered by the Spirit of God.
Although Paul does conceive of God's spirit as dwelling in believers here and now, the
sphere of the Spirit's work in this life is the human spirit, not the human body. When Paul tells
the believers at Ephesus that they once were dead but now have been made alive, he refers to
spiritual life. In spirit, we have been made alive with Christ. In spirit, we have been raised up
with Him. In spirit, we have been exalted to heaven and seated at the right hand of God with
Christ (Eph 2:5-6). Again Paul says:
"But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits
are alive because of righteousness" (Ro 8:10).
In the next verse, Paul makes it clear that to have Christ dwelling in a person is identical
to having the Spirit indwell a person (v. 11). This is why Paul can affirm that we have this
treasure of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ in "jars of clay" (2 Co
4:7) which are subject to all kinds of sufferings.
The "spiritual body" (pneumatikon soma), therefore, is a bodytransformed by the "lifegiving
Spirit" of God adapted for existence in the new redeemed order of the Age to Come.
Such existence is "beyond history" not in the sense that it is unreal or nonexistent, but in that it is
an order of existence in which the "laws of nature" and normal historical causality no longer
apply.
Related to this order of existence we find Jesus saying:
"The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are
considered worthy of taking part in that age [the Age to Come] and in the
resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and
they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children
since they are children of the resurrection. But in the account of the bush,

165
even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God
of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive" (Lk 20:34-36).
Historical existence in every culture is based in one way or another on the sex drive-family,
parents, children, husband, wives. The Age to Come is unimaginable because it is so
difficult to imagine existence in which these basic sociological, emotional and physical realities
will no longer prevail.
Paul adds:
"The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."
(1 Co 15:45)
When Paul states that the first Adam "became" a "living being" and the last Adam (Jesus)
"became" a "life-giving spirit" he is referring to the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus.
Only Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is the last Adam. God the Son, or the Word (logos)—still the
second person of the Godhead, as found before the birth of Jesus was not the last Adam. This is
so because previous to that first Christmas the second person of the trinity was only divine. At
that time He was sharing in the glory and majesty of the heavens with God the Father and God
the Spirit.
The last Adam had to be human. Otherwise He could not be Adam since the word or
name means "mankind." God, who is spirit, whether as Father, Redeemer, or Spirit, cannot be
referred to as "man." This would be ludicrous. Thus only the God-Man—Jesus Christ—qualifies.
To try to prove, therefore, that the above verse proves that the last Adam was created
because He is referred to as having "become" a "life-giving spirit" is totally unwarranted.
Here Paul contrasts the two heads of two different families: the family of Adam
consisting of all people; and the family of Christ consisting of believers, who are therefore
indwelt by the Spirit and who find their existence "in Christ."
The word describing "Adam" is literally "a living soul" (psyche). Adam's existence was
altogether on the level of psyche--natural, human life. As such, Adam—and all the children of
Adam—have "natural" (psychika) bodies. Christ in His resurrection entered into a new realm of
existence—a new order, which is nothing less than the invisible world of God—the Age to
Come. As such Paul calls him "a life-giving spirit." He has entered the spiritual realm, taking his
resurrected, glorified body with Him.
Paul expresses the same truth at other places such as 2 Corinthians:
"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (3:17).

166
While these words seem to identify the risen Lord and the Holy Spirit, at the same time,
Paul distinguishes between them. The point is that there is no difference between being in Christ
and being in the Spirit. To be "in the Spirit" means to be indwelt by the new life that is in Christ
(Ro 8:9). The same is true of being "in Christ" (2 Co 5:17). Such verses do not mean that
Christ and the Spirit are actually identical since Paul clearly differentiates between them by
speaking of "the Spirit of the Lord." However, since Christ entered the realm of the Spirit at His
resurrection, functionally and dynamically the Lord and the Spirit are one. The exalted Lord
works in the world and within His people through the Spirit.
Paul speaks of the two families in Adam and in Christ. By contrasting the first man
(Adam) who came from the earth with the second man (Christ) who comes from heaven (1 Co
15:47), Paul must be referring to the Parousia (Second Coming) of Christ since Christ in His
incarnation was also a son of Adam in that He had a "natural" mortal body.
The Bible assumes the existence of two worlds: the visible, natural, historical world of
people, and an invisible, "spiritual" world of God. Greek thought often taught that man's true
home was not the earth but the invisible, spiritual world which could be apprehended only by
disciplined minds. The good life, therefore, meant strict control of the bodily passions and the
careful cultivation of the mind. "Salvation" would be achieved by the "good man" when, at
death, he strips off the "burdensome body" and his soul is freed to find its way to the world of
ultimate reality.
This is not biblical theology. The entire Bible assumes that the created world, including
man in his bodily existence, is the creation of God and is therefore good. The evil in the world is
not intrinsic to its being creation. Rather creation along with man has suffered the penalty of
man's sin and lies under a curse. Salvation means the visitation of God from the invisible world
into the visible world of men.
God has abandoned neither man nor creation to their fallenness. God visited Abraham in
Haran to call him out to be the father of God's people. He visited Moses in the desert to make
him the deliverer of his people in Egypt. He visited Israel in her bondage to lead her to the
Promised Land and make her a nation. He visited Israel and Judah in judgment when both
nations became sinful and hopelessly apostate. He visited mankind in the incarnation, when "the
Word became flesh and dwelt among us" both to reveal Himself and to rescue fallen man. And
He will visit mankind again at His Second Coming to finish His work of redemption for the
whole world of creation.
Because creation is good, it must be redeemed from the curse of corruption. Because man
is God's creation—the apex of His creative power—redemption must mean the resurrection and
transformation of his very body. As long as sin, evil, corruption, decay, violence, and death
remain in the world, God's redemptive work remains ever incomplete.

167
In His incarnation, Jesus came from the glory of God (Jn 17:5) to bring the glory of God
to people in veiled, incarnate form. In His exaltation, He returned to the glory of God (Lk 24:26).
At His Parousia (Second Coming), He will bring the glory of God to earth with redeeming,
transforming power. Then both creation and creatures will share the divine glory.
The New Testament presents the resurrection of our Lord as the miraculous restoration
of His physical life, the reunion of His spirit with His body, and yet in such a way that the
material limitations, in which He had previously confined His life were set aside. The
resurrection was the beginning of the glorification (Lk 24:37; Jn 20:4,14,26; 21:4). Christ now
lives in heaven as a man, but in a glorified body (Php 3:21; Col 2:9; 3:4).
The resurrection of Christ is represented in Scripture as wrought by the power of God.
Its miraculous power is strongly proclaimed (Ac 13:30; Ro 1:4; 1 Co 15:15). The Scriptures
represent the resurrection not as something unnatural, but natural, since it is Christ, the Author
of Life, who rose. He could not be held by death! He would be raised from the dead (Ac 2:24).
The proclamation of the resurrection lies at the basis of apostolic teaching (Ac 1:22;
4:2,33; 17:18; 23:6; 1 Co 15:14). It ranks first among the miracles which bear witness to Christ's
divine character (Ro 1:4). It is the divine seal of approval upon Christ's atoning work (Ac 4:25;
5:10; 8:34). The resurrection of Jesus is the pledge and paradigm of the resurrection and
glorification of the true followers of Christ (Ro 8:11; 1 Co 15:20-22; Php 3:21; 1 Th 4:14).
The Purpose for the Incarnation
1. To confirm the prophecies of the Old Testament
a. The Statement of Prophecy
(1) The Protovangelium (Gn 3:15).
(2) The Promise reiterated (Isa 9:6; 7:14; Mic 5:2).
b. Types of Prophecy (concerning Jesus Christ)
(1) He was to be a Savior from sin (Isa 53:3-6; Da 9:26).
(2) He was to be a King in His Kingdom.
(2 Sa 7:8-17; Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Zec 14:9)
(3) He was to sit on the throne of David forever (Lk 1:31-33).
Accordingly when Jesus Christ came to earth, He appeared in a dual role:
As Son of David (King)
As Son of Abraham (Savior)

168
2. He came in order to reveal the Father (Jn 1:18; 14:9).
3. He came in order to be qualified to act as a faithful High Priest.
(Heb 2:17; cf. 5:1-5)
In order that Jesus Christ might become our High Priest, He must become a man. In
becoming a man, He partook of all human experiences except sin. He felt hunger, He wanted
sympathy, He was weary, He felt all temptations, He was misunderstood, He was forsaken, He
was persecuted, He was delivered to die.
4. He came to provide a sacrifice for sin (9:26; 10:1-10).
This was the "purpose of all purposes"
(see also Jn 1:29; Mk 10:45; 1 Jn 3:5; Isa 53:6; Heb 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:21).
5. He came to destroy the works of the Devil (Heb 2:14; Jn 14:30).
6. He came to give us an example of a holy life.
(inferred in Mt 11:29; 1 Jn 2:6: 1 Pe 2:21)
7. He came to prepare for the Second Advent (Heb 9:28).
We human beings were the motive of His Incarnation and it was for our salvation that
God loved man to the point of being born and of appearing in a human body.
The Nature of the Incarnation
The Nature of the incarnation is expounded most thoroughly in Philippians 2:5-8, the
passage that is sometimes called the "Kenotic Theory."
"Your attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, did not
consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the
form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
This passage of Scripture gives the true nature of the incarnation. The kenosis is the selfemptying
manner of existence that took place with the incarnation of Christ. This passage is in a
context of man's appearance to man, that is, men should not do things to be seen of men or to be
motivated by pride. In other words, the Christian is being exhorted to be a humble kind of
person not boasting about himself as though he has or is something better than his fellow man.

169
The writer proceeds by saying to have the same mind in you that was in Christ when He
became incarnate (His enfleshment). Christ could have come down to earth and even though He
would have taken on flesh, He could have appeared as God and God only as a result every knee
would have bowed to Him while He was on earth. But this He didn't do. Instead He emptied
Himself. This kenosis or "emptying" refers not to attributes but rights. It is a question not of
nature, essence, or substance, but of claim to power.
The passage deals with like-mindedness, unity, and humility. It stresses freedom from
self-assertion or grasping after privilege. Jesus' emptying, then, means that He emptied Himself
of the prerogative of deity—His rights, privileges, and intrinsic authority as God, to be honored
and glorified as God—and gave Himself to being seen, and heard, and treated like any other
person in the flesh, yet came as a servant.
This was not something that was foisted upon Him; He gave Himself to being a servant,
and becoming a servant He was true to the servant's obligation to be obedient. Full obedience
required that He die if He were to take away sin and effect redemption for the world. He not only
gave Himself to die but to the "death of the cross"—a death that entailed the shedding of blood
(Heb 9:22) and included the shame and ignominy of death by crucifixion.
Wherefore, God has given Christ what He gave up in becoming a man, i.e., the exaltation
as Lord, "a name that is above every name." At this name "every knee shall bow" (which was not
true while He was on earth), "every tongue should (shall) confess" that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father" (Php 2:9-10).
"The highest place that heaven affords
Is His, is His by right;
The King of kings and Lord of lords
And heaven's eternal Light."
--Anonymous
Jesus is worthy of the highest predicates that Christian faith can give. Only as the Church
breaks out in lyrical notes does she make up for the shortcomings of theological prose.
Jesus Christ became a man—"enfleshed" as prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. He
became incarnate that He might live as a man and thereby be able to take man's place in death.
The incarnation is the best established fact in history—God became man, lived, died the death of
the cross, and rose again.
The Scriptures then, clearly and distinctly teach that Jesus Christ is both human and
divine. Jesus Christ is both God and man—the God-Man.

170
9. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART I
Attributes, Offices, Prerogatives, Work

171
Evidence for the Deity of Jesus Christ
The deity of Jesus Christ is one of the cornerstones of Christianity, and as such, has been
attacked more vigorously throughout the ages than any other single doctrine of the Christian
faith.
The lines of evidence are more indirect and inferential than forthright and declarative.
Jesus did not parade His divine relationship nor bludgeon His hearers into submission by a
display of His deity, nor make overt claims to deity.
Biblical Names and Titles in the Old and New Testaments
Some claim that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. This, however, is not
true of biblical names and terms. Biblical names have to do with the nature or character of the
person named. The names ascribed or applied to Jesus Christ give insight into His character-who
He is.
● Last Adam (1 Co 15:45)
● Advocate (1 Jn 2:1)
● Almighty (Rev 1:8)
● Amen (3:14)
● Angel of the Lord (Gn 16:9-14; Jdg 6:11-14)
● Anointed (Ps 2:2)
● Apostle (Heb 3:1)
● Author & Finisher of our Faith (12:2)
● Alpha (Rev 1:8; 21:6)
● Babe (Lk 2:16)
● Beginning of Creation (Rev 3:14)
● Begotten of Father (Jn 1:14)
● Beloved (Eph 1:6)
● Bishop (1 Pe 2:25)
● Blessed (1 Ti 6:14)
● Branch (Zec 3:8)
● Brazen Serpent (Jn 3:14)
● Bridegroom (Mt 9:14)
● Bright Morning Star (Rev 22:16)
● Captain (Jos 5:4)
● Carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3)
● Child (Isa 9:6)
● Christ (Mt 1:16; 2:4)
● Commander (Isa 55:4)
● Consolation of Israel (Lk 2:25)
● Cornerstone (Eph 2:20)
● Dayspring from on High (Lk 1:78)

172
● Day Star (2 Pe 1:19)
● Deliverer (Ro 11:26)
● Desire of Nations (Hag 2:7)
● Door of the Sheepfold (Jn 10:7)
● Immanuel (Mt 1:23)
● Express Image of God (Heb 1:3)
● Faithful Witness (Rev 1:5; 3:14; 19:11)
● Father of Eternity (Isa 9:6)
● First Fruits (1 Co 15:23)
● Foundation (Isa 28:16)
● Forerunner (Heb 6:20)
● Friend of Sinners (Mt 11:19)
● Gift of God (2 Co 9:15)
● Glory of God (Isa 60:1)
● God (Isa 9:6; Jn 1:1; 20:28; Ro 9:5; 1 Ti 3:16)
● Governor (Mt 2:6)
● Guide (Ps 48:14)
● Head of Church (Col 1:18)
● Heir of all Things (Heb 1:2)
● High Priest (3:1; 7:1)
● Holy Child (Ac 4:30)
● Holy One of God (Mk 1:24)
● Holy One of Israel (Isa 41:14)
● Horn of Salvation (Ps 18:2)
● I AM (taken from the Gospel of John):
● I am the Bread of Life (6:35)
● I am the Light of the World (9:5)
● I am the Good Shepherd (10:11)
● I am the Door (v. 9)
● I am the Resurrection (11:25)
● I am the true Vine (15:11)
● I am the Way (14:6).
● Jehovah (Isa 26:4; 40:3)
● Jesus (Mt 1:21)
● Judge (Mic 5:1; Ac 10:42)
● King:
● King of Israel (Mt. 27:42; Jn. 1:49)
● King of kings (Rev 17:14; 19:16)
● Lamb of God (Jn 1:29, 36)
● Lawgiver (Isa 33:22)
● Life (Jn 14:6)
● Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5)
● Lord of lords (Rev 19:16)
● Man (Ac 17:31, Ro 5:14, 17, 19)

173
● Master (Mt 8:19)
● Mediator (1 Ti 2:5)
● Messiah (Da 9:25; Jn 1:41)
● Mighty God (Isa 9:6; 63:1)
● Minister (Heb 8:2)
● Nazarene (Mk 1:24)
● Only begotten Son (Jn 1:18)
● Passover (1 Co 5:7)
● Physician (Mt 9:12)
● Potentate (1 Ti 6:15)
● Power of God (1 Co 1:24)
● Prince (Ac 3:15; 5:31)
● Prophet (3:22)
● Propitiation (1 Jn 2:2; 4:10)
● Power of God (1 Co 1:24)
● Purifier (Mal 3:3)
● Priest (Heb 4:14)
● Rabbi (Mt 26:25; Jn 3:2, 20:16)
● Ransom (1 Ti 2:6)
● Reaper (Rev 14:15)
● Redeemer (Isa 59:20; 60:16)
● Refiner (Mal 3:3)
● Refuge (Isa 25:4)
● Righteousness (Jer 23:6; 33:16)
● Rock (Dt 32:15)
● Rock of Ages (1 Co 10:4)
● Rod (Isa 11:1)
● Root of David (Rev 22:16)
● Rose of Sharon (Song of Songs 2:1)
● Sacrifice (Eph 5:2)
● Samaritan (Good—Lk 10:33)
● Savior (1:47; 2:11; Jn 4:42)
● Second Man (1 Co 15:47)
● Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:15,19)
● Seed of David (2 Ti 2:8)
● Seed of the woman (Gn 3:15)
● Servant (Isa 42:1; 49:5-7)
● Shepherd:
● The Chief Shepherd (1 Pe 5:4)
● The Good Shepherd (Jn 1:11,14)
● The Great Shepherd (Heb 13:20)
● My Shepherd (Ps 23:1)
● Shiloh (Gn 49:10)
● Son of David (Mt 9:27, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9; Mk 10:46,47)

174
● Son of God (Mt 4:3,6, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 27:54; Lk 1:35, 4:41; Jn 1:149; 9:35,
10:36, 11:17)
● Son of Man (8:20, 9:6; 12:40, 13:41, 16:27, 17:9,12,22, 18:11, 19:28, 20:28,
21:42, 24:30, 26:18; etc.)
● Son of Mary (Mk 6:3)
● Son of the Most High (Lk 1:32)
● Stone (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32-33; Eph 2:20; 1 Pe 2:6-7)
● Sun of Righteousness (Mal 4:2)
● Teacher (Master—Mt 26:18; Jn 3:2; 11:28)
● Truth (14:6)
● Wisdom of God (1 Co 1:24)
● Wonderful (Isa 9:6)
● Word (Jn 1:1; Rev 19:13)
He possesses the Attributes of Deity
● He is Eternal (Mic 5:2; Jn. 1:15; 8:58; 17:5,24).
The prophet Micah not only gives the birthplace of Jesus (which the Jews affirmed as
being Bethlehem, the city of David), but he gives a clue as to His identity—God in human form:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for Me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are
from of old, from ancient times" (Mic 5:2).
The King James Version uses the term "goings forth" which means "origin." According
to Old Testament scholars Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown the terms used
"convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable" (Ps
90:2; Pr 8:22-23; Jn 1:1). The only one who fits this description, whose origin is "from
everlasting" or "from ancient times" must be God Himself, since He alone is "the eternally
existing One" (Isa 44:6,8; Ex 3:14).
Probably the clearest New Testament reference to the eternal nature of Christ's being is
found in 1 John 1:2 where He is actually called "the eternal life":
". . . this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have
seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life."
That it is Jesus that is referred to as "the eternal life" is obvious by the description of this
life: we have "heard, seen, looked at, touched" (1 Jn 1:1) and this life has "appeared" (v. 2). Such
concrete descriptions can only be applied to none other than Jesus.

175
● He is Omnipresent (everywhere at once)
"And God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be head over
everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills
everything in every way" (Eph 1:23).
Jesus' omnipresence (literally "all-presence") does not refer to His physical presence
since He is now at the right hand of God the Father. Jesus presently lives in a glorified body
which He received when He rose from the dead. Although this body does not have the
limitations of His previous body (which was very much a human body like ours—1 Co 15), it
still is limited to space and time in the sense that it (and therefore He—Jesus) can only be at one
place at one time. Jesus, therefore, is omnipresent in that He dwells everywhere by His Spirit-the
Holy Spirit.
● He is Omniscient (all-knowing—Jn 2:24; 4:29)
● He knew where Nathanael was (1:48).
● He knew the plot of Judas (6:70; 13:11).
● He knew the hearts of the Pharisees (Mt 12:25; Lk 5:22; 6:8; 7:39-40).
● He knew the thoughts of the scribes (Mt 9:3-4).
● He knew the sincerity of one scribe (Mk 12:34).
● He knew the history of the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:29).
● He knew the problems of His disciples (Lk 9:46-47).
There is no contradiction here between His omniscience and His being limited in
knowledge (as a man). While He retained His deity on earth (thus His omniscience) He
voluntarily abstained from using it, that He might be totally dependent upon God the Father
through the operation of God the Spirit.
● He is Omnipotent (Mk 5:11-15; Mt 8:26; 9:25).
● Over disease (8:1-4; Lk 4:39).
● Over demons (Mt 8:16-17,28-32; Lk 4:35).
● Over people (Mt 9:9; Jn 17:2).
● Over nature (Mt 8:26).
● Over sin (9:1-8).
● Over traditions (vv. 10-17).
● Over death (Lk 7:14-15; 8:54,56; Jn 11:4).
● He is Immutable (Heb 13:8).
The claim that Jesus is the same "yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8) is a
powerful testimonial to the eternality of God the Son. The literal translation reads:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and into the everlasting."

176
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the phrase in question is an "historical present" used
in reference to Abraham and therefore permissible. The problem is that Jesus was not narrating
but arguing, and according to any standard grammar, the "historical present" is used in narrative,
not argument, form of literature.
Yet the Jehovah Witnesses have unknowingly affirmed Jesus' deity in their New World
Translation (NWT—661) by pointing the reader to Revelation 1:17 as a cross reference to
Hebrews 13:8 and thus irrevocably declare that the Jesus Christ of Hebrews 13:8 is the "First and
the Last" of Revelation 1:17.
If Christ is the "First and Last" in Revelation 1:17, He has to be the "Alpha and Omega"
of Revelation 1:8. By their own rendition it reads: "Jehovah God" (NWT). Either there are two
"Firsts and Lasts" (Isa 48:12), or they are identical. Scripture is replete with examples to show
that they are the latter (Isa 51:12; 52:6).
The letter of Hebrews closes as it began by reminding its readers of their unchanging
Lord. He is always the same:
"They will perish, but You remain . . . like a garment they will be changed. But
You remain the same, and Your years will never end" (Heb 1:11-12).
Jesus lives for ever, the Lord of history who will certainly return (10:37) for
those ". . . who are eagerly waiting for Him" (9:28).
Divine Offices and Prerogatives belong to Him
● Source and Giver of Life and Power over Death (Jn 5:21; 11:25).
By implication, direct statement, and deed—all indicate that Jesus has power over life
and death. Hannah in her song of praise Credits God with having the power to kill and to make
alive (1 Sa 2:6). In Psalm 119, the psalmist acknowledges repeatedly (at least 12 times) that it is
Jehovah who gives and preserves life. Yet Jesus Himself claims to have this same power:
"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life
to whom He desires" (Jn 5:21).
Other Scriptures give equally powerful evidence for Jesus' deity since He is the Source of
life itself:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. . . . You have killed the author of life . . .
this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it
and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father
and has appeared to us. . . For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has

177
granted the Son to have life in Himself. . . . For just as the Father raised
the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He is
pleased to give it” (Jn 14:6; Ac 3:15; 1 Jn 1:1-2; Jn 5:26,21).
The word "granted" in reference to the Father granting "the Son to have life in Himself"
clearly refers to Jesus' birth when the second person of the Godhead, God the Word, became
"flesh." Prior to His becoming the God-Man, God the Word already had life in Himself since He
was and is God. This is so by definition. How could a person be God without having life in
Himself? Because He had this life in Himself He was the agent in creating the world.
Therefore to argue that Jesus Christ is created and less than God since life was "granted"
to Him by God the Father is fallacious. This passage is given in reference to Jesus Christ who is
both God and man.
Probably the most emphatic statement made by Jesus in claiming the power of life and
death is found in His words to Martha:
"I am the resurrection and the life; He who believes in Me will live, even though
he dies; and whoever believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (Jn 11:25)
● He will Execute all Judgment (Mt 25:31-46; Jn 5:22).
Judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures is ascribed only to Almighty God. In Genesis 18:25
Abraham refers to God as "the Judge of all the earth." In Joel 3:12 Jehovah proclaims, ". . . there
I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." Yet Jesus claimed that same prerogative:
"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will
sit on His throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before
Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates
the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on His
left" (Mt 25:31-33).
Paul confirms this stupendous claim as he points out on the one hand that judgment
belongs to God (Ro 2:3), he also speaks of Christ as the one who is to "judge the living and the
dead" (2 Ti 4:1) and of the "judgment seat of Christ" (2 Co 5:10).
● He Forgives Sin (Mt 9:2; Lk 7:47).
In the Old Testament God alone has the right and power to forgive sins:
"For I (Jehovah) will forgive their wickedness, and their sin will I remember no
more" (Jer 31:34).

The psalmist points out:
178
"For with You is forgiveness that You should be feared" (Ps 130:4).
Yet in the New Testament we find Jesus claiming this authority and power to forgive sins
for Himself. But has not God Himself commanded us to forgive one another? Yes, but only for
sins against ourselves. While we should forgive someone who has insulted us, for instance,
suppose we forgave him for insulting someone else? That would be outrageous! Why? Because
of what it would be assuming. Whoever forgives assumes he has the right to forgive. And the
only one who has a right to forgive an offender, is the one offended. Jesus' claim to forgive all
sins, therefore, assumed that He was the one offended in all sins. Such a momentous claim can
only be made by God who is the author of the moral law.
When Jesus claimed to forgive all sins, is it any wonder that it resulted in a charge of
blasphemy against Him?
When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not
respond with a comment about the man's physical condition or his need of healing. Rather, His
initial comment was, "My son, your sins are forgiven" (Mk 2:5). The reaction of the scribes
indicates the meaning they attached to His words:
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins
but God alone?" (v. 7).
Their reaction shows that they interpreted Jesus' comment as the exercise of a divine
prerogative, the power to actually forgive sins.
Here was an excellent opportunity for Jesus to clarify the situation, to correct the scribes
if they had misunderstood the import of His words. This He did not do, however. His response
is highly instructive:
"Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your
sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may
know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mk 2:8-9).
The obvious answer is that it is easier to say: "Get up, take your mat and walk."
Why?
Because only God can forgive sins!
Then Peter proclaims Christ as the One whom

179
"God exalted . . . to His own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might
give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Ac 5:31).
His Work Testifies to His Divine Nature
"Do not believe Me unless I do what My Father does. But if I do it, even though
you do not believe Me, believe the miracles, that you may learn and understand
that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (Jn 10:37-38).
At the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem the Jews gathered around Jesus in the temple area
of Solomon's Colonnade and impatiently asked Him:
"How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly" (v. 24).
At this point Jesus makes His work the issue of His identity. He goes so far as to say that
unless people see Him do the work of God they have no business believing in Him. After all, If
He is divine, then He will evidence divine work (vv. 37-38).
To such a challenge the Jews "again tried to seize Him" (v. 39). Why? Because He
claimed to do the work of God Almighty!
The most pronounced declaration of the divine nature of His ministry is seen in His
reading of the scroll of the prophet Isaiah (61:1-2) and His claim that the prophet was
prophesying not only about God's ministry, but about His own ministry:
"He went to Nazareth, where He had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day He
went into the synagogue, as was His custom. And He stood up to read. The scroll
of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it
is written:
'The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because he has anointed Me to preach good
news to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight
for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor'" (Lk 4:16-19).
Luke continues to tell us what happened:
"Then He rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The
eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on Him, and He said to them,
'Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing'" (Lk 4:20-21).

180
What was the response of the people of the synagogue who heard the stupendous claim
that Jesus was the fulfillment of such a prophecy?
"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up,
drove Him out of the town, and took Him to the brow of the hill on which the
town was built, in order to throw Him down the cliff" (Lk 4:28-29).
Yet we see in Jesus' life and ministry this prophecy fulfilled as He spent His time and
energy in works of compassion.
Jesus identified Himself with the common people. He entered into the sorrows of His
generation. He reached out to those who were lonely, despised and forsaken. He was
approachable. It did not matter whether it was a Hebrew scholar at midnight, disciples in a
foundering boat at daybreak, a fallen woman by a well at noonday or a company of hungry
unemployed in the afternoon—He was available to them all.
Jesus cared for people for whom nobody cared. He loved people whom nobody loved.
And He saw hope for people for whom nobody saw hope. Who, but Jesus, would have picked
such an unlikely bunch of followers as the Twelve apostles to start a new movement? Jesus saw
what they would become by the grace of God.
Everywhere Jesus went He saw people in desperate need of help. Every opportunity He
had He reached out in compassion. Is it any wonder Peter says about Him:
"You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the
baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went around doing good and healing
all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with Him" (Ac 10:37-38).
As much as possible Jesus met every human need He was personally in contact with.
However we must remember that as a man, even God-Man, He was limited by space and time.
He could only be in one place at one time. Yet it is remarkable the lives He touched.
● He met blind men and gave them sight.
● He met dumb men and gave them speech.
● He met deaf men and gave them hearing.
● He met crippled men and gave them the ability to walk.
● He met lepers and cleansed them.
● He met crazy men and made them sane.
● He met demonized men and set them free.
● He met every human need.

181
10. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART II
Names

182
Names of Deity are given to Him
The names given to Jesus by God the Father reveal His divine nature. Some have argued
that if Jesus were divine there would be clearer evidence for this. It must be remembered,
however, that the number of affirmations we do have that Jesus is "God" is astounding given the
strong reluctance of New Testament writers to speak of Jesus as "God," because of their
background in the strict monotheism of Israel.
● He is called the "Son of God" (Mt 27:54; Jn 9:35-37).
The title "Son of God" is probably the one that is used the most often in thinking and
speaking about Jesus of Nazareth. Yet of all the titles this one is the least clearly defined and the
most misunderstood in our minds.
The idea of Jesus as the "Son of God" was central to the thought of the early church. The
gospel according to Mark opens with this affirmation:
"The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mk 1:1).
John addresses his first letter to those who believe in Jesus as "the Son of God" that they
may be assured of eternal life:
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that
you may know that you have eternal life" (1 Jn 5:13).
Our understanding of this designation is critical to our salvation:
"If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he
in God" (4:15).
Our perception of this title is crucial to living a life of obedience, of gaining victory over
the world's sinful patterns of life:
"Who is he that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son
of God" (5:5).
The conception of Jesus as "the Son of God" is basic and fundamental to the letters of the
New Testament as it is to the gospel accounts.
● Jesus is designated as "the Son of God" in power (Ro 1:3).
● It is Jesus as "the Son of God" that Paul, Silvanus and Timothy preached to the
Corinthians about (2 Co 1:19).

183
● It is "by faith in the Son of God" that Paul lives (Gal 2:20).
● To come "to the knowledge of the Son of God" is the very essence of a mature
Christian faith (Eph 4:13).
● The very essence of the distinction between Jesus and the prophets (who are former
bearers of revelation from God) is that Jesus is a "Son" (Heb 4:14).
● Apostasy (a falling away) is a recrucifixion of "the Son of God" (6:6).
● Deliberately sinning after having received the knowledge of the truth is "trampling the
Son of God under foot." Such action will result in God's judgment (10:26-31).
Our concept of Jesus as "the Son of God," then, is vital to our salvation and
sanctification—our life in God.
John gives us the assurance that it is this very "Son of God" who has come to give us
understanding of Him who is real and true:
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given understanding, so
that we may know Him who is true" (1 Jn 5:20).
In the Old Testament the term "Son of God" is used in a broad sense and thus often
translated "belonging to God.” It was applied across a wide spectrum of categories, including
angels and people. In Genesis 6 angels are called "sons of God." It is here that we have the
account of "the sons of God" seeing the daughters of men who were fair and therefore came
down and took them to be their wives (Gn 6:2). In the prologue of the drama of the book of Job
we read that there was a time when "the sons of God" came to present themselves before the
Lord with Satan coming among them as well (Job 1:6). We also read in Job of the day of creation
when the morning stars sang together and "all the sons of God" shouted for joy (38:7). Let it
must be remembered that although angels are called "the sons of God" in the Hebrew Scriptures,
no individual angel is ever called "the Son of God" (Heb 1:5).
The people of Israel are also called "the sons of God." God warned Pharaoh:
"This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, 'Let My son
go, so he may worship Me.'
But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son" (Ex 4:22-23).
Hosea heard God say:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son" (Hos 11:1).

184
Not only was the nation of Israel in general called "son" but so was the Davidic king and
his successors who were to rule over their people (Ps 2:7; 2 Sa 7:14).
In this broad sense the term "son of God" could be applied equally to Jesus and to God's
people (Jn 1:12). Yet Jesus did not explicitly use the term of Himself although the term is used
by others in the New Testament such as Paul and the writer of the book of Hebrews. In fact, Paul
stated that Jesus had been "declared Son of God" because of His resurrection (Ro 1:4).
Although Paul uses the term "Son of God" in relation to both Jesus and His followers, he
draws a distinction between the sonship of believers and that of Jesus. He carefully points out
that believers are "sons of God" by virtue of adoption, whereas Jesus' sonship originates from
His being "God's own Son" (8:31). John reserves the use of the term "son" (huios) only for Jesus,
whereas he uses the more general term "children" (tekna) when referring to believers.
The New Testament is clear that believers can enter into the same kind of relationship as
that which Jesus enjoys with the Father through faith, whereas the relationship between Jesus
and the Father is prior to, and foundational for, that between believers and God. The phrase "Son
of God" can also mean God-like. Because the Hebrew language is not strong in adjectives it
frequently uses the phrase "son of" followed by an abstract noun instead of an adjective. The
Hebrew expression "a son of peace" (Lk 10:6) would then mean "a peaceable man." Barnabas,
for instance, is called "a son of consolation" (Ac 4:36) and James and John are called "sons of
thunder" (Mk 3:17). Peacemakers are called "sons of God" (Mt 5:9) meaning people who are
doing a God-like work. Does this mean that when Jesus is called "the Son of God" that this is
saying no more than that He is God-like?
Even though this idea of God-like or "a good man" is certainly one of the meanings of the
"Son of God" title (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39; Lk 23:47), it does not do justice to the full intent of
the designation.
This title also refers to Jesus' Messiahship. The title "Christ" or "the Christ" is the Greek
equivalent to the Hebrew title "Messiah." In the following verses we see that the title "Son of
God" is identical with the title "Messiah":
"The high priest said to Him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us
if you are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of God. "Yes, it is as you say,
' Jesus replied" (Mt 26:63).
"Again the high priest asked Him, Are you the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of
the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus" (Mk 14:61).
"'If you are the Christ,' they said, 'Tell us.' Jesus answered, 'If I tell you, you will not
believe Me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of
Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.'

185
"They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' He replied, 'You are right in
saying I am" (Lk 22:67-70).
To believe that Jesus is the Messiah is to believe that He is "the Son of God." Martha said
to Jesus: "I believe that You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of God, who was to come
into the world" (Jn 11:27).
Messiahship was a central concept in Paul's theology. In his Resurrection passage (1 Co
15) Paul repeatedly draws on messianic psalms to make messianic points about Jesus. He does
this to apply to Jesus ideas which in Jewish thought belonged to Israel as a whole. Thus Paul
treats Jesus precisely as Messiah, Israel's anointed representative (Ro 9:5; 15:3,7; 1 Co 1:13;
10:4; 12:12). Paul in his writings is very clear that what God was expected to do for Israel He
had done for Jesus, raising Him to live after His persecution and execution at the hands of the
religious Jews and pagan Romans.
During Jesus' trial we get a picture of Jesus' self-understanding. According to John the
charge leveled at Jesus was that "He has made Himself the Son of God" (Jn 19:7). Matthew
points out in his gospel that the high priest said to Jesus during the trial:
"I charge You under oath by the living God:
Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God" (26:63).
Jesus replied:
"Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you:
In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (v. 64).
This declaration is as clear an affirmation of Jesus' deity as any. Some have tried to deny
this by speculating that Jesus was speaking satirically and thus saying in effect, "You said that,
not I." This is unlikely since Jesus went on to speak of His power and of His second coming.
Thus He affirmed, rather than contradicted, the statement. Jesus certainly had an ideal
opportunity to correct any misconception which may have been involved. But this He refused to
do. In fact, He could have avoided execution by denying the charge that He had claimed to be
"the Son of God." He did not do that.
This means one of two things. Either He desired to die, even though His death would
have been based on a false charge, or He did not respond because the charge brought against
Him was true.
There is no middle ground. The Jews understood too well what was claimed by Jesus.
The high priest responded:

186
"Then the high priest tore his clothes and said,
‘He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look,
now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’" (Mt 26:66).
Then the people joined in:
"He is worthy of death . . . Then they spit in His face and struck Him with
their fists. Others slapped Him and said, 'Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit You?'"
(Mt 26:66-68)
The crime was that Jesus claimed what only God has a right to claim. By acquiescing to
the charge of the high priest and the crowd, Jesus asserts His equality with God the Father.
● He is called "the only begotten":
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3:16).
Jesus is not just one among the many sons of God. The New International Version
translates the words "only begotten" with the phrase "one and only" Son to catch the correct
sense of the Greek. The word "begotten" (monogene) means "one of a kind," "only," "unique."
And it modifies this word in a qualitative rather than quantitative sense according to Greek
experts such as Moulton, Milligan, Cremer, and Thayer. The word "only" modifies the word
"begotten" rather than "Son." If the author would have wanted to stress that Jesus was the
"begotten Son," in the sense of the "only Son" he would have used the word monogennetos.
Cremer in his Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek says, "In John it
[monogenes] is used to denote the relation of Christ to the Father . . . the Pauline idios huios
[own Son]" (Ro 8:32).1 The sense is that of the Son being God's private, unique, peculiar to
Himself kind of Son. Thayer makes the comment that this "denotes the only Son of God or one
who in the sense in which He Himself is the son of God has no brethren."2 Arndt and Gingrich
say of monogene, "unique and alone . . . in the Johannine literature used only of Jesus."3 This fits
well with Jesus' own claims that God was His "own" (idios) Father (Jn 5:18).
Moulton and Milligan then, speak of Jesus as uniquely begotten. Cremer, in his use of
"own" (idios), emphasizes God's "own private possession, uniquely [His] own" and thus points
to the unique relationship of the Son to the Father. Thayer similarly refers to the unique
relationship which Jesus sustains to God as His Son. Arndt and Gingrich speak of Jesus' claim to
a unique sonship to God the Father.
This sets Jesus apart when it comes to His sonship. He is not one among many sons, but
the Son, the only begotten Son. This is another evidence that Jesus is divine—God the Son.

187
● He is called "Immanuel" (Isa 7:14; 8:8,10; Mt 1:23)
Matthew points out that the name "Immanuel" means "God with us":
"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him
Immanuel—which means, 'God with us'" (Mt 1:23).
Isaiah's prophecy (Isa 7:14) was fulfilled by Jesus (Mt 1:22-23). Thus there can be no
doubt that Jesus Christ is the "son of the virgin" so distinctly portrayed by the prophet Isaiah.
Since there is no other God but Jehovah, by His own declaration (Isa 43:10-11), therefore
Jesus Christ and Jehovah God are of the same essence in power and eternity, and therefore
equal. There is no way around this conclusion since the very term "Immanuel" means "God" or
"Jehovah with us."
● He is called "Son of Man"
This term "Son of Man" (Hebrew ben-adam or Aramic bar nasha) is used in three main
contexts in the Hebrew Scriptures:
● As a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel;
● To refer to a future eschatological figure (Da 7:13-14), whose coming signals the end
of history and the coming of divine judgment;
● To emphasize the contrast between the limitations and frailty of human nature and the
elevated status or permanence of God and the angels (Nu 23:19; Ps 8:14).
This name was the most popular self-designation of Jesus by far. It appears more than 80
times in the gospels and always on the lips of Jesus Himself. The name "Son of Man" is often
used by Jesus in reference to His own agony as He takes upon Himself the role of Isaiah's
"suffering sinbearer" and "suffering servant."
In Aramaic the title "Son of Man" could be merely another way of saying "I," as "one"
can be used in English. But in some cases the claim is too explicit to be brushed aside as merely
that.
At His trial Jesus said:

188
"'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right
hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest
tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more
witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?' 'He is
worthy of death,' they answered" (Mt 26:64-66).
Blasphemy—unless it were true! The "Son of Man" is hardly a mere man, but a divine
being who is coming in the Father's glory to judge the world and to bring all history to an end.
On a couple of occasions this title is used to refer to the present work of Jesus and His
claim to be both Lord of the Sabbath and the forgiver of sins (Mk 2:23-28). Thus this
designation is coupled to the ministry which only belongs to God Himself. Who but God has the
right to define the Sabbath and to forgive sin?
day.
The rabbis understood this all too well. Rabbi Eliezer stated around A.D. 160:
"God saw that a man, son of a woman, was to come forward in the future, who
would attempt to make himself God and to lead the whole world astray. And if he
says he is God he is a liar. And he will lead men astray, and say that he will depart
and will return at the end of days."4
Another Rabbi by the name of Abbahu of Caesarea wrote around A.D. 260:
"If a man says 'I am God,' he is a liar; 'I am the Son of man' his end will be such that
he will regret it; 'I shall ascend into heaven,' will it not be that he spoke and will
not perform it?"5
There is no question as to the divine connotation that the title "Son of Man" had in Jesus'
Eduard Schweizer and I. Howard Marshall suggest that Jesus ". . . adopted the term Son
of Man just because it was an ambiguous term, revealing as well as hiding."6
Though in view of His explicit reference to Daniel's "abomination of desolation" in the
Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14) and His allusions to the imagery of Daniel 7:13 in that
same discourse (Mk 13:26) and in His reply before the Sanhedrin (14:62), both with reference to
the Son of Man, it becomes clear that Daniel 7 was the source upon which Jesus based His own
understanding and to which He pointed in His use of the title.
By using this title Jesus showed Himself to be the one in whom this vision of Daniel was
to proceed to its realization. And in so doing, He possessed a title which combined both suffering
and glory—which pointed to both aspects of His redemptive ministry as the God-Man.

189
● He is called "Lord" (Lk 2:11; Jn 21:7).
The title "Lord" (kyrios) is used of Christ with a great flexibility of meanings.
● As an adjective or noun of possession in both classical and Hellenistic Greek in the
sense of having power over or as a possessor such as in the case of the master of a
house or an owner of a vineyard (Ex 21:5).
● A polite form of address like the English "sir," the French "monsieur," the German
"herr." These terms all convey respect (i.e. Hebrew adonai which is used for the words
"husband" (Gn 18:12) or "prophet" (1 Kgs 18:7).
● Royal usage applied to governors, princes and kings. Kyrios was a favorite title of
Roman Emperors while Hebrew kings were addressed as adonai. The English
equivalents, "My Lord," or "Your Majesty" do not carry the same religious content.
● Religious usage in that it was the normal title of the Greek gods, prefaced before the
God's name. Kurios Serapis is Lord Serapis. This word had religious usage throughout
the Middle East whereby in Judaism the title Adonai (Lord) became the substitute for
the divine name in the reading of the Scriptures, and in the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Old Testament). Kyrios was used as the Greek equivalent.
"Lord" was an ideal term for the early church to use for Christ since all these meanings
were simultaneously found in Him.
The New Testament writers ascribe the term kyrios ("Lord") to Jesus, particularly in His
risen and ascended state. While the term can most certainly be used without any high
Christological connotations, there are several considerations which argue that the term signifies
divinity when it is applied to Jesus.
First, in the Septuagint kyrios is the usual translation of the name (Yehovah) and of the
reverential Adonai which was ordinarily substituted for it. Of the 9,000 times used in the
Septuagint 6,156 of those times is used as a replacement for the proper name of God, the
Tetragrammaton YHWH.
Several New Testament references to Jesus as "Lord" are used as quotations of the
Hebrew Scriptures. Texts employing one of the Hebrew names for God (Ac 2:20-21 and Ro
10:13 [Joel 2:31-32]; 1 Pe 3:15 [Isa 8:13]). These references make it clear that the apostles meant
to give Jesus the title Lord in its highest sense.
Finally, kyrios is used in the New Testament to designate both God the Father, the
sovereign God (Mt 1:20; 9:38; 11:25; Ac 17:24; Rev 4:11), and Jesus (Lk 2:11; Jn 20:28; Ac
10:36; 1 Co 2:8; Php 2:11; Jas 2:1; Rev 19:16).

190
When Jesus "is addressed as the exalted Lord, He is so identified with God that there is
ambiguity in some passages as to whether the Father or the Son is meant (Ac 1:24; 2:47; 8:39;
9:31; 11:21; 13:10-12; 16:14; 20:19; 21:14; cf. 18:26; Ro 14:11). For the Jews particularly, the
term kyrios suggested that Christ was equal with the Father.
● He is called "God"
● ". . . mighty God" (Isa 9:6).
Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful verses in the Old Testament which incontestably
declares that Jehovah Himself planned to appear in human form. The verse clearly states that all
government will rest upon the "child born" and the "Son given," whose identity is revealed in the
very terms used to describe His attributes:
"Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
The phrase "Everlasting Father" is literally "Father of the Everlasting. The term "mighty
God" is in itself indicative of Jehovah, since not only is He the only God (Isa 43:10-11), but the
term "mighty" is applied to Him alone in relation to His deity. Jehovah's Witnesses dodge this
verse by claiming that Christ is "a Mighty God," but not "the almighty God" (Jehovah). Since
there is no article for "mighty" in the Hebrew text Jehovah is not meant. If this were true,
however, there would then be two "mighty Gods." While such logic is absurd, the Jehovah's
Witnesses persist in the fallacy.
An example would be where Isaiah 10:21 states that "Jacob shall return" to the "mighty
God" (which would mean "Jesus" since the word "mighty" is without the article), yet we already
know that Jehovah is by His own word to Moses "the God of Jacob" (Ex 3:6). Another instance
is found in Jeremiah 32:18 where the prophet declares that He (Jehovah—since it has the article)
is "the Great, the Mighty God." This is two forms of saying the same thing. If we are to accept
this translation advocated by the Jehovah's Witnesses there must be two "Mighty Gods" which is
impossible since there is only one true and mighty God (Isa 45:22).
The "Jehovah" whom Isaiah and his people worshiped, and the "child born" and the "son
given," both are called "Mighty God," since they had to be the same.
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . . For 'everyone who calls upon
the name of the Lord will be saved" (Ro 10:9,13).
The question is, "Who is 'Lord'"? Verse 9 states that Jesus is Lord while verse 13 states
that Jehovah (JHWH) is Lord. The same Greek word (kyrios) is used in both verses even though
verse 13 is obviously a quotation from Joel 2:32 (Peter cited this same passage on the day of
Pentecost—Ac 2:21). Therefore Paul identifies both Jesus and the Jehovah of the Old Testament
as Lord (kyrios).

191
Jehovah's Witnesses make the futile attempt to do away with this identification by using
the name "Jehovah" instead of "Lord" in Romans 10:13 and in all other Old Testament
quotations in the New Testament. Everywhere else, however, the New World Translation uses
the word "Lord." This is purely arbitrary and based upon wishful thinking rather than careful
biblical exegesis.
In simplest terms Paul points out that God requires a belief in two things as outlined in
Romans 10:9-10,13:
● Confession that "Jesus is Lord"
● Belief that God raised Jesus from the dead
Biblical scholar C. E. B. Cranfield put it:
"The confession that Jesus is Lord meant the acknowledgment that Jesus shares the
name and the nature, the holiness, the authority, power, majesty and eternity of
the one and only true God . . . there is expressed in addition the sense of His
ownership of those who acknowledge Him and of their consciousness of being
His property."7
The belief in the resurrection is key because we must not only believe that Jesus lived,
but that He lives. It is not enough to know about Him, but we must know Him. It is not enough
to know Jesus as merely a great historical figure; we must know Him as a living presence. The
belief in the resurrection assures us that Jesus was not merely a martyr, but a victor as well.
Because He rose from the grave on that Easter morning we have come to know Him as the risen
Lord who was victorious over death, sin, the world, and Satan.
● ". . . our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).
The issue is whether Jesus Christ is our Savior only, or our God and Savior. According to
Greek grammar (called “the Granville Sharp law”):
"When a copulative [connective] kai [Greek for 'and'] connects two nouns of the
same case, if the article which precedes the first noun [articular] does not precede
the second noun [anarthrous], the latter always refers to the same person expressed
or described by the first noun and is a further description of it."8
When we apply this rule to the passage before us we see who is "great." It is "God and
Savior" because the two names are in the genitive case with the absence of the article preceding
"Savior." Who, then, is our "great God and Savior"? Jesus Christ!
Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation has inserted the bracketed article "the" in
order to "complete the sense in the English text. The verse therefore reads:

state:
192
"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great
God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."
In the appendix of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures they
"We render 'the great God' as separate from 'our Savior Christ Jesus.'"
Biblical scholars have conclusively shown that in ancient times the phraseology "god and
savior" was used of a ruling king and thus clearly showing that only one person was meant. In an
exhaustive study, C. Kuehne found Sharp's rule to be "without demonstrable exception in the
entire New Testament."9 Honest and unbiased scholarship requires that the words in these verses
must be translated "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Bruce Metzger, an authority on the Greek language and professor at Princeton University,
has stated:
"In support of this translation [that "our God and Savior" must refer to "Jesus Christ"]
there may be quoted such as P. W. Schmiedel, J. H. Moulton, A. T. Robertson, and
Blass-Debrunner. All of these scholars concur in the judgment that only one person
is referred to in Titus 2:13 and that therefore, it must be rendered, "our great God
and Savior, Jesus Christ."10
Greek scholars Dana and Mantey, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, confirm Sharp's rule:
"Second Peter 1:1 . . . means that Jesus is our God and Savior. After the same
manner Titus 2:13 . . . asserts that Jesus is the great God and Savior."11
Not only the grammar, but also the context of Titus 2:3, leads to the interpretation that
Jesus is God since verse 14 states:
"Who gave Himself [Jesus Christ] for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to
purify for Himself a people of His own."
The phrase, "to redeem us from all iniquity" is clearly referring to the Lord Jehovah of
Psalm 130:7-8 and the phrase, "to purify for Himself a people of His own" is referring to the
Lord God of Exodus 19:5 and Deuteronomy 14:2.
● ". . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pe 1:1).

193
The grammatical construction here is almost identical to that of Titus 2:13 that we have
previously looked at. The New World Translation again has arbitrarily inserted the bracketed
word "the" before "Savior" to differentiate between "God" and "Savior"—whom even they admit
to be Jesus.
This violates Sharp's law since there is no Greek article before the words "Savior Jesus
Christ." This absence of the Greek article before "Savior" is found elsewhere in the letter as Peter
uses a similarly constructed phrase, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pe 1:11; 3:18).
In other instances in 2 Peter where the word "Savior" appears it is clearly a reference to
Jesus (1:11; 2:20; 3:2,18). Thus Peter is using the term "Savior," which is an Old Testament
name for Jehovah, and is applying it to Jesus.
A. T. Robertson, considered by many to have been the greatest English-speaking Greek
scholar insisted that "one person, not two, is in mind in 2 Peter 1:1."12
Biblical scholar William Barclay believes that this verse is one of the strongest statements
in the entire Bible that "Jesus is God."13 He also points out that all the newer translations render
the last phrase
". . . the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
Other examples where Sharp's law applies: Lk 15:9; Ac 3:14; 17:18; Php 4:20; Jas 3:9;
1 Th 3:11; 2 Pe 2:20.
● "He who is over all, God blessed forever" (Ro 9:5).
The issue is whether the word "He" which is obviously a reference to Christ is to be
identified with "God" or whether they are to be understood as two separate persons.
Biblical scholar C. K. Barrett argues that the most logical interpretation is that they are
one and the same person. He makes the point that to see these references as pointing to two
different persons we are forced to see the doxology with which the paragraph concludes as
independent of the preceding sentence.
This is grammatically and stylistically improbable. Pauline doxologies are almost always
connected with the context and do not stand (as recommended by the Jehovah's Witnesses) in
complete asyndeton (omission of conjunctions). When Paul makes exception to this rule such as
in Romans 1:25 and 2 Corinthians 11:31 where the doxologies are addressed to God the Father,
they arise out of the preceding words. Furthermore, if Paul wished to say, "Blessed be God," he
would have placed the word "blessed" first in the sentence, which he does not do.

The most natural reading of the passage is to unite the doxology with the preceding
words as a relative clause referring to Christ. This is how the New International Version
translates this passage. It reads:
194
"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!"
● "My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20:28).
This is the worshipful response of Thomas as he was personally confronted by Jesus.
Jesus had appeared to the disciples when Thomas was absent. Thomas is portrayed initially as a
thoroughgoing skeptic as he refused to believe that Jesus had risen and appeared physically in
the same form in which He was crucified on the cross (physically). When Thomas was told about
the appearance, he had stubbornly replied,
"Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of
the nails, and place my hand in His side, I will not believe" (v. 25).
Notice the plural "nails." This contradicts the claim by the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus
was impaled on a torture stake whereby His hands and thus arms were stretched (crossed over
with overlapping wrists) above His head. Also the breaking of the legs would only expedite
death. If His arms were outstretched (as depicted by the traditional, historic crossbeam) it would
have put pressure on His diaphragm and thus hasten suffocation. This would deny that Jesus was
crucified on a cross. If He was impaled on a stake they would have used only one nail.
Then the Lord appeared to all the disciples once more and asked Thomas to make the test
he had wanted to make. Jesus said:
"Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in
My side" (v. 27).
Overcome by Christ's presence, Thomas immediately fell to the ground and worshiped
Him, saying,
"My Lord and my God!" (v. 28).
Lord and God! Adonai! Elohim!
And Jesus accepted that designation. He did not deny it.
Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to circumvent the clear meaning of this text by arguing in
their Emphatic Diaglott (v. 28) that the literal translation is, "The God of me, or my God."14
Since it is in possession of the definite article ("the"), to use Jehovah's Witnesses' own
argument, it must therefore mean "the only true God" (Jehovah), not "a god." The New World
Translation states,

195
"So too John 1:1 uses O THEOS to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word
(logos) as 'a god,' 'the only begotten God' as John 1:18 calls him.'"15
If Thomas called the risen Christ by the name "Jehovah" since it had a definite article in
front of the word for God, and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it by saying, "Because you
have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"
(Jn 20:29), then it is exegetically impossible to read this verse in the context it is set and
conclude anything but that Jesus is here referred to as Jehovah God.
● "Your throne, O God is forever" (Heb 1:8).
It is obvious that God the Father addresses the Son as "God." The throne of God can only
appropriately be claimed by God Himself. This is evident in the book of Revelation, especially in
chapter 21(vv. 1-5). Then God identifies Himself as "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and
the End" (v. 6). Since Jesus is also given this name of deity (Rev 22:13) He will also occupy the
throne of God.
Christ is conspicuously associated in the visions of the seer of the book of Revelation
(John) with the throne of God. In chapter 5 He appears as "a Lamb in the midst of the throne" (v.
6), which throne is itself called "the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev 22:1). This Lamb is
none other than "the one like a Son of Man" in the Christophany of Revelation 1:12-16, who
says, "I overcame, and sat down with My Father on His throne" (3:21).
The symbolism of "a Lamb standing as though it had been slain" has an unmistakable
reference to the redemptive work of the Savior of men, the Savior who "purchased to God with
His blood" (5:9) all mankind.
This Lamb of the Apocalypse has seven horns, symbols of perfection and power, and
"seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth" (v. 6). The seven
Spirits (sevenfold) of God have been already described as so many "lamps of fire burning before
the throne" (6:5), and being here identified with the seven eyes of the Lamb, it is reasonable
to infer that the writer associated the thought of perfection of wisdom as well as perfection of
power with the Lamb. The seven Spirits of God are the Spirit of the Lamb just as the throne of
God is the throne of the Lamb.
This reference in Hebrews 1:8 is, therefore, probably the clearest, emphatic, and
irrefutable proof of the deity of Christ from God the Father.
This testimony by the Father corresponds to the Son's testimony about Himself. Throughout
His ministry Jesus claimed equality with God. He claimed—or other New Testament writers
identified Him with—every major Old Testament name, title and attribute of God. Jesus' enemies
were aware of some of these claims. For example the Jews in John 10:33 tell Jesus they will
stone Him—not for doing good deeds, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to
be God" (see also Jn 5:18; 8:58-59; Mk 2:6-10; 14:60-64).

196
● "and the Word was God" (Jn 1:1).
Jehovah Witnesses and other cults claim that John writes of two gods: one who is
definite, with the article ("the God"), and one indefinite, without the article ("god" or "a god").
Thus their New World Translation of John 1:1 reads:
"In [the beginning] the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
a god."
Such a translation is grammatically impossible. It does not take the syntax of the Greek
seriously and thus is intellectually dishonest. According to Greek grammar (called "the Colvell's
rule" which has been accepted for over half a century now as a genuine contribution to the field
of biblical Greek scholarship):
". . . the definite predicate nominative does not have the article when it precedes
the verb; it only has the article when it follows the verb. It is indefinite only when
the context demands it."16
In the phrase, "God was the Word," the predicate nominative (God) comes before the
verb (was) allowing for (God) to be definite. "Was" is an intransitive verb. Intransitives take no
objects but instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject (in this case logos or
"Word"). There are numerous examples (282 times) where definite predicate nouns precede the
verb without an article (Mt 5:9; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12-13, 18; 3:2, 21; 8:54; 9:33; Ro 1:7,
17,18; 1 Co 15:10; 2 Co 5:19; Php 2:11; Titus 1:1; etc.).
The shift from ton theon (the accusative form of ho theos) to the anarthrous theos in John
1:1 only indicates a shift in nuance, not a shift of substance. This means that logos (the Word) is
called "God" in the fullest sense even though logos should not be identified with the person of
God the Father. Such a shift from ho theos (the God) to theos (God) in a short space in Scripture
normally does not indicate a major change of meaning. This is evident by the following
examples:
● ". . . You as a teacher have come from God [apo theou] because no one can perform
these signs that You perform unless God [ho theos] is with Him" (Jn 3:2).
● "[Jesus] knowing . . . that He came from God [apo theou] and was returning to God
[pros ton theon]. . ." (13:3).
● ". . . although they knew God [ton theon], they did not glorify Him as God [theon] . . ."
(Ro 1:21).
● ". . . how you turned to God [pros ton theon] from idols to serve the living and true
God [theon]" (1 Th 1:9).

197
● ". . . how much more will the blood of Christ, who through an everlasing spirit offered
Himself without blemish to God [to theo], cleanse our consciences from dead works
that we may render sacred service to [the] living God [theo]?"
● "If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God
[theou]; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength which
God [ho theos] supplies; so that in all things God [ho theos] may be glorified
through Jesus Christ . . ." (1 Pe 4:11-12).
These examples, then, give evidence that a shift from ho theos to theos does not indicate
a change in the meaning of the word.
Jehovah's Witnesses translators who render Jn. 1:1 to read "a god" translate the exact
same phrase as "God" in 94 percent of the other 281 instances. To be consistent, these should say
"a god." This they fail to do in numerous passages (Mt 5:9; 6:24; Lk 1:35,78; Jn 1:6,12-13,18;
Ro 1:7,17). This construction occurs 20 times in the gospel of John alone. Should John 1:18,
then, be translated, "No one has seen a god at any time"? If the verse were to be translated "a
god" then we would be faced with polytheism which is totally foreign to anything of the
Christian faith.
If Jesus is "a god," then there must be others. Calling Jesus "a god" among other gods
would have been as unacceptable to the first-century reader as it is to the 20th century theist.
John's contemporaries were thoroughly schooled in monotheism, and any departure from that
well-established doctrine would have been rejected outright.
Because "God" is definite in this instance in John 1:1, the God who was with the Word is
the God who is the Word.
The language and grammar of the gospel's opening statement are precise and
incontrovertible. John could have used an extra article and have written, "The Word was the
God," making "God" and "Word" completely identical and interchangeable. This is the case
whenever two nouns with the article are connected by the verb "to be." In John 15:1 Jesus said,
"My Father is the vinedresser" (literally, "the Father of Me is the vinedresser"). Invert the
statement and the meaning does not change. The same is true of John 6:51 where Jesus says
(literally), "The bread . . . is My flesh."
However, if John had written, "The Word was the God," the meaning would be, "All that
Jesus is, God is, and all that God is, Jesus is." This is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism which
taught there are no distinctions between Jesus and the Father, and held that the Father even
suffered on the cross.
New Testament scholar C. K. Barrett explained:

198
"The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only
being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied
that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity."17
John could have said, "The Word was divine." Theios is the Greek word which means
"godlike" or "godly." This would be in total harmony with Jehovah's Witnesses teaching. But
it is not what John intended to say.
The Jehovah's Witnesses cite James Moffatt, Bible translator, for rendering John 1:1 as
"the Word was divine." But they fail to understand what Moffatt meant by this. He explains:
"'The Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh,' simply means 'The Word
was divine. . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon
definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed
to present Jesus as truly God and truly man. . . ."18
The Jehovah's Witnesses also defend their interpretation by citing from William Barclay's
book, Many Witnesses, One Lord, where he argues that in John 1:1 theos, because it lacks the
definite article, "becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun," and therefore
concludes that John "does not say that Jesus was God."19 However the Jehovah's Witnesses
failed to include Barclay's crucial remarks in this same section as he explained:
"The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is
Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence essential deity.' But
it is here that the NEB [New English Bible] has brilliantly solved the problem
with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was.'"20
When Barclay found out that the Jehovah's Witnesses had used his partial statements to
buttress their own interpretation, he responded:
"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what
I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the
same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of
the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply
left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed
from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the
whole point."21
When Barclay, therefore, states that John "does not say that Jesus was God" he is merely
making the observation that by not saying "the Word as the God" John was avoiding identifying
the Word as God the Father.

199
John could have said, "The Word was another god." If he had wanted us to believe the
Word was a separate and distinct god from God the Father previously mentioned, he could have
inserted the word for "another" (allos). Instead, John maintains the Jewish belief in one God (Dt
32:39; Isa 45:5-6).
It is interesting that the Hebrew Scriptures verse which mentions the "witnesses of
Jehovah" also says, "Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me" (Isa 43:10).
The so-called "gods" mentioned elsewhere in Scripture are sometimes demonic spirits that rule in
opposition to God's authority (1 Co 8:5-6). Sometimes the other gods are men or God's
spokesmen (Ps 82:6).
John did say, "The Word was God." "God" not only is a definite predicate nominative,
but also describes "the Word." The two nouns are not interchangeable. "God" and "the Word" are
one essence but two distinct persons. "The Word" is different from "God," but definitely is not
"a different god." John 1:14 identifies Jesus as the Word, and verse 1 describes the Word as God.
No verse in Scripture has come under as much attack as John 1:1. It has become a
watershed in biblical exegesis (reading out of the text), and unfortunately, "biblical" eisegesis
(reading into the text). Unless there is a way around the clear statement of Jesus deity in this
verse, any theological superstructure that is not built upon Christ's divine nature comes
crumbling down. This is why the Jehovah's Witnesses have so adamantly fought the orthodox
and historic interpretation of this text.
The Watchtower Society has warned:
"God does not deal with persons who ignore His Word and go according to their
own independent ideas."
The Jehovah's Witnesses further state that Jehovah is against those who "steal" or change
words from His Bible to make wrong application.
Yet they have done that very thing by incorporating hundreds of mistranslations in their
New World Translation. Their treatment of John 1:1 is probably the best example of the mockery
of the Society's claims to have tried to publish an honest, unbiased, accurate translation of the
Bible.
John 1:1 has been problematic for four presidents of Jehovah's Witnesses. Founder
C. T. Russell in 1876 thought he had the problem solved when he was introduced to Wilson's
Emphatic Diaglott by N. H. Barbour, an Adventist. Wilson was a follower of John Thomas, the
founder of the heretical "Christadelphians." Even though Wilson has had no formal training in
the Greek language he placed "a god" under Theos in the interlinear feature of his book. In his
translation of Theos, however, he did write: "the LOGOS was God."

200
F. W. Franz, the recent President of Jehovah's Witnesses, recognized the weakness of the
Ephatic Diaglott and thus decided to translate his own Bible called, The New World Translation
of the Holy Scriptures. He never received a Rhodes Scholarship as he claims, nor did he even
graduate from any college. He never studied biblical or koine Greek in any formal sense. Yet he
had the audacity to set himself up as an authority by translating his own Bible. It is no wonder
that he translates the phrase, "the Word was a god" in John 1:1. In his Kingdom Interlinear he
makes the translation, "god was the Word." Such a translation, as we have already seen, creates
another god and thus Franz ends up with the teaching of polytheism (many gods). It is ironic
that in trying to solve one problem (that Jesus was God and thus part of a trinity), he created
another—polytheism.
The Watchtower publication, All Scripture Is Inspired Of God & Beneficial claims:
"Note what Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson has to say in his
review of the New World Translation: 'The translation is evidently the work
of skilled and clever scholars'"
Such a claim is wholly fallacious since Frank Neil Pohorlak, his coeditor, has pointed out
that Thomson, a layman who worked in a bank in Scotland, had never even studied Greek or
Hebrew in any school. He hardly qualifies as a Greek and Hebrew scholar.
Johannes Greber is quoted in Watchtower publications and his translation called, The
New Testament (of which Make Sure of All Things is a 1965 revision) agrees with Franz
interpretation. But who was Johannes Greber? He was an avowed spiritist who stated in
his book, Communication With The Spirit World Of God:
"After I had convinced myself at the spiritist meetings that God's spirits speak to
men through mediums, as they had spoken to the early Christian communities,
my first thought was to beg for full enlightenment on these problems concerning
Christ. Who was Christ? My request was granted, to the smallest details, and that
knowledge thenceforth constituted the most precious possession of my soul. In
what follows, I shall repeat the truths regarding Christ. His life, and his work of
Redemption, as they were imparted to me by the spirit which taught them. The
spirit said, 'At that time you were told that Christ is the highest of the spirits
created by God and the sole one to be created directly; Christ Himself was not
God, but only the first of God's sons.'"22
This, of course, is exactly what Franz teaches who also claims to get information from
angels. John warned:
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether
they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the
world" (1 Jn 4:1).

201
Russell, Barbour, Wilson, Franz, Thomson, and Greber have all shown themselves to be
false prophets who teach doctrines that emanate from the spirit or demonic world.
Because this verse has been such a target of controversy, several of the foremost biblical
and linguistic scholars will be cited.
It is ironic that B. F. Westcott, considered by most to be the textual scholar in the world,
and whose Greek text the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear use, forcefully contradicts
the interpretation and thus translation of John 1:1 by the Watchtower Society:
"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without
the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause 'the Word' is
declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton
Theological Seminary and author of The Text of the New Testament and many other scholarly
works, observes,
"The Jehovah's Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New
Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek. . . . Far more
pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, 'and the Word was a god,' with
the following footnotes: 'A god,' in contrast with 'the God.' It must be stated
quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously,
they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during
this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were
the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to
fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mis-
translation."23
British scholar H. H. Rowley asserts,
"From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible
should not be translated . . . it is an insult to the Word of God."24
Julius Mantey, co-author with H. E. Dana of, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1:
"A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate
John 1:1 'the Word was a god.' But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we
know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."25
F. F. Bruce, who before his death was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and
Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England, stated:

202
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite
Article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God'. Such an omission
is common with nouns in a predicate construction. 'A god' would be totally
indefensible."26
Eugene Nida, head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society
Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE, makes the serious accusation:
"With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because
the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not
take seriously the syntax of the Greek."27
William Barclay, who before his death was professor of divinity and Biblical Criticism at
Glasgow University in Scotland, stated:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament
translations. John 1:1 is translated: '. . . the Word was a god,' a translation which
is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate
the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."28
Ernest Colvell, professor of divinity at University of Chicago, claims:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not
have the article when it precedes the verb . . . this statement cannot be regarded as
strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of
Thomas, 'My Lord and my God!'"29
Charles Feinberg, who before his death was professor of theology and biblical languages
at Talbot Theological Seminary in California, boldly states:
"I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1
is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."30
Harry Sturz, Chairman of the Language Department and professor of Greek at Biola
University in California, claims:
"Therefore, the NWT rendering: 'the Word was a god' is not a 'literal' but an
ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can
be nothing other than: 'the Word was God.”31
The Jehovah's Witnesses, then, show an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek
grammar in many of the treatments of biblical texts, especially in their mistranslation of John
1:1.

203
11. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART III
Unique Relationship

204
Jesus' Unique Relationship to God Proves His Deity
● He is put side by side with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal
Formula (Mt 28:19).
● He is put side by side with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic
Benediction (2 Co 13:14).
● He spoke of Himself and Paul spoke of Him as the greatest gift of infinite
mercy.
In His conversation with Nicodemus, Christ spoke of Himself in these terms:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3:16).
Jesus here conveys the idea that the gift of the Son was the richest gift of divine love.
Imagine a mere man stepping forward and proclaiming Himself as the choicest gift of God's love
to humanity. What exaggeration and egotism! Yet Paul did not see it as such since He affirmed
without reserve:
"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" (2 Co 9:15).
● He demands the same trust that God demands:
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in Me" (Jn 14:1).
Who but Jesus would dare to demand that we put the same faith in Him that we put in
God the Father. Who would dare claim that in such faith we will find a cure for all trouble and
anxiety of heart. Jesus was certainly cognizant of Jeremiah's warning:
"Cursed is the one who trusts in man" (Jer 17:5).
Yet He had the boldness to demand absolute and unwavering trust in Himself. In
Scripture, such trust only belongs to God. On another occasion He similarly stated:
"Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" (Mt 11:28).
Only a lunatic, an impostor, or God Almighty would make such a promise. No one can
give rest to all who are weary and burdened unless He is God, and yet Jesus makes that very
offer. It is notable that in the same breath in which He speaks of Himself in these august terms,
He says: "I am meek and lowly in heart." But where is His meekness and lowliness in making
such a claim, if He were simply a man like ourselves, though better?

205
In the same spirit are those memorable passages in which this Person speaks of Himself
as our peace:
● "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world
gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid" (Jn 14:27).
● "I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have peace. In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (16:33).
Millions of people can testify to the authenticity of such a claim by Jesus. Those who have
come to Him for rest and peace have found it. Surely then He is not merely a great man, nor is
He of the angelic order since there is no reference in Scripture that we can receive rest and peace
from angels. This leaves us only with the conclusion that He is God.
● He demands the same devotion as God the Father:
". . . anyone who does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple . . .
any of you who does not give up everything cannot be My disciple" (Lk 14:27,33).
Such wholehearted devotion and radical sacrifice is only demanded by God Himself in
Scripture (e.g. the Rich Young Ruler—Mk 10:17-31). No angel or man dare make such a bold
demand. Only Jesus could make it if He really were God. If not, His challenge proves ridiculous.
Napoleon was convinced that such a challenge was not ridiculous:
"Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man towards the unseen that it
becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across the chasm of eighteen
hundred years Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to
satisfy. He asks for that which a philosophy may often seek in vain at the hands of
his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his
brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself; He
demands it unconditionally, and forthwith His demand is granted. Its powers and
faculties become an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe
in Him experience that supernatural love towards Him. This phenomenon is
unaccountable, it is altogether beyond the scope of mans' creative powers. Time,
the great destroyer can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range."1
● He was to receive equal love as God the Father:
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and
children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My
disciple" (Lk 14:26).

206
Jesus demands unrivaled love from His followers. His statement is a Hebrew form of
exaggeration to make a strong point. It is not that He is saying that His disciples are to literally
hate everyone but Himself, if this were so, He would be contradicting the rest of Scripture, but
that their love for Him must be so much greater than their love for anyone or anything else
that by comparison it would seem as hatred. Throughout Scripture only God Himself demands
such love (e.g. The Greatest Commandment—Mt 22:34-40; Mk 12:28-31).
Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, the Moravian leader whose burden was twofold:
worldwide evangelization and the unity of the church, when asked what inspired him so greatly
that he would give up the trappings of nobility and a comfortable, influential life to lowly service
to a Christian community answered:
"I have but one passion, 'tis He, 'tis only He.'"2
Such intense, personal heart-devotion to Jesus Christ is what Jesus Himself demanded of
His followers. Such is the normal Christian life.
● He was to receive equal honor and glory as God the Father:
". . . that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not
honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent Him" (Jn 5:22-23).
The equality of honor is expressed strongly with both a positive and negative statement.
So little did the Jews misunderstand Jesus in regard to His claim to be equal with God (v. 18), so
little does He disavow claiming that equality (v. 19), that here in the clause, "just as they honor
the Father," He asserts that equality in the clearest possible way.
Jesus was not ignorant of the warning:
"I am the Lord; that is My name! I will not give My glory to another or My
praise to idols" (Isa 42:8).
Yet Jesus claims such honor and glory for Himself. In fact such honor is constantly due
the Son as evidenced by the Greek grammar (durative present timosi—"honor").
Similarly Jesus stated boldly:
"Father, the time has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. . . .
And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You
before the world began" (Jn 17:1,5).

207
What audacity! Who but God could ask that God the Father would glorify Him? In fact,
the request is that God the Father would glorify Him (Jesus) with the same glory that He (the
Father) has: "with the glory I had with You before the world began." Jesus here asks the Father
to return Him to His previous position of glory, to exchange humiliation for glorification. This
occurred at Christ's resurrection and exaltation to God's right hand.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses have attempted to escape the obvious inference to Jesus' deity
in John 17:5 by claiming that the word "with" (para) really means "through" and thus the "glory"
that is referred to is not proof of Jesus' deity but merely a statement that the glory belongs to
Jehovah and is only shining "through" the Son. It is, therefore, merely a manifestation of God's
glory, rather than a glory which belongs to Him.
This is totally fallacious since para ("with") is used in the dative case. The Greek word
for "through" is dia. Greek scholar Thayer uses this very verse to show that the word para should
be translated "with" and not "through."
Para indicates a possessive quality which points to Jesus as the possessor of divine glory
along with the Father and the Holy Spirit before the world was even formed. Jesus also states
that He intends to appropriate that divine glory once again when God's plan and purpose for this
earth is brought to its completion.
Jesus claimed the same honor and glory as God the Father. Since Jehovah has said that
He will not give His inherent glory and honor to another (Isa 42:8), the unity of essence or
substance—divinity—is undeniable between Jehovah and Jesus.
In the fourth century Theodosius, the Roman Emperor, favored the Arian teachers.
When Arcadius, his son, became sixteen, the Emperor made him full partner with him on the
throne of the empire.
All the great people of the empire came on the appointed day to offer congratulations to
the emperor and his son.
Among them came Amphilocus, an old bishop who had suffered much in the Arian
persecution. He made a very noble speech to the Emperor and was about to leave when
Theodosius exclaimed:
"What! Do you take no notice of my son? Do you not know that I have made him the
sharer of my throne?"
said:
At this point, the old bishop went up to young Arcadius, put his hand on his head, and
"The Lord bless thee, my son."

208
The Emperor was indignant! He forcefully stated:
"Is this all the respect you pay to a prince that I have made of equal dignity with myself?"
The bishop replied courageously:
"Sir, do you so highly resent my apparent neglect of your son because I do not give
him equal honors with yourself? Then what must the eternal God think of you,
who has given permission to have His co-equal and co-eternal Son degraded in
His proper deity in every part of your empire?"
The Emperor acknowledged the reproof to be just, and gave orders to have all the Arian
chapels shut up, and would not permit one of them to exist.3
The godly bishop was right. We must give equal honor to the Son.
● Jesus is the divine Wisdom
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by
Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones of powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by
Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and the
firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything He might have the
supremacy. For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him and
through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or
things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross" (Col 1:15-20).
This section takes the form of a poem as Paul envisions God's purpose in creation as
being to sum up all things in the name of Jesus Christ. He is one who, though not yet a human
being, was God's agent in the creation of the world. This was so because of His preexistence,
because of His being "the image of the invisible God," because He is "the firstborn over all
creation," because "all things were created by Him and for Him," because "He is before all
things, and in Him all things hold together," because He is the head of the body, the church,
because He is "the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead," because "God was pleased
to have all His fullness dwell in Him," therefore He was perfectly fitted to become human and so
to take the leading role in the unfolding drama of God's purpose for recreating the world.
In becoming the predestined human Lord of the world, Jesus has taken His rightful place,
since from the beginning, as the true Wisdom of God, He was the Father's agent, God in the
work of creation. The preexistent Lord of the world has become the human Lord of the world,
and in so doing has reflected fully, for all to see, the God whose human image He has now come
to bear.

209
Christ, as the divine Wisdom, is both to be identified with, and distinguished from, God
the Father. As the divine Wisdom Jesus is none other than the one creator God who is active in
creation and now in redemption. Yet this divine Wisdom is not to be identified with God the
Father. Does this mean that there is a dualism whereby two gods are opposed? Or does it mean
as in paganism that there are two gods who are distinguished and given different tasks? The
answer is obviously "no" to both questions. Then what does it mean? It means that this divine
Wisdom was of the same essence or being—God—yet was a different person. Even though the
New Testament writers did not formulate the doctrine of the Trinity themselves, their way of
speaking and writing about God necessitated such a formulation eventually.
In this poem there is an allusion to the Temple and the Shekinah glory (Col 1:19; see also
2:9 and Ecclesiasticus 24:3-12), where the "fullness" of God is "pleased to dwell" in Christ, as in
Psalm 67:17 (the Septuagint) where God had been pleased to dwell on Mount Zion. Even though
this allusion is expressed in language borrowed from the wisdom tradition, it goes beyond that
tradition and uses a form of Jewish monotheism not before envisioned, in which the Messiah
Himself is the dwelling-place of the divine Wisdom. Here is the picture of the immanent
presence of the transcendent God, the visible image of the invisible God (Col 1:15).
This poem transfers to Jesus Christ—the divine Wisdom—what belonged to Wisdom and
Torah in Judaism. Paul astoundingly claims that "all that Judaism had hoped to gain by belief in
one God, whose Wisdom was given to them in the form of Torah, was now to be gained through
Christ. For Him, and not for Israel, all things were created."
Paul's point to the Christians at Colossae was that Christ is God's true Wisdom and that
by having Him they possess all they need (1 Co 3:22).
● Jesus is the fullness of God in Christ (Col 1:19; 2:9)
Jesus alone is the embodiment of all the fullness of the Godhead:
"For God was pleased to have all His fullness to dwell in Him . . . For in Christ all
the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (1:19; 2:9).
The word "fullness" (pleroma) is found 17 times in the New Testament, but there are
only three places in which the meaning is parallel to that of this passage (Eph 1:23; 3:19; 4:13).
The word was used by false teachers to refer to the totality of supernatural powers ("aeons")
which they believed were in control of people's lives.
These verses are very emphatic in Greek. The expression "in Him" stands first and is
thereby emphasized. The word "dwells" (katoikei) means "permanently dwells." The phrase
"the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" is obviously intended to convey the thought that in
Christ is all that is in deity. Here is a blanket endorsement of the divine attributes of Christ.

210
Biblical scholars such as C. F. D. Moule sees here a reference to deity and thus interprets
this to mean "God in all His fullness,"4 that is, "all that God is." J. B. Phillips in his New
Testament paraphrase renders this, "the full nature of God." The New English Bible translates it,
"the complete being of God." Lightfoot paraphrases it, "the totality of divine powers and
attributes."5
The idea of the word "fullness" is that nothing of deity is lacking in Christ. He is the full
demonstration of who God is. In other places Paul speaks of Jesus as God "manifest in the
flesh" (1 Ti 3:16) and of His appearance on earth as an "epiphany" (2 Ti 1:10).
Paul's use of the word "full" is significant since it is probably done to argue against the
false teachers at Colossae who looked upon the many spirit beings (aeons) as filling the space
between God and the world. These spirits would serve as intermediaries and therefore any
communication between God and the world had to pass through them. They were the connecting
link between God and His perfect world of the spirit and the world which was inherently evil.
It is likely that these false teachers included Christ as one of these supernatural entities
since they were forced to admit that he was of heavenly origin and thus God was in some sense
present in Him. But He was only one aspect of the divine nature and thus in Himself He was not
sufficient to meet all the needs of people. Paul, therefore, declares that Christ is not just one of
many divine beings. He is the one Mediator between God and the world. All, not just part, of
the attributes of God are centered in Him.
Since the word "dwell" suggests "permanent residence" as opposed to "temporary
sojourn," Paul was probably refuting a teaching among the Colossians that the divine fullness
had only a transient and temporary association with Christ. Paul's point is that God's fullness
resides in Christ permanently.
● Jesus is the "radiance" or "effulgence" and "image" of God (Heb 1:3; Col 1:15).
The word "radiance" or "effulgence" (apaugasma) means "to send forth light," "to flash
out" in the sense of radiating and it also means "to flash back" in the sense of reflecting. The
word apaugasma can mean either a light that is emitted from some luminary in the sense of
radiance or effulgence, or a light reflected from some luminary that is a refulgence or reflection.
The essential meaning is very close. The idea is that Jesus is the manifestation of God, who is
light (1 Jn 1:5).
As one in whom light is sent forth Jesus expresses God to us. Because no one will ever
see God, the only radiance that reaches us from God is mediated to us through Jesus Christ. Just
as the rays of the sun bring light and warmth to the earth, so the light of God shines through the
Person of Jesus into the hearts of people.

211
Jesus is the radiance or reflection of God's glory. This means that Jesus is the radiance
which streams from God or that Jesus is the reflection of God in whom infinity and eternity are
made visible to humanity in time and space. God sent His light in the Person of Jesus Christ that
we might see, accept, and radiate that light.
● He is the "exact representation" of God (Heb 1:3). The word "representation"
(charakter) means "the impress" or "stamp" of whatever it represents. It means an exact replica,
copy or reproduction. The point of the author is that Jesus bears the very stamp of God, the
impress of His being. Just as the image and superscription on a coin exactly and perfectly
correspond to the device on the die, so the Son of God "bears the very stamp of God's nature"
(Revised Standard Version). He is the exact reproduction of God. In Jesus there is a clear and
accurate picture of what God is.
The New International Version translation adds the word "exact" to give the full sense of
the meaning of this word. Therefore Christ is the exact representation—the perfect copy and
embodiment of God. What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ. To see Christ is to see
what the Father is like.
Charakter also came to mean "a distinguishing mark," a mark by which a person or thing
could be clearly distinguished from other persons or things. The mark of the seal brings about
such a distinction and identification. This meaning is very close to the English word "character"
or "characteristic." This is the distinguishing mark which makes a person the person he is.
Therefore, to call Jesus the charakter of God is to see in His person the character of God
reproduced. As the charakter of God, Jesus is the one in whom the essential character of God is
accurately and completely displayed and reproduced. In Jesus God makes Himself uniquely
known to people in a form (physical) which all people can see and thus somewhat understand.
● He is very the "form God" and "equal with God" (Php 2:3).
A key passage in which Paul reveals his understanding of Jesus is Philippians 2:5-11.
Here Paul traces Christ's life from eternity past, when He was in the form of God and equal to
God, through the events of His earthly life to eternity future, where He once again is glorified
with the Father.
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very form God, did not consider equality with God something to
be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very form of a servant, being
made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled
Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God
exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and
under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Christ the Lord, to the
glory of God the Father."

212
In referring to the position and status that Jesus enjoyed with God the Father in eternity
past, Paul uses two words that are crucial to properly understanding the passage. The first is the
Greek word morphe which is translated "form." In English the word "form" usually refers to the
outward shape of an object, to that which is external. Paul uses the word in this sense when he
talks about those who have "a form of religion" but who deny its power (2 Ti 3:5).
The more common use of the word in Scripture is in the case where both an external and
internal aspect is meant. For instance, if you were to say, "I'm in good form or shape today" you
would be referring not only to your external appearance but also to your internal fitness or health
as well. This is what Paul has in mind primarily as he writes about Jesus in His preincarnate
state. This means that Jesus possessed inwardly and displayed outwardly the very nature of
God Himself.
We see the contrast when we compare the words "appearance" and "form." When Paul
says that Jesus was found "in appearance as a man" he uses the word schema. Unlike the word
"form" (morphe) which refers to the unchanging and unchangeable essential nature of a thing,
the word schema means the changing and altering external form of a person or thing.
For instance, a man has always the unchanging morphe of manhood; that is what he
essentially is; but he will have different schemata, different outward forms: in babyhood,
childhood, youth, maturity, old age. Flowers such as daffodils, tulips, and roses all have the same
morphe—the same essential nature—for they are all flowers; but they have very different
outward schemata--outward forms.
Paul carefully stated that Jesus was in the morphe of God; that is, the essential nature of
Jesus is the same as the essential nature of God. But when Paul talks of Jesus becoming man he
uses the word schema to point out that Jesus temporarily took the form of manhood upon him.
Another word that Paul uses is even more critical. It is the word isos which means
"equal." This is the word from which we get such scientific words as "isomer," "isomorph,"
"isometric." An "isomer" is a molecule having a slightly different structure from another
molecule (like a mirror image of it), yet it is identical to it in chemical composition. An
"isomorph" is something that has the same form as something else. "Isometric" means "in equal
measure." Paul's use of this word in reference to Jesus, therefore, teaches that Jesus is equal to
God.
When Paul says that Christ Jesus "was in the form of God" he underlines the fact that
Christ was in full possession of the divine nature by using, not the simple verb "to be," but a
stronger verb (hyparchein) which in its characteristic usage has the force "to be really and truly,"
"to be characteristically," even "to be by nature." This is why the New International Version of
the Bible translated the word morphe with the word "nature." In a passage like this present one,
where it is plain that every word has been weighed and measured, the full meaning of the verb
can be presumed or assumed: He was really and truly, in His own personal and essential
nature, God.

213
On the following page is listed some definitions by foremost New Testament biblical
scholars. Notice that their translations and meaning as to the nature of Jesus Christ confirms His
divine personhood. But, being of the same essence as God, He "emptied Himself." The very
notion of "emptying" inevitably suggests deprivation or lessening, the loss of something that
was possessed before. When Jesus "emptied Himself," therefore, did He diminish Himself, and
if so, in what way? The verb "to empty" (kenoo) in every other New Testament instance means
to deprive something of its proper place and use.
As John Calvin points out,
"Christ, indeed, could not divest Himself of Godhead; but He kept it concealed
for a time . . . He laid aside His glory in the view of men, not by lessening it, but
by concealing it."6
He did this in voluntary subjection or subordination to God the Father.
God is of such a nature that acceptance of the limitations of a human life does not make
Him unlike Himself. He is free to be our God without ceasing to be God the Lord. Jesus
remained God in the voluntary deprivation of the exercise of Lordship. He willingly gave up the
glory, majesty and honor that only belongs to absolute divinity.
By submitting Himself to the Father Jesus did not become inferior to the Father since
submission has to do with roles rather than substance or essence. Roles are essential in the
ordering of society. Husbands, wives, children, employers, employees, presidents, vicepresidents,
leaders, followers, etc.—all these designations of roles do not indicate inherent worth,
but merely the identity of one's place in a given situation. Because parents have the role of
providing leadership for their children, this in no way means that they have more inherent worth
and dignity. Parents and children belong to the same class--humanity. No more, no less.
When John talks about God the Father being "greater" than Jesus (Jn 5:19; 14:28) he is
referring to the submission of the Son to the Father and thus not in any way implying that the
Son is inherently inferior to the Father. Biblical submission simply does not imply inferiority. It
only points out the humble placing of people in the order of God's plan, purpose, and program.
When Paul refers to God as "head of Christ" (1 Co 11:3) and that Christ will be subject to
God that God may be "all in all" (15:28) he is not saying that Jesus is inferior. This merely has to
do with chains of authority. Christ came to put down all rule, authority, and power not
authorized by His Father (vv. 23-26), and to demonstrate to the universe His absolute lordship
(Php 2:8-11). But this lordship in a kingdom of service was not to be gained by the raw
expression of divine power any more than rightful human leadership is to be established by
violence. Rather it was granted by His moral and spiritual worthiness (Heb 2:9-18; 3:1-6; Rev 5).

214
Thus Christ, as a lawful and true representative of the Father, triumphed in the power of
the Father, opening the way not only to salvation from sin and death, but to the rights and
privileges of the kingdom of heaven for all who follow Him.
As a true representative of the human race and as a wholly obedient Son of God the
Father, Jesus never acted independently during His earthly ministry. Everything He did He
drew from His Father's power (Jn 5:19-20; 14:10-12), wisdom (7:16; 8:26-28,40), and in perfect
harmony with His Father's will (Mk 14:35-39; Jn 6:38; 8:29; Heb 10:5-9). In this voluntary
limitation of dependence, He lived (as His followers must live) by faith (Mt 3:14-15; Heb 2:9-
18; 3:1-2), died in faith (5:7-9; Col 1:18-23; Php 2:8-11), and rose again by faith (Mt 16:21; Eph
1:17-23).
Just as no one can rightfully conclude that Jesus became less than man because He chose
to become man's servant (Mk 10:45), so no one should conclude that Jesus was less than God
because He subjected Himself to the Father while on earth.
The point of the passage is that Jesus did not treat His equality with God as an excuse for
self-assertion or self-aggrandizement. Rather He treated it as an occasion for renouncing every
right and advantage that was possessed by Him and saw it as an opportunity for selfimpoverishment
and undeserved self-sacrifice.
Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, interpret this passage to mean that Christ, because He
was ever aware that He was not "almighty God," had a "form" of God in the sense that He was a
spirit creature before He became a man, but that He would never dare even to think that He could
"seize" the status of being a member of a Godhead from God the Father. Instead, Jesus humbly
surrendered His life to be a ransom sacrifice—"a Lamb without blemish"—a perfect sacrifice—
on our behalf.
This interpretation is clearly contradicted by the context of the passage. The overriding
theme of Philippians 2:1-11 is humility. Paul admonishes the Christians at Philippi to be humble
toward each other, even to the point of acting as though their brothers and sisters were better
than themselves. After all, argues Paul, consider the supreme example of humility in the person
and work of Jesus Christ.
The point is that Jesus, although He was exactly equal to the Father as to His divine
nature, humbled Himself to the Father's will. In the same way, although He was exactly equal to
any other person as to His human nature, He humbled Himself to all humanity by enduring the
cross on our behalf. It is not humility to submit to one to whom you are intrinsically inferior.
That would be mere acknowledgement of fact. True humility comes from a voluntary
submission which is based on intrinsic equality. A good translation that would clearly point this
out would be:

215
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very form God, did not consider equality with God
something to be held onto, but made Himself nothing . . ."
The word "being" (hyparchon) literally means "remaining" or "not ceasing to be." This
means that Jesus never ceased to be God. Rather He remained in His basic nature.
The phrase "held onto" or the word "detained" more clearly gives us the sense of the
point Paul is making. The meaning of the words "grasped" or "seized" only become clear when
we carefully look at the intent and flow of the passage.
Just as "form of a servant" (Php 2:7) means that Christ truly was a servant, so "form of
God" (v. 6) means that Christ truly is God. These two parallels of humility between Christians
and Jesus, and of form between Christ's deity and humanity, are undeniable. Far from denying
the deity of Christ, this Philippian passage (vv. 1-11) clearly and forcefully affirms the full and
absolute deity of Christ who is our supreme model of humility in the face of equality.
This passage powerfully points us to the enormous contrast between Adam and Christ.
Adam, who was made in the image of God, "snatched" at a false and illusory equality ("you will
be like God, knowing good and evil"—Gn 3:5). Christ, on the other hand, who already enjoyed
true equality with God, refused to derive any advantage from it in becoming man. Whereas
Adam forfeited his lordship (over creation) through his "snatching," Christ achieved or reclaimed
universal lordship through His renunciation of His divine prerogatives.
This interpretation is the most logical since it also follows the flow or movement of the
whole passage. After having described how Jesus laid aside His former glory in order to become
man and die for us, Paul goes on to show how He received that glory back as every creature in
the universe will one day confess Him as "Lord."
In the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) this word (kyrios) is used, over and above its
regular meanings, to represent the personal name of the God of Israel. This personal name,
usually spelled Yahweh, had come to be regarded too sacred to be normally pronounced aloud,
and so, when the Scriptures were read in public, it was replaced by another word, most often by
the word meaning "Lord." This, then, is the name that God has bestowed on Jesus—the rarest of
all honors, in view of His affirmation in Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD, that is My name.” By this
He meant, "Mine and no one else's."
This is the name that is "above every other name" (Php 2:9). By identifying the name of
Jesus with "Lord" Paul alludes to Isaiah 45:23 in which God declares that He Himself will be the
object of universal adoration: "To Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Such
adoring worship is only worthy of God Himself. Yet this is the very worship that Jesus will
receive as His kingdom is brought to its fulfillment.

216
Phillips Brooks succinctly captures the meaning of this passage with the statement:
"Jesus Christ, the condescension of divinity, and the exaltation of humanity."7
The confession, "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Php 2:11) is the quintessential Christian creed.
In this creed Jesus is given the most august sense that it can bear. This is why Christians in
later generations refused to say, "Ceasar is Lord" because they knew that this was no mere
courtesy title that Caesar claimed; it was a title that implied his right to receive divine honors,
and in this sense they could give it to none but Jesus. There was "only one God, the Father . . .
and . . . only one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Co 8:6). In the Septuagint Old Testament Gentile
Christians read that Yahweh was denoted either by "God" (theos) or most often "Lord" (kyrios).
They reserved theos regularly for "God the Father" and kyrios regularly for "Jesus."
When divine honors are thus paid to the humiliated and exalted Jesus, "the glory of God
the Father" (Php 2:11) is not diminished but enhanced. When the Son is honored, the Father is
glorified; for none can bestow on the Son higher honors than the Father Himself has bestowed.
This passage is clear then, that the one who, before becoming human, possessed divine
qualities and did not regard that status as something to take advantage of, something to exploit,
but instead used it as an opportunity for obedient humiliation and death. God the Father
acknowledged such an attitude by exalting Him so share His own divine glory.
Paul used this passage to fulfill the role of his developing argument that Jesus' example is
one that Christians are to imitate. Just as God acknowledged Christ's self-emptying as the true
self-expression of divine equality, so He will acknowledge Christian self-abnegation (vv. 1-4,
12-18) in the same way (3:2,11,21).
People Prayed to Jesus
Orthodox Jews would pray to no one less than God. In the New Testament, however,
both God and Jesus were prayed to as "Lord":
"While they were stoning Him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus receive my spirit.'
Then He fell on His knees and cried out, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against
them'" (Ac 7:59-60).
Stephen not only prayed to Jesus, but also assumed that Jesus, as God, had the power to
forgive sin, even murder. (Other passages where prayer is offered to Jesus: 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Co 12:8-
9; Ac 8:16,24).

217
Divine Worship is Rendered and Accepted by Him
In Matthew 4:10 (quoting Dt 6:13) Jesus told Satan, "Worship the Lord your God, and
serve Him only." Yet later in Matthew the disciples "worshiped" Jesus after He walked on water
(Mt 14:33) and after He rose from the dead (Jn 20:9; 28:9).
To worship any other as God, whether angel, man or man-made image is idolatry. In
Colossians 2 we are warned, "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in . . .
the worship of angels" (v. 18). We are not to worship angels and this is consistently
demonstrated throughout the Bible. In Revelation 19:10 an angel refuses worship from John. In
Revelation 22:8-9, an angel refuses John's worship a second time, saying, "Do not do that . . .
worship God."
Peter refused worship from Cornelius (Ac 10:25-26) and when Paul and Barnabas were
worshiped, they immediately denounced it as blasphemous because they were mere "human
beings" (14:11-18), yet when Jesus was worshiped He readily accepted it. It was the practice of
the apostles and the early church to render worship to Christ (7:59; 1 Co 1:2; 2 Co 12:8-10)
(other passages attributing worship to Jesus: Jn 9:38; Heb 1:6; Rev 5:13-14).
Christians of all ages have not been satisfied with admiring Christ, they have adored and
worshiped Him. They have approached His person in the attitude of self-sacrifice and worship
as in the presence of and to God.
Accounts of people who worshiped Jesus:
● The wise men (Mt 2:2,11).
● The leper (8:2).
● A synagogue official (9:18).
● The people in the boat (14:33).
● The Canaanite woman (15:25).
● The mother of the sons of Zebedee (20:20).
● Men (Jn 9:38).
● The disciples (Mt 28:9,17).
● The saints in glory (Rev 4:1-14; 7:9-17; 19:4-10).
● The angels (Heb 1:6).
● One day everyone (Php 2:10-11).
The Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ is not based on any theory or
speculation about the incarnation of what the Stoic philosophers called the Logos or Reason of
God. Rather it was based upon the encounter with Christ as one who rightly claims man's
worship. The worship of Christ was discovered to be inseparable from the worship of God—the
God whom the Jewish remnant had for centuries worshiped and to whom they looked to for
salvation.

218
Christian belief in Christ was based upon the recognition that in the Person of Jesus
Christ this salvation had appeared. Thus the belief in Christ's divinity was founded upon the
experience of the early church that the crucified and risen Lord, the Jesus whom the disciples had
known and loved in the flesh, had led them forth out of the bondage of ignorance, superstition,
fear, and sin into God's Kingdom of light, peace, truth and love.
In a letter to a lady who was dying Robert Browning quoted the words of Charles Lamb
when he was asked how he would feel if the greatest of the dead were to appear suddenly in
person once more and if Christ were to enter the room. It is said that Charles Lamb, as he
contemplated the question, responded with great gravity:
"You see—if Shakespeare entered, we should all rise; if Christ appeared, we must
all kneel."8
Similarly Napoleon stated:
"If Socrates should enter the room, we would all rise and do him honor. But if
Jesus Christ came into the room, we would all fall down and worship Him."9

219
12. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART IV
Jesus' Own Consciousness

220
Christ's own Consciousness and Claims Prove His Deity
● At the age of twelve (Lk 2:49).
● At His baptism (Mt 3:17).
● With His disciples (10:1,8).
● He claimed to be Impeccable or Sinless (Jn 8:46).
Jesus challenged His enemies with the statement:
"Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (v. 46).
Then He adds:
"If I am telling the truth why don't you believe Me?" (v. 46).
ACCUSATIONS
This claim to impeccability or sinlessness is astounding in light of the numerous
criticisms and accusations He received. It is not surprising that Jesus would be heavily criticized
and falsely accused since He made such astounding claims. Jesus explains:
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates
light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly
that what he has done has been done through God" (Jn 3:19-21).
The following accusations reveal the spiritual blindness and malicious hatred of Jesus'
enemies. Blinded by the pristine purity of the Son of God these "evil doers" lashed out at Him
repeatedly. There is no limit or restraint to their ferocious attacks!
As John points out:
"At these words [of Jesus] the Jews were again divided" (10:19).
Jesus caused division everywhere He went as He challenged people with the truth. After
all, had He not already warned that He came to bring a sword, not peace?
Jesus was accused of treason to Israel:

221
"If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and then the Romans
will come and take away both our place and our nation. . . . Jesus said, 'My
kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight to prevent My
arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place.' 'You are a
King, then!' said Pilate" (Jn 11:48; 18:36-37).
“. . . they insisted, 'He stirs up trouble all over Judea by His teaching. He
started in Galilee and has come all the way here. . . . with shouts they [the
Jews] insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So
Pilate decided to grant their demand. He released the man who had been
thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and
surrendered Jesus to their will" (Lk 23:23-25).
His accusers said He was a drunk and glutton:
"But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect
complained to His disciples, 'Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors
and 'sinners'? They said to Him, 'John's disciples often fast and pray, and
so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but Yours go on eating and drinking'" (5:30,33).
They accused Jesus of keeping bad company:
"When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw Him eating and
drinking with the 'sinners' and tax collectors, they asked His disciples:
'Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners'" (Mk 2:16).
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered,
'This man welcomes sinners and eats with them'" (15:2).
They accused Him of being a dog (that's what the Jews called the Samaritan):
"The Jews answered Him, 'Aren't we right in saying You are a Samaritan
and demon-possessed'" (Jn 8:48).
Jesus' enemies accused Him of being a deceiver or liar:
"When Jesus spoke again to the people, He said, 'I am the light of the world.
Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.' The Pharisees challenged Him, 'Here You are, appearing as Your own
witness; your testimony is not valid'" (vv. 12-13).

Jesus was accused of being a bastard:
222
"'I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill Me,
because you have no room for My word. I am telling you what I have
seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your
father.' 'Abraham is our father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's
children,' said Jesus, 'then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is,
you are determined to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that
I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the
things your own father does.'
We are not illegitimate children,' they protested. 'The only Father we
have is God Himself'" (Jn 8:41).
Jesus was accused of being a would-be suicide:
"Once more Jesus said to them, 'I am going away, and you will look for Me,
and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.' This made the
Jews ask,
‘Will He kill Himself? Is that why He said, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
(Jn 8:21-22)
His enemies called Him a blasphemer:
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves,
'Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but
God alone?'" (Lk 5:21).
"Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him . . . ' We are not stoning You
for any of these [good deeds],' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because
You, a mere man, claim to be God'" (Jn 10:31,33).
"The high priest said to Him, 'I charge You under oath by the living God:
Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,'
Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the
clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has
spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you
have heard the blasphemy What do you think?'" (Mt 26:63-66; see also Mk 14:55-63).

223
Jesus was accused of being mentally deranged and demon-possessed:
"Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that He and His
disciples were not even able to eat. When His family heard about this, they
went to take charge of Him, for they said, 'He is out of His mind'" (Mk 3:20-21).
"And the teachers of the law who came down from Jersusalem said, 'He is
possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons He is driving out
demons' . . . . He said this because they were saying, 'He has an evil
spirit'" (Mk 3:22;30).
"At this the Jews exclaimed, Now we know that you are demon-possessed!
Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet You say that if a man keeps Your
word, he will never taste death. Are You greater than our father Abraham?
He died, and so did the prophets. Who do You think You are?'" (Jn 8:52-53)
"Many of them said, 'He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen
to Him" (10:20).
John goes on to point out:
"But others said, 'These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon.
Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?'" (v. 21)
TESTIMONIALS
The contemporaries of Jesus testified to His integrity and uprightness:
Judas Iscariot—Just before he committed suicide, after having betrayed Jesus, said:
"I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood" (Mt 27:4).
Pontius Pilate—As a Roman officer he had for years been passing verdict on the
innocent and the guilty according to Roman law, after a thorough investigation of the charges
against Jesus and frequent interrogations of Him, repeated again and again:
"I find no basis for a charge against Him" (Lk 23:4).
The Dying Thief—As one of the dying thieves challenged Jesus to come down from the
cross and save Himself and everyone else, the other thief rebuked him:
"Don't you fear God since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly,
for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
(Lk 23:40-41)

said:
224
The Roman Centurion—This centurion, "seeing what had happened," praised God and
"Surely this was a righteous man" (Lk 23:47).
The followers of Jesus testified to His sinlessness:
Apostle Peter—As a disciple Peter had lived with Jesus for practically all His three-andone-half
years of ministry on this earth. Yet thirty years after Jesus' ascension Peter testified:
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth . . . a lamb without
blemish or defect" (1 Pe 2:22; 1:19).
Apostle John—John is considered to have been the person who was closest to Jesus. Not
only did he belong to the inner circle of the twelve disciples (Peter and James being the other two
members), but he was the disciple "whom Jesus loved," the one most intimate with Jesus. If
anyone knew Jesus, John did. Yet he wrote that Jesus claimed:
"I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He
has no hold on Me" (Jn 14:30).
John himself testified:
"But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him
is no sin” (1 Jn 3:5).
Apostle Paul—As a Jewish leader who began his ministry by trying to stamp out
Christianity, Paul became a fearless leader for the Christian movement after his conversion on
the Damascus Road. He became convinced of the fact that Jesus was who He claimed to be—the
promised Messiah, the Son of God. Thus Paul testified:
"He had no sin" (2 Co 5:21).
Author of the Book of Hebrews—In writing of the high priestly ministry of Jesus, the
writer to the Hebrew Christians testified:
"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not
have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have
one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin."
(Heb 4:15)
God the Father—On two different occasions: once when Christ was baptized—and
once when he was transfigured—God spoke from heaven in an audible voice proclaiming:

225
"This is My Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased" (Mt 3:17; 17:12; Mk 9:2).
Is it any wonder that Jesus challenged His enemies with the statement:
"Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (Jn 8:46)
● He claimed He and the Father were "one" (10:30).
When Jesus claimed, "I and My Father are one" (v. 30) the Jews immediately wanted to
stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. They replied,
"We are not stoning You for any of these but for blasphemy because You, a mere
man, claim to be God" (vv. 30-33).
The Jews understood clearly what Jesus was affirming when He claimed that He and God
the Father were "one." Nothing less than that He was and is "God."
The Jehovah's Witnesses explain this away by pointing to John 17:11 where Jesus also
talks about being "one":
". . . Holy Father, protect them [the disciples] by the power of Your name—the
name You gave Me—so that they may be one as we are one."
The point the Jehovah's Witnesses make is that Jesus' "oneness" with the Father is no
more significant than our (as human beings) oneness with each other. There is a sense in which
this is true. Rather than disproving Jesus' deity, it affirms it. If this "oneness" of us human beings
is the paradigm for God's oneness, then God's oneness means that Jesus is divine just as God the
Father is divine. After all, as human beings our "oneness" means that we are of the same stuff,
the same substance or essence—humanity. It is our shared humanity that makes oneness
possible.
● He and God the Father are Builders of God's House:
"Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a
house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone,
but God is the builder of everything. Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's
house, testifying to what would be said in the future. Christ is faithful as a son
over God's house" (Heb 3:3-6).
Great as Moses was, his status was inferior to Christ's. The old economy, inaugurated by
Moses, is inferior to the new order introduced by Christ. Moses was a household servant exalted
by virtue of His outstanding faithfulness to the post of chief administrator of God's household;
but Christ, the Son of God, through whom the universe was made and to whom it has been given
by His Father as His heritage, is founder and inheritor of the household.

226
Both Christ and God the Father are builders of the house. No distinction can be made
between the Father and the Son in this regard: God the Father, the Maker of all things, is
inevitably the founder of His own household, and it was through His Son that He brought into
being all things in general and His own household in particular.
● He claimed God the Father as "My" Father (Jn 5:17-18).
The account of Jesus' "breaking" or "loosing" the Sabbath shows us the attitude He had
toward His Father:
"So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted
Him. Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at His work to this very day, and
I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not
only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own
Father, making Himself equal with God" (Jn 5:16-18).
The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God (Ex 29:8-11) and thus only
God could abrogate or modify its regulation. Yet we see Jesus doing that very thing. The Jews
understood very clearly what Jesus claimed. This is why they reacted with such great hostility
when, in defense of His having healed on the Sabbath, Jesus called God "My Father" and linked
His work with that of God the Father. If Jesus did not mean what the Jews here understood Him
to say, Jesus could have easily clarified His point by saying, "But this is not what I mean."
Instead He accepts their interpretation as accurate of who He was and is. It is extremely difficult
to escape the conclusion here that Jesus understood Himself as equal with the Father, and as
possessing the authority to do things only God has the right to do.
No Jew ever spoke of God directly as "My Father." Yet that was the form of address
Jesus used on several occasions, especially in His prayers. In fact, it was His only way of
addressing God the Father. It referred to His relationship to the Father exclusively. He said to
Mary Magdalene,
"Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to
My brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to My Father and your Father, to
My God, and your God" (Jn 20:17).
Jesus did not say "to our Father" or "to our God." He is in special relationship to the
Father and thus shares in the triune Godhead.
● He equated a person's attitude to Himself with a person's attitude to God
● To know Him was to know God (Jn 8:19; 14:7).
● To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9).
● To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1).

227
● To receive Him was to receive God (Mk. 9:37).
● To hate Him was to hate God (Jn 15:23).
● To honor Him was to honor God (5:23).

228
13. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART V
Teachings

229
Jesus' teaching, whether it was the Sermon on the Mount, which captures the essence of
His message, or any other truths, was distinctive not only in their teaching—His message of
radical discipleship—but it was unique in that the Preacher and Teacher "taught as One who
had authority" (Mt 7:29).
People recognized it as such:
● "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished . . ." (Mt 19:25).
● "They were amazed at His teaching, because His message had authority" (Lk 4:32).
● "The large crowd listened to Him with delight" (Mk 12:37).
● "No one ever spoke the way this man does,' the guards declared" (Jn 7:46).
● "When Jesus had finished saying these things [from the Sermon on the Mount],
the crowds were amazed at His teaching, because He taught as One who had
authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (Mt 7:28-29).
The word "amazed" is a strong Greek word meaning "astonished" or even
"dumbfounded" or "shocked." Why were these people shocked since they were used to listening
to all kinds of teachers? Although Jesus was a Jew His teaching was not typically Jewish. While
the teachers of the law interpreted God's Word, Jesus proclaimed it afresh. Their only authority
lay in the authorities they were constantly quoting. Jesus, who was not even educated properly in
the rabbinic schools, swept away the traditions of the religious establishment and spoke God's
truth with boldness which impressed some and infuriated others.
A. B. Bruce shows the distinction between the scribes' and Jesus' teachings:
"The scribes spake by authority, resting all they said on traditions of what had been
said before. Jesus spake with authority, out of His own soul, with direct intuition
of truth; and, therefore, to the answering soul of his hearers."1
Not only did Jesus not teach like the scribes, He also did not teach like the prophets. For
the prophets introduced their messages with the phrase, "Thus says the Lord" whereas Jesus
merely said, "Truly, truly I say to you." Jesus dared to speak in His own name and by His own
authority, which He knew to be identical to that of God the Father (Jn 14:8-11).
Jesus' attitude toward teachers and authorities that might come after Him would be
peculiar if He were not God. Whereas none of the prophets, not even John the Baptist, regarded
themselves as the final or supreme authority, Jesus did since He did not expect His words to be
even supplemented, much less supplanted.

230
Philip B. Payne, in his extensive research in the parabolic teachings of Jesus, notes that
Jesus continually makes reference to himself in these parables. Such a practice has no parallel
in rabbinic parabolic teaching. In the vast majority of the parables, Jesus also depicts Himself
through images which in the Hebrew Scriptures are used to refer to God. According to Payne,
there are ten Old Testament images found in twenty of the New Testament parables which are
evidences of this implicit claim to deity: the images of the sower, the shepherd, the bridegroom,
and several others. These will be looked at more closely later.2
Jesus' words were astounding! Without any thought of Himself or His audience, Jesus
spoke out fearlessly on every occasion, utterly heedless of the consequences to Himself. His only
concern was for truth and the delivery of His Father's message. The spiritual force of His
personality expressed itself in His amazing utterances and thus held His hearers in its enthralling
grasp.
Here is a sample:
● "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away" (Lk 21:33).
● "I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me
has eternal life and will not be condemned" (Jn 5:24).
● "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken
to you are spirit and they are life" (6:63).
● "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether My teaching
comes from God or whether I speak on My own" (7:17).
● "I tell you the truth, if a man keeps My word, he will never see death" (8:51).
● "If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed
Of him when He comes in His glory and in the glory of the Father and of
the holy angels" (Lk 9:26).
Jesus never used the adverbs which characterize our daily conversation: "usually,"
"generally," "perhaps," and "maybe." He always said "verily" or "truly." Jesus was so certain of
the truth and validity of His teaching that He taught that people's eternal destiny was
dependent on their reaction to it.
Jesus' words in the last section of His Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7:13-27), as well as in
some of His other teachings, are spoken with the threat of Judgment. To respond positively is
to ensure eternal life, but to respond negatively is to ask for banishment to the eternal flames of
hell.

No harsher words are found in Holy Writ than those on the lips of Jesus. Witness
Matthew's account:
231
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut
the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will
you let those enter who are trying to.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You
travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one,
you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means
nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold
sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if
anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which
is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who
swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by
the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by
God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a
tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more
important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have
practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind men! You strain
out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean
the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-
indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and
then the outside also will be clean.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are
like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the
inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way,
on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are
full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build
tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say,
'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part
with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against your-
selves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill
up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

232
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to
hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some
of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and
pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood
that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the
altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation."
Not exactly the kind of words one would expect from the gentle Jesus of liberalism!
Jesus ended this awful litany of warnings with tearful words of compassion:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,
how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers
her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is
left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see Me again until you say,
'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord'" (Mt 23:13-39).
His words, His claims, His warnings are immense! Never has a person spoken as Jesus
did. Without apparent deliberation or premeditation, without a moment's hesitation or
uncertainty, He addressed all audiences—the curious, the hostile, the devoted--and answered
them all masterfully and convincingly. Those who tried to trick Him got caught in His wisdom
whether it was the incident of the woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:1-11), the lawyer with his query
on eternal life (Lk 10:25-37), the chief priests on authority (Mt 21:23-46), the Pharisees' taxation
trap (22:15-22) or the Sadducee's resurrection trap (vv. 23-33).
Were these answers those of a mere man? Paul said of God's wisdom:
"For it is written:
'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will
frustrate.'
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? . . . For the foolishness
of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than
man's strength" (1 Co 1:19-20,25).
Paul goes on and says of Jesus:
"It is because of Him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us
wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Co 1:30).

Here Jesus is called the personification of wisdom. Solomon develops this theme
majestically in the book of Proverbs (ch. 8).
Jewish scholar Klausner says:
233
"It is universally admitted . . . that Christ taught the purest and sublimest system
of ethics, one which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men
of antiquity far into the shade."3
It is not only fruitless but wrong to compare Jesus' words to that of any other teacher.
Joseph Parker commented:
"After reading the doctrines of Plato, Socrates or Aristotle, we feel the specific
difference between their words and Christ's is the difference between an inquiry
and a revelation."4
Bernard Ramm speaks for many when he states:
"Statistically speaking, the Gospels are the greatest literature ever written. They
are read by more people, quoted by more authors, translated into more tongues,
represented in more art, set to more music, than any other book or books written
by any man in any century in any land. But the words of Christ are not great on
the grounds that they have such a statistical edge over anybody else's words. They
are read more, quoted more, believed more, and translated more because they are
the greatest words ever spoken. And where is their greatness? Their greatness lies
in the pure, lucid spirituality in dealing clearly, definitely, and authoritatively with
the greatest problems that throb in the human breast; namely, Who is God? Does
He love me? What should I do to please Him? How does He look at my sin? How
can I be forgiven? Where will I go when I die? How must I treat others? No other
man's words have the appeal of Jesus' words because no other man can answer
these fundamental human questions as Jesus answered them. They are the kind of
words and the kind of answers we would expect God to give, and we who believe
in Jesus' deity have no problem as to why these words came from His mouth."5
Jesus' wisdom so far exceeded that of the people of His own time and of any succeeding
generation that it seems foolish and illogical to place Him on the same ground as the rest of
mankind. The influence of His genius ("God's foolishness") has sparked the rest of mankind to
reach higher in every arena of life including the intellectual arena. Robert Dale put it:
"It is apparent that His influence on the thought of the human race has been
immense. It had guided and governed the highest form of intellectual energy. For
more than a thousand years after the Council of Nicea early in the fourth century,
it is hardly possible to mention the name of a single man of great speculative
power in Europe, North Africa, or Western Asia who was not a Christian theologian. . . .

234
The great poets, the great painters, the great orators, and the great architects
also did homage to the supremacy of Christ. It was confessed that He stood
alone, and in Him man found God. . . ."6
The French physicist Pascal commented:
"Jesus Christ said great things simply as though He had not thought them great;
yet so clearly that we see easily what He thought of them. This clearness,
joined to this simplicity, is wonderful."7
The amazing simplicity and charm, and yet the depth, the surgical directness, the
universality, and the ring of truth that was so evident in all His teachings, made a deep mark on
His hearers and elicited the conviction that they were in the presence of a Teacher such as man
had never known before.
No one ever spoke as Jesus spoke!
Jesus' use of the expression, "But I say" (ego de lego) shows that He claimed to set
Himself over against the law of Moses, distinguishing Himself from the rabbis, whose only
authority derived from their exposition of Moses. Jesus was claiming to know the will of God
which underlay the law, and thus spoke authoritatively to give its true meaning or
interpretation. He did not cite any prophetic inspiration. He appeared to be speaking on His
own authority. As British New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall puts it:
"He thus spoke as if he were God."8
No one ever taught like Jesus! To those skeptics who claim that Jesus of Nazareth really
did not say the things attributed to Him I would respond: just as it would take a Shakespeare
(or Francis Bacon whom many believe wrote Shakespeare) to produce the writings of a
Shakespeare, so it would take a Jesus to invent the magisterial words, the authoritative teaching
of Jesus.
John Stuart Mill asks:
"But who among his disciples or among their proselytes was capable of inventing
the saying ascribed to Jesus, or imagining the life and character revealed in the
Gospels?"9
Only Jesus could speak and live as Jesus did!
All through history philosophers have searched for the truth and speculated about it.
Jesus never did. He possessed the truth; He was the Truth.

235
It should be kept in mind that the teachings of Jesus while consistent with deity do not
prove it. His authoritative style does not prove He had such authority. However His teachings are
a very important component as evidence of Jesus' deity. Without the resurrection, however, they
would mean nothing. Even Paul says that if Jesus did not rise from the dead that Christians are
the most miserable or unfortunate of all men (1 Co 15).

236
14. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART VI
Problem Texts

237
There are several texts which the Jehovah's Witnesses resort to because they believe that
these unequivocably prove that Jesus cannot be Almighty God, on equal footing with Jehovah.
● "No one is good—except God alone" (Mk 10:18).
One of the favorite passages used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to prove that Jesus is not
deity, God Almighty, is the account of the Rich Young Ruler. Their point is:
"If Jesus and God the Father are "one," then how come Jesus denied being good?
Jesus' so-called denial of goodness took place in His response to the Rich Young Ruler
who was trying to find out how he could "inherit" eternal life:
"As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up to Him and fell on his knees before
Him. 'Good Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
'Why do you call Me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good—except God alone.'"
(Mk 10:17-18)
It is crucial that we notice how this young man came to Jesus. He flung himself at Jesus'
feet. Here is a young man who is a rich aristocrat falling at the feet of the penniless prophet
from Nazareth. He addressed Jesus in an unusual manner by calling Him "Good Teacher"—a
term never used for a rabbi. Jesus quickly answered back, "Why do you call Me good? No one is
good—except God alone." This could be regarded as flattery giving a man a higher status than is
His due, for true goodness is the prerogative of God. In essence Jesus was saying:
"No flattery! Don't call Me good! Keep that description for God!"
Jesus' question was designed to test whether the young enthusiast really knew what he
was saying. Jesus' reply, "Why do you call Me good?" was not meant to deny that title to
Himself, but to sober the questioner. The man ran up with a flattering remark to gain Jesus'
approval. Jesus asks him to calmly and carefully think about his remark. Does he really know
what "goodness" is? After all, only one person is perfect goodness. And that person is God.
Religious titles and religious terms are not to be used as ploys to ingratiate the speaker. Jesus was
preparing him at the very outset of their conversation about eternal life—how he could gain it—
to count the cost.
The young man's greeting probably implies that he is thinking with the traditional
conceptions of much of ancient Judaism (which is also prevalent among "Christians") that there
are the "good" and the "bad," the "deserving" and the "undeserving." This young man points later
to his own morality as grounds why he thought he should be accepted by God. Jesus deflates his
moral righteousness by zeroing in on his god: materialism. This is why He told him that he had
to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. For God will not be worshiped and served
among other gods. He demands undivided allegiance and unrivaled devotion. This young man's
attitude is contrary to Jesus' whole standpoint that humans can only be in the position of the

238
undeserving who are dependent upon the good pleasure of a good God. All are undeserving. No
one is good. Moral respectability ("I never in my life did anyone any harm") is not enough.
Jesus was not impressed with his moral uprightness. Like everyone else, this young man needed
the mercy of God. But this was impossible as long as he held onto his own god.
Jesus incisively asked him, "What good have you done?" The challenge put before the
young man was: "With all your possessions, with your wealth, with all that you could give away,
what positive good have you done to others? How much have you gone out of your way to help
others?" While respectability may consist in not doing things, Christianity consists in doing
things. And the young man failed the challenge because his possessions were his god--the one
thing he was not willing to let go.
The context, then, of this whole story shows us that Jesus' reply to the Rich Young Ruler
was not intended by Mark to cast any reflection upon the question of whether Jesus is divine.
Instead, it is intended as a rejection of the idea implied in the man's address and question that one
can acquire eternal life as one might acquire some other desired possession.
● "the Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28).
Another Scripture often used by Jehovah's Witnesses and others to plead their cause is
Jesus statement:
"You heard Me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved
Me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater
than I" (v. 28).
This text is part and parcel of the entire message concerning Jesus Christ as being
dependent and obedient to the Father. In this chapter 14 Christ speaks about the coming of the
Comforter and about His going to the Father. It is in this context that He states, "for greater is
the Father than I" (v. 28). This "superiority" (positionally) of the Father, therefore, is spoken in a
very specific context. The context is the humiliation of the Son of Man who now proceeds by
way of suffering to the Father who will glorify Him.
Those who use this text to argue against the coessentiality of Christ with the Father
completely ignore this historical setting. Their focus locks in on the word "greater" (meizon) and
simply infer the impossibility of Jesus being equal with the Father. By so doing they neglect to
see that John is here contrasting Jesus' humiliation with His impending exaltation.
John makes the point that the disciples should have rejoiced because of the glory to
which Jesus is going, that is, to the Father who is greater than He (v. 28). Jesus' going to the
Father is related to the greater things which are to come. This He also points out at other places:
"For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does. Yes, to your amazement
He will show Him even greater things than these" (Jn 5:20).

239
Jesus also speaks to His disciples of these greater things to come:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in Me will do what I have been
doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to
the Father" (Jn 14:12).
Martin Luther throws light on the meaning of these verses:
"To go to the Father means to receive the kingdom of God in which he will be
equal to the Father and acknowledged and honored in the same majesty. For
this reason I go there, namely, to the Father, he says, because I will be greater
than I am now. Hence of his current office, as he then carried on his work on
earth, it was correctly said: the Father is greater than I, since I am now a
servant; but when I return again to the Father, I shall be greater, namely, as
great as the Father; that is: I shall rule with him in equal power and majesty."1
There is a sense in which Jesus had ceased to be equal with the Father because of the
humiliation of His present condition which involved entrance into a status which was lower than
that which belonged to Him by nature.
The text of John 14, therefore, refers to the glory which will be Christ's when He goes to
the Father. Although the Father is now (while Jesus is on His mission of humiliation--suffering
and death) "greater" than Him, in the future He will again equally share in the glory of the
Father.
● "You are gods" (Jn 10:35).
This bold statement must be seen in its larger context. The full text is:
"Jesus answered them [the Jews], 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you
are gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
what about the One whom the Father set apart [sanctified] as his very own and
sent into the world? Why then do you accuse Me of blasphemy because I said,
'I am God's Son'? (vv. 34-36).
Jehovah's Witnesses and others claim that these verses identify Jesus as one human being
among other human beings and shows that His claims to divinity are not to be taken seriously.
Admittedly the argument before us is a difficult one since it is a rabbinic form of
argumentation which depends upon distinctions which were of great importance to the rabbis but
which do not seem so important to people of our day. What is confusing at first is that Jesus
heads in the opposite direction of what He has been saying up to now: that He claimed to be God

240
in a unique and absolute sense. But in these verses He seems to be watering down this claim by
pointing out that He meant no more by this than what the Hebrew Scriptures means when it uses
the word "god" to apply to men.
What are we to make of such an argument? The point Jesus is making is that if there is
any sense in which human beings can be spoken of as "gods," how much more may the term be
used of Him whom the Father set apart and sent!
Jesus says here that the Bible calls "gods" those who were no more than men. They were
themselves the recipients of "the word of God" as they were required to hear and obey the word
of God, primarily, of course, in connection with their calling as judges. Yet these men were on
this occasion called "gods".
In the light of such Scripture Jesus inquires whether these Jews can rightfully say that He
blasphemes when He calls Himself "the son of God" (v. 36).
But notice that His argument is not: "Psalm 82 speaks of men as gods; therefore I in
common with other men may use the term to Myself." Rather the sense of the passage is: "If in
any sense the Psalm may apply this term of men, then how much more may it apply to Him
whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world."
This 82nd psalm that Jesus quotes is a psalm that warns unjust judges to stop their
unscrupulous ways and defend the poor and the innocent. The psalmist concludes the warning
with the words: "I say, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.'" (v. 6) The judge is
called a "god" because there is a sense in which he acts as God since he has been entrusted with
the oracles of God as part of a divine call or commission to judge Israel. After all, judgment is a
prerogative that belongs to God. In a limited way, therefore, judges play the role of God.
This terminology has its roots in the narrative of Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, in which the
judges (elohim) of Israel have authority to render decisions in civil law cases. Moses tells us how
the Hebrew servant may go free in the seventh year. "Then his master shall bring him to the
judges [literally 'gods' (elohim)]." This same form of expression is used in Exodus 22:28. Even
Scripture aid of men who were specially commissioned to some specific task by God that they
were gods. Jesus' point is: "If Scripture can speak like that about mere men, why should I not
speak this way about Myself"?
This 82nd psalm expresses the failure of Israel's judges to wield their authority in keeping
with God's standard of justice. They have been especially lax in one of God's greatest areas of
concern: the welfare of the poor and needy. The rebuke is clear:
"How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Defend
the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked" (vv. 2-4).

241
By their actions these judges have proven themselves to be only human after all. The
rebuke they receive is well founded: "I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.'
But you will die like mere men; you will fall like any other ruler" (vv. 6-7).
Instead of classifying Himself among men, Jesus calls Himself "Him, whom the Father
set apart as His very own [sanctified] and sent into the world" (v. 36). By so doing He was
separating and distinguishing Himself from men. He uses comparative logic: "How much more."
This is the first time in the New Testament that Jesus identifies Himself as "the Son of
God". Previously He has spoken of Himself as "the Son" and referred to God as His Father in
such a way as to leave no doubt that He claims a special and unique relationship. This is His way
of accepting the charge made against Him previously:
"We are not stoning You for any of these, but for blasphemy, because You, a
mere man, claim to be God" (v. 33).
While He does not deny the charge, He denies that the Jews are right in their understanding
of the situation. They thought He was making Himself God. He was saying that He was
not making Himself anything. He was what He was, and it was the Father, who in the first place,
sent Him into the world, and secondly, who testified of Him (5:37).
In what sense then can we speak of human beings as being "gods". Certainly not in the
sense that Jesus is—coequality, cosubstantiality—but only in the sense that man is a "partaker of
the divine nature" (2 Pe 1:4). He is a "participant" of God's divine nature only as he is indwelt by
the Spirit of God. And this indwelling is possible only because he was made in God's image
and because he acknowledges by faith God's saving work in the Person of Jesus Christ on the
cross.
When we become partakers of His divine nature we become "sons" or "children" of God.
This is the sense in which Martin Luther and C. S. Lewis spoke of Christians as "little christs."
After all, the word "Christian" means "Christ one" or "one of Christ's." But while we are "sons of
God" Jesus, and He alone, is "the Son of God."
Several leaders in the faith movement (the Gospel of Health, Wealth and Prosperity) have
gone beyond the scriptural teaching and in the process demoted God the Father and Jesus Christ.
In his book, Christianity in Crisis, Hank Hanegraaff lists the following stupendous statements
which show the deification of man and the demotion of God:
"Man . . . was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's
presence without any consciousness of inferiority. . . . God has made us as much
like Himself as possible. . . . He made us the same class of being that he is
Himself. . . . Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms equal with God. . . .
The believer is called Christ. . . . That's who we are; we're Christ!"2
--Kenneth Hagin

242
"God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself. . . .
He was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not
subordinate to God even."3
--Kenneth Copeland
"Did you know that from the beginning of time the whole purpose of God
was to reproduce Himself? . . . Who are you? Come on, who are you?
Come on, say it: 'Sons of God!' Come on, say it! And what does work inside
us, brother, is that manifestation of the expression of all that God is and all
that God has. And when we stand up here, brother, you're not looking at
Morris Cerullo; you're looking at God. You're looking at Jesus."4
--Morris Cerullo
"God duplicated Himself in kind! . . . Adam was an exact duplication of
God's kind!"5
--Charles Capps
"God has to be given permission to work in this earth realm on behalf of
man. . . . Yes! You are in control! So, if man has control, who no longer
has it? God."6
--Frederick Price
This is nothing but pure heresy! Blasphemy! No matter how you slice such statements
theologically they come out sounding more like the teachings of Armstrongism, Mormonism, the
New Age and other cults than historic Christianity. No matter how you try to contextualize such
claims you still end up with unmitigated heresy. John, in his gospel, shows us that Jesus Christ,
the Word (logos), became the Son of God in order that we might become "sons of God" (Jn.
1:12-13, etc.). While we as human beings share in the divine nature by virtue of the fact that we
are made in God's image and become participants of that "divine nature" as we are redeemed by
God, it is Jesus who is God—the Redeemer—who saves us, who makes our sharing in the divine
nature possible. While we share in God's nature, Jesus possesses that nature.

243
15. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST PART VII
Old Testament Names and Terms Applied to Jesus

244
Names and Terms Expressing Christ's Deity
The following charts show Names and Terms expressing Christ's deity and how His
Names correspond to that of Jehovah God in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Names and Terms Expressing Christ's Deity
● Yahweh (Jehovah is the transliteration (Jn 8:24,58; Ex 3:14; Jn 18:4-6). The magisterial
"I Am" passages cited are Greek equivalents of the Hebrew word for Yahweh:
● "I am the bread of Life" (Jn 6:35).
● "I am the light of the world" (8:12; 9:5).
● "I am the door" (10:7,9).
● "I am the good shepherd" (vv. 11,14).
● "I am the resurrection and the life" (11:25).
● "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6).
● "I am the true vine" (15:1,5).
"I am" is ani hu in Hebrew and ego eimi in Greek. The force of these words is often
blunted in English translations because you can't just say, "I am." You need to say something
like, "I am He" to capture the sense of the expression. “I am" is the most holy name of God
Himself in the Old Testament. When Moses saw the bush burning without being destroyed in the
desert of Sinai, he sensed God's presence in an overwhelming degree, and dared to ask His name.
The answer was "I am"—ani hu (Ex 3:13-14; Dt 32:39; Isa 43:10). That name for God was not
only revered in Israel, it was also used and formed part of the liturgy of the Feast of Tabernacles
and of the Passover, where readings full of the "I am" formula were used such as the following:
"'You are My witnesses,' says the Lord, 'and My servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no
god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me. I, I am the Lord, and beside
Me there is no Savior . . . Yes, and from ancient days I am He" (Isa 43:10-11,13).
That is exactly the claim Jesus is making—the divine "I am." Jesus used this title or
name repeatedly in the New Testament:
After telling the Jews He was from above, Jesus continued by saying:
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one
I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins" (Jn 8:24).
In prophesying about His upcoming crucifixion, Jesus said:
"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know who I am and
that I do nothing on My own but speak just what the Father has taught Me" (v. 28).

245
In revealing His omniscience to His disciples, Jesus declared:
"I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you
will believe that I am He" (13:19).
When Jesus was arrested by the Roman soldiers, at the request of the Jewish officials
who were also present, Jesus, who foreknew what was going to happen asked, "Who is it that
you want?" "Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. At that point Jesus said, "I am [He]."
When Jesus said, "I am [He]," they "drew back and fell to the ground" (18:6).
Why?
Was it because His reply was considered so blasphemous? Does that alone explain such a
drastic response? Especially since among them were Roman soldiers (who were predominantly
pagan) who would not be affected by such a claim, since they were commonly made by various
radicals or false messiahs (Ac 5: 38-39; 1 Jn 1:18).
Also keep in mind that the Jews usually responded to His alleged blasphemy by tearing
their tunics, trying to seize Him, stoning, etc. (Jn 7:30; 8:59; 10:31).
Jesus on many occasions prior to His triumphal entry requested that His miracles and
identity be kept secret until their "proper time" (Mk 1:43-44; 3:12; 5:43; 8:30). Was this now the
proper time?
Jesus veiled His identity on the road to Emmaus until He chose to reveal Himself with a
sovereign act of will (Lk 24:13,39). Was Jesus here proclaiming His identity and Messiahship to
both Jews (Pharisees) and Gentiles (Romans) with power and authority (Ac 9:5; Php 2:10)?
Since this incident takes place toward the end of Jesus' life and ministry, is Jesus thereby
proclaiming His true identity more clearly and eloquently by revealing His resplendent authority
and power? For such a title or name belonged only to Jehovah God.
In response to the question of the high priest, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed
One?" Jesus responded:
"I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One
and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mk 14:62).
Jesus claimed that Abraham had rejoiced that he was to see the day of Christ, had seen it
and was glad (Jn 8:56). The leaders of the people challenged Jesus' statement:
"You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham!"

246
Then Jesus replied by using His most solemn form of introducing a saying:
"I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am” (Jn 8:58).
Jesus' statement so infuriated the leaders that they immediately "picked up stones to stone
Him" (v. 59).
Why would Jesus' particular saying provoke such a violent response?
Because His saying was blasphemous unless He really was and is God.
It is clear from the saying itself, ". . . before Abraham was born, I am" (v. 58), that Jesus
was claiming to have existed before Abraham was born. It is also obvious from the tense of the
verb ("am") that He was claiming an eternal preexistence. Even such a claim would not be
sufficient enough to warrant stoning. The real reason for their violent reaction is that when Jesus
said "I am," He was using the divine name by which God had revealed himself to Moses at the
burning bush. When Moses had asked God what His name was, He responded:
"I am" or "I am who I am" (Ex 3:13).
Then He continues: "This is what you are to say to the Israelites:
"I am has sent me to you'" (v. 14).
The word "was" or "became" or "came into being" (genesthai) marks the historical point
of time when Abraham came into existence as against the time before Abraham came into being.
Since this word is in the aorist "tense" it sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham.
Similarly the present tense of the word "am" (eime) predicates absolute existence for the person
of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. If Jesus wanted to only say that His existence
antedated the time of Abraham (which would leave open the question of whether Jesus also had a
beginning like that of Abraham, only earlier), He would have used the imperfect "I was"
(eimein).
The Jehovah's Witnesses try to get around this verse (Jn 8:58) by translating it ". . . before
Abraham came into existence, I have been." By translating Jesus' words "I am" to "I have been"
to obscure the fact that Jesus was making a direct claim to being God, the Jehovah's Witnesses
break the very basic rules of Greek grammar. They claim that ego eimi ("I am") should be
translated "I have been" because the verb eimi is in the "perfect indefinite tense." The problem is
that there is no such tense in the Greek language. Rather eimi is the first person singular, present,
active, indicative form of einai, the verb "to be." It must therefore be translated “I am,” not
"I have been." Since 1950, when this fallacious translation and interpretation was pointed out to
the Jehovah's Witnesses, they have discontinued the use of this argument in their New World
Translation.

247
The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses quote professor A. T. Robertson
as being authoritative in matters of the Greek language. Yet Robertson states that eimi is
"absolute." This means there is no predicate expressed with it. This usage occurs four other times
in John (8:24,58; 13:19; 18:5). This term (the Hebrew phrase "I (am) He") is also the same that
is used by the Septuagint in its rendering of Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and Isaiah 46:4.
This phrase then, is a claim to full and equal deity.
The Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear which shows the Greek words actually
contradicts their own position since it correctly translates ego eimi with the words "I am"
directly beneath. However, they perpetuate their faulty interpretation by placing "I have been" in
the column to the right as another possible, even preferable, reading.
What Jesus declares is that, although His earthly life lasted less than fifty years, His
existence as a person (ego) is constant and independent of any beginning in time. With this
simple verb Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal preexistence of His person.
SUMMARY OF NAMES AND TERMS EXPRESSING JESUS' DEITY
● God (Isa 7:14; 9:6; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Heb 1:8).
● Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, the Beginning and the End.
(Isa 41:4; 44:6; Rev 1:17-18; 2:8)
● Lord (Isa 45:22-24; 1 Co 12:3; Php 2:10-11).
● One Lord (Zec 14:9; 1 Co 8:6).
● Lord of Glory (Lk 9:32; 24:26; Jn 1:11,14; 12:41; 17:5; Ac 7:1; 1 Co 2:8;
1 Th 3:16; Heb 1:3; 1 Pe1:21).
● King (1 Ti 6:14-16; Rev 17:14; 19:16).
● King of Glory (Ps 24:10; 1 Co 2:8; Jas 2:1).
● Judge (Gn 18:25; Joel 3:12; Ro 2:3; 14:10; 2 Co 5:10; Jas 4:12; 5:8-9).
● Eternal (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2; Jn 8:58).
● Immanuel (Isa 7:14; Mt 1:22-23).
● Holy One (Isa 43:3; Ac 3:14).

248
The previous charts and lists show how the names and terms expressing Jesus' deity
correspond to that of Jehovah God in the Hebrew Scriptures. The following list fleshes this out
by explaining how this can be.
THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE FIRST AND LAST, THE BEGINNING AND END
"'I am the Alpha and Omega,' says the Lord God, who is and who was, and
who is to come, the Almighty'" (Rev 1:8).
The title "Alpha and Omega" is used several times in the Old Testament to refer to
Jehovah God:
"'I, the Lord—with the first of them and with the last--I am He. . . . Yes,
and from ancient days I am He. . . . This is what the Lord says—Israel's
King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no God.'"
(Isa 41:4; 43:12-13; 44:6)
God the Father is also called this name in the New Testament:
"He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am making everything new!' Then
He said, 'Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.' He said
to me: 'It is done. I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.
To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the
water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God
and he will be My son'" (Rev 21:5-6).
Yet Jesus Christ dares to claim this title for Himself as well. That the above reference
from Revelation 1:8 refers to Jesus rather than God the Father is obvious when we look at the
verses that precede His identification:
"Look, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those
who pierced Him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him.
So shall it be!" (Rev 1:7)
That this description fits that of the coming Messiah, the Son of Man, is obvious when we
compare it with Matthew's prophecy:
"At that time the signs of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the
nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on
the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" (Mt 24:30).

249
Jesus is also appropriately called Alpha and Omega in the last chapter of the Bible:
"Behold I am coming soon! My reward is with Me, and I will give to everyone
according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and
the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Rev 22:12-13).
The whole context (vv. 7-20) describes Jesus as the One who is coming. He is
unmistakably identified as the Alpha and Omega.
The extraordinary fact is that a title which is the title of God is given unhesitatingly and
without qualification to Jesus Christ. As John saw it, the prerogatives of God are the prerogatives
of Jesus Christ.
The word "beginning" (arche) can mean "beginning in point of time" while the word
"end" (telos) can mean "end in point of time." While these meanings are certainly involved in
these descriptions of God the Father and God the Son since they are the first and the last. This
symbolizes the fact that God the Son was before the world began and will be when the world is
ended. He, therefore, has neither beginning nor end in any human sense of the terms.
But arche can also mean "beginning" in the sense of "source" or "origin." This means that
Jesus Christ is the source and origin from whom life began. The word telos can mean "end" in
the sense of "goal" or "consummation." This means that Jesus Christ is the goal and end to which
all life moves. He is not only the Creator of life, but He is also the one in whom life is
consummated, completed and perfected. Paul put it:
"For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory
forever! Amen" (Ro 11:36).
There can be no title given to Jesus that is higher than Alpha and Omega, the First and
the Last, the Beginning and the End, for the title is the title of God Himself.
LIGHT
Two familiar prophecies designate the coming Messiah as "Light":
"The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land
of the shadow of death a light has dawned" (Isa 9:2).
The fulfillment of this prophecy takes place 700 years later in the person of Jesus of
Nazareth:
"Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—the people living in darkness have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned" (Mt 4:16).

250
Another similar prophecy is found in Isaiah 49:
"It is too small a thing for you to be My servant to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for
the Gentiles, that you may bring My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isa 49:6).
Again the person of Jesus fulfills this prophecy:
"For my eyes have seen your salvation, which You have prepared in the sight
of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your
people Israel" (Lk 2:31-32).
This description appears five times in the first chapter of John (Jn 1:4-5,7-9). His
uniqueness is stressed in verse 9: "The true light." Jesus Himself claimed:
"I am the light of the world" (8:12).
"Light" is often used in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to Jehovah God. The psalmist
affirmed:
Son:
"The Lord is my Light and my salvation" (Ps 27:1).
Similarly Isaiah says:
"Jehovah will be to you an everlasting light" (Isa 60:19-20).
The coming Messiah is equated with the glory of Jehovah:
"Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon
you. See darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples,
but the Lord rises upon you and His glory appears over you. Nations will
come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn" (Isa 60:1-3).
John speaks of Jesus as light in the opening verses of his gospel to refer to the incarnate
● "light that darkness has not understood" (Jn 1:5).
● "The true light that gives light to every man" (v. 9).
John, in his introduction to his first epistle, uses this term that he has already used in his
gospel:
"God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 Jn 1:5).

251
Jehovah God and God the Son are referred to as "Light." This places God the Son on par
with God the Father as to His essence.
ROCK
The Hebrew language commonly uses two words for "rock" as well as the word "stone."
The psalmist used the one in Psalm 18:2:
"The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom
I take refuge."
The other word for "rock" is used in Psalm 95:1:
"Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation."
Paul then interprets the "rock" of the Old Testament (e.g. Ex 17:6) as referring to Jesus
Christ:
"They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they
drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was
Christ" (1 Co 10:4).
STONE
The word "stone" is used as a title of God throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. In 1 Samuel
22 alone, "rock" is used five times to refer to Jehovah God. Moses stated in the book of Genesis,
the book of beginnings.
"But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand
of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the rock of Israel" (Gn 49:24).
Moses gives us a vivid description of the Messiah in his prophecy:
". . . and he will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone
that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall" (Isa 8:14).
The word "stone" is also used in the messianic passage in Isaiah 28:16:
"So this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
'See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure
foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.'"

252
Peter understands this passage to be speaking of Christ as the foundation stone of the
"spiritual house," the church.
Even in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus calls Peter "this rock" Jesus takes to Himself a
common title of Jehovah in the Old Testament.
BRIDEGROOM
Jehovah is pictured several times in the Hebrew Scriptures as a "bridegroom," either
implicitly or explicitly:
● "'In that day,' declares the Lord, ‘you will call Me 'My husband'" (Hos 2:16).
● "As a young man marries a maiden, they will never be silent day or night.
as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you" (Isa 62:5).
Jesus began early in His ministry to depict Himself as a bridegroom. In a reply to the
Pharisees, Jesus said of Himself:
"How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot,
so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom
will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast" (Mk 2:9).
Again in "The Parable of the Foolish Virgins" Jesus is the bridegroom (Mt 25:1-13). In
that final beautific vision the church is depicted "as a bride adorned for her husband"
(Rev 21:2).
SHEPHERD
The imagery of the shepherd is found everywhere in the Old Testament:
● "The Lord is my shepherd" (Ps 23:1).
● "I Myself will be the shepherd of my sheep" (Ez 34:14).
In the New Testament we see Jesus referring to Himself as a "shepherd":
"I am the good shepherd, the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep."
(Jn 10:17)
Peter calls Jesus "The Shepherd and Guardian of your souls" (1 Pe 2:25) and also "the
chief Shepherd" (5:4). The writer of the book of Hebrews also speaks of Jesus as "the great
shepherd" (Heb 13:20). That this title is unique is clear from St. John:
". . . and there shall be one flock and one shepherd" (Jn 10:16).

253
How could Jehovah and Jesus Christ have the same names and titles if they are not of the
same or identical essence—divine?
REDEEMER
In the Old Testament God the Father is called "Redeemer":
"'Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I Myself will help you,'
declared the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel" (Isa 41:12).
There are two Hebrew words for "redemption" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Both are used
by Hosea in the same verse:
"I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death."
(Hos 13:14)
The words "redeem" or "redemption" are found often on the lips of the psalmist:
"O Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord is unfailing love and with
Him is full redemption. He Himself will redeem Israel from all their sins."
(Ps 130:7-8)
There is a direct parallel to this verse in Titus 2:13 with the only difference being that
now Christ is identified with God (Titus 2:10):
". . . while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great
God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself to redeem us from all
wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own, eager to do
what is good."
A different Greek word for "redemption" (exegorasen) is used in Galatians 3:13:
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,
for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. He redeemed us
in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through
Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Holy Spirit.'"
This same word is also used in Revelation 5:9:
"And they sang a new song:
'You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language
and people and nation."

254
Both Jehovah and Jesus are called Redeemer. Thus Jesus provides redemption as fully as
Jehovah. Only God can claim such authority and power.
SAVIOR
In the Old Testament, Jehovah is often described as Savior or Author of Salvation:
● "For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt
for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead" (Isa 43:3).
● "I will save My flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between
one sheep and another" (Eze 34:22).
A striking resemblance is found in John 10:16-17:
"The reason My Father loves Me is that I lay down My life [for the sheep]. . . .
there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
In the Hebrew Scriptures universal (world-wide) salvation is provided:
"Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no
other. Before Me every knee will bow, by Me every tongue will swear" (Isa 45:22).
Paul picks up these words as He ponders the soon return of our Lord Jesus Christ:
"Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is
above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven
and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Php 2:9-11).
Jesus was given His name for a reason:
"She [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" (Mt 1:21).
The writer to the Hebrew Christians said of Jesus:
". . . and once made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation for all
who obey Him" (Heb 5:9).
To further identify Jesus with Jehovah as the Savior, the Author of our Salvation, Peter
provides a significant parallel between "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" and "our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pe 1:1,11).

255
With the complete knowledge that it was God and God alone who was Savior, that it was
God alone who could save, the first Christians nevertheless claimed that Jesus was the Savior,
that He could save. A fish came to be a symbol of faith to the early Christians, as the five Greek
letters spelling out "fish" in Greek (I-CH-TH-U-S) came to represent the slogan "Jesus Christ,
Son of God, Savior." As Savior Jesus is understood to function as God, doing something which,
properly speaking, only God can do--save His people from their sins.
Other names, titles, and terms such as Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Lord, Forgiver, Co-
Partner of Divine Glory, etc. are not treated here since they have already been addressed in
earlier portions of this treatment of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ, then, is constantly represented in Scripture as having qualities which could
be possessed only by God. There is not an attribute of deity which is not directly or indirectly
ascribed to Christ.
SUMMARY OF NAMES AND TITLES
Theologian Charles Hodge presents the following summary of the scriptural evidence for
the deity of Christ, that apart from God the Father and God the Spirit, the divine attributes are
found in Christ alone:
"All divine names and titles are applied to Him. He is called God, the mighty God,
the great God, God over all; Jehovah; Lord; the Lord of lords and King of kings.
All divine attributes are ascribed to Him. He is declared to be omnipresent,
omniscient, almighty, and immutable, the same yesterday, today and forever.
He is set forth as the Creator and upholder and Ruler of the universe. All things
were created by Him and for Him; and by Him all things consist.
He is the object of worship to all intelligent creatures, even the highest; all the
angels (i.e., all creatures between man and God) are commanded to prostrate
themselves before Him.
He is the object of all the religious sentiments; of reverence, love, faith, and
devotion.
To Him men and angels are responsible for their character and conduct. He
required that man should honor Him as they honored the Father; that they should
exercise the same faith in Him that they do in God.
He declares that He and the Father are one; that those who had seen Him had seen
the Father also.

256
He calls all men unto Him; promises to forgive their sins; to send them the
Holy Spirit; to give them rest and peace; to raise them up at the last day; and to
give them eternal life.
God is not more, and cannot promise more, or do more than Christ is said to be,
to promise, and to do. He has, therefore, been the Christian's God from the
beginning, in all ages and in all places."1
HIS IDENTITY
We have seen that Jesus Christ made His identity the focal point of His teaching. He
said that the Father sent Him. He declared that He came down from God; that the words He
spoke, God had actually given Him; and that everything He did, He did according to the
commandment of God. He claimed that He would be the final Judge of the world. He said that to
know Him was to know the Father, and that to see Him was to see the Father. In fact, He said
that He and God were one. He even claimed that no man could know God except as He, the Son,
revealed the Father, and that no man could come to God except through Him.
Jesus was One who never put Himself in the attitude of a sinner before God; never shed a
tear of repentance; never regretted a single thought, word or deed; never needed or asked divine
pardon; was never concerned about the salvation of His own soul; and boldly faced all His
present and future enemies in the absolute certainty of His spotless purity before God and man.
Jesus commanded His followers to believe in Him, love Him, obey Him, sacrifice for
Him, worship Him, and, if need be, die for Him as they would for God.
Now in light of these assertions, what is one to think concerning Jesus Christ?
The critical question Jesus put to those who followed Him was,
"Who do you say I am?"

257
16. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST

258
"Make no mistake: if He rose at all it was His body; if the cells dissolution
did not reverse, the molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle, the Church
will fall . . ."1
--John Updike, Seven Stanzas at Easter
One day when some skeptics were discussing Christianity with Voltaire, the prince of
skeptics, he claimed:
"Gentlemen, it would be easy to start a new religion to compete with Christianity.
All the founder would have to do is die and then be raised from the dead."2
Voltaire was right. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the cornerstone of
Christianity! Paul put it:
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have
testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead. But He did not raise
Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ
has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;
you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are
lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than
all men” (1 Co 15:14-19).
Martin Luther said,
"He who would preach the gospel must go directly to preaching the resurrection
of Christ. He who does not preach the resurrection is no apostle, for this is
the chief part of our faith . . . Everything depends on our retaining a firm
hold on this article (of faith) in particular; for if this one totters and no longer
counts, all the others will lose their value and validity."3
The affirmation: "He is risen! He is risen indeed!" stands at the very center of the
apostolic witness:
"And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all" (Ac 4:33).
There are two issues Luke, Paul, and the other apostles speaks to:
● Is the Resurrection an Historical Fact?
● What is the Significance of the Resurrection?

259
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, according to the early Christian writers, did in fact
take place in time and space and such a fact certifies that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God
and Savior of the world. The resurrection of Jesus is the seal of authenticity to the claim of the
New Testament that Jesus is God incarnate (in the flesh).
IMPORTANCE OF RESURRECTION
Many admit the necessity of the death of Jesus Christ while they deny the importance of
His bodily resurrection. Yet Jesus promised several times during His three and one-half year
ministry that He would rise from the dead (Mt 16:21; 17:9; 26:32). When asked by the Jews what
evidence He would give to authenticate Himself He said:
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (Jn 2:19).
Jesus was speaking of His own body, that is, the resurrection. This was to be the central
test to determine whether He was authentic or not. Unlike all other founders of world religions
such as Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, etc. who died and whose relics are venerated, Jesus
claims to have risen from the dead and thus to be alive today.
Foundation of Christianity
Christ's physical resurrection is vitally important because of its fundamental connection
with Christianity. It establishes and undergirds the Christian hope. One foundational role of the
resurrection relates to the Christological affirmation of the divinity of Christ. In the New
Testament the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth is seen as being linked to His resurrection.
Australian scholar Peter Carnley, surveying New Testament scholarship on this issue, comments:
"Most contemporary New Testament scholars have been anxious to affirm that the
resurrection is not just a loosely connected appendage to a set of beliefs that might
be formulated concerning Jesus' nature and identity as the Christ of God. The
datum for faith in Christ is not just the historical life of Jesus from his birth to his
crucifixion. Even if some inkling of his divine significance was arrived at during
his lifetime, it was shattered by his premature and devastating death. Genuine
Christian faith is a post-Easter phenomenon, and the presentation of his life and
death in the gospels is made in the retrospective light of it. Indeed, it was the
resurrection faith which initiated the various attempts of the early church to
express its understanding of the uniqueness of Christ's person."4
Taken alone the cross could only convince the disciples about the hopelessness of living
in a world where God is deaf to the cries of faith, justice, and love. No motivation was present to
transform despair into hope. Contrary to Rudolph Bultmann who says that what is important is
the existential crisis—the personal encounter with the Christ of faith in the preaching of the

260
Word (kerygma), there is no way that faith in the resurrection should become incarnate in a man,
unless he believes that on Easter morning Jesus of Nazareth really left the sepulchre empty and
appeared before His disciples—astonished, doubtful, and reluctant to believe as they were.
The Easter Event, deeply embedded in history, not mere bare experience, was what
brought change and thus hope. While belief in the resurrection involves far more than belief in
the raising of a body, it does not involve less. If Jesus had been still held by death no gospel
proclamation would have been issued to the world. The Christian message and experience
depends upon the prior fact of Easter.5
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth then, is critical to the Christian doctrine of
salvation in that it enables the death of Christ upon the cross to be interpreted in terms of God's
victory over death, sin, and a coalition of allied forces and powers (Satan and his demonic
hosts). It is essential to the Christian doctrine of eschatology (future—end time events) in that
it gives both foundation and substance to the Christian hope of eternal life and the anticipation
of the resurrection of believers. It has implications for morality as well, for if Jesus was not who
He claimed to be, His teaching, which has formed the basis for morality, becomes questionable.
New Testament scholar B. F. Westcott summarized it this way:
"If the Resurrection be not true, the basis of Christian morality, no less than the
basis of Christian theology, is gone. The issue cannot be stated too broadly. . . .
To preach the fact of Resurrection was the first function of the Evangelists;
to embody the doctrine of the Resurrection is the great office of the Church; to
learn the meaning of the Resurrection is the task not of one age only, but of all."6
Everything in the Christian religion hangs together only if her Founder—Jesus Christ—is
who He claimed to be and did what He prophesied He would do--rise from the dead.
All through the Book of Acts and in Paul's preaching the emphasis is upon the
resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ac 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30-37; 17:31; Ro 4:24-25;
6:4,9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Co 6:14; 2 Co 4:14; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1 Th 1:10; 2 Ti 2:8;
1 Pe 1:21).
The first two sermons preached after Pentecost both focused on the resurrection of Christ
(Ac 2:14-36; 3:12-26). With few exceptions every book of the New Testament constantly affirms
the resurrection, and the brief epistles that do not mention it (Phm, 2 Pe, 2 and 3 Jn, Jude)
assume its reality.
According to Paul everything stands or falls with Christ's bodily resurrection (1 Co
15:12-19). His reasons are as follows:
1. Apostolic preaching is vain (v. 14).
2. The Corinthians' faith is vain (v. 14).
3. The apostles are false witnesses (v. 15).

261
4. The Corinthians are still in their sins (v. 17).
5. Those fallen asleep (dead) in Christ have perished (v. 18).
6. And Christians are of all men most miserable if Christ has not risen (v. 19).
If the resurrection of Jesus were a "conjuring trick with bones" as Anglican bishop David
Jenkins put it, there would have been no Christian faith, and the most dynamic movement in
history would never have come to be. In his Areopagus address Paul appealed to the resurrection
as a piece of evidence which vindicated Christ's claims and laid upon His hearers an urgent
responsibility to respond to the gospel (Ac 17:31). Jesus regarded His own miracles in this light.
His healing miracles proved the presence of the kingdom in power (Mt 12:28). His mighty acts
put a deeper obligation upon those who observed them because they more explicitly pointed to
His credentials (11:21).
This section will investigate the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection. This
does not mean that Jesus' resurrection was merely the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather the New
Testament presents the resurrected Christ as One who has been transformed into a different kind
of existence. Some have argued this to mean that there was no continuity between Jesus' body in
the tomb and the risen Christ. But as we have already seen in Chapter 8, there is both continuity
and discontinuity.
MEANING TO JEWISH CONTEMPORARIES
The meaning of an event is the meaning attached to it by the persons into whose history it
comes. German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg points out what the fact of Jesus' resurrection
would have meant to his Jewish contemporaries:
1. To a Jew of the time Jesus' resurrection would have meant that the end of the world
had begun. Paul expected that the resurrection of all people, particularly of believers, would
quickly follow that of Jesus. Therefore he spoke of Jesus as the "first fruits of those who have
fallen asleep" (1 Co 15:20) and the "first-born from the dead" (1:18).7
2. The resurrection would have been evidence that God Himself confirmed Jesus' pre-
Easter activity. To the Jews, Jesus' claim to authority, putting himself in God's place, was
blasphemous. If he was raised from the dead, however, it must have been the God of Israel, the
God who had presumably been blasphemed, who raised him. Therefore, contemporary Jews
would have considered the resurrection as God's confirmation that Jesus really was what He
claimed to be.8
3. The resurrection would have established that the Son of man is none other than the
man Jesus. Before Easter, Jesus was understood to be a man who walked visibly upon the earth;
the Son of man was a heavenly being who would come in the future on the clouds of heaven.
After Easter, however, the two were regarded as identical.9

262
4. The resurrection would have meant that God has been ultimately revealed in Jesus.
Only at the end of time can God be fully revealed in his divinity. The end of the world is already
present in Jesus' resurrection; therefore God is revealed in Him. In Jesus, God has already
appeared on earth. While this concept lacks the precision found in later orthodox Christology,
"Jesus' divinity is already implied in some way in the conception of God's
appearance in him."10
Thus to Jews of Jesus' time, His resurrection would have signified divine approval, if
not divinity.
APPLICATION TO SALVATION
The resurrection of Christ is essential for Jesus' ministry to have salvific significance.
The following aspects of His ministry is dependent upon His rising from the dead.
1. He must rise to be a Savior in order to be able to give repentance and remission of sins
to Israel (Ac 8:31).
2. God has raised Him up, and exalted Him to His own right hand, that He might be the
Head over all things to the church (Eph 1:19-23).
3. He must rise before He can baptize us in the Holy Spirit (Jn 1:33; 15:26; 16:7; Ac
2:32-33).
4. His death, resurrection, and ascension are definitely preparatory to His bestowing gifts
upon people (Eph 4:8-13).
Paul sums it all up when He says that while Christ's death reconciled us to God, His
present life perfects our salvation (Ro 5:8-10).
POLEMIC FOR MIRACLES
The resurrection of Christ is important as a polemic for miracles. In attempting to prove
the miracles of the Bible we should not begin with Balaam's donkey or Jonah and the big fish,
but with Christ's resurrection. Once it has been proved, all other miracles will present no
difficulty.
The resurrection of Christ and the conversion of Paul were the two strongest supports
to the Christian faith.

263
NATURE OF RESURRECTION
The nature of Christ's resurrection is that it was a bodily resurrection.
Physical: Bodily
This means it was an actual or physical resurrection. The theory of Paulus and Strauss
that Jesus did not actually die, but that He merely fell into a swoon, from which the cool air of
the tomb and the spices revived Him, is not only blasphemous but a gross perversion of the plain
meaning of biblical terms. That Christ had actually died, is evident for various reasons:
1. The centurion and the soldiers declared Him to be dead (Mk 15:45; Jn 19:33).
2. The women came with the expectation of anointing a dead body (Mk 16:1).
3. The blood and water flowed from His opened side (Jn 19:34-35). Physiologists and
physicist agree that such a condition of the vital organs, including the heart, precludes the
possibility of swoon, and proves death.
4. He did not appear to His disciples on the third day as one half-dead, but as a mighty
conqueror of death.
5. Christ Himself declared that He was dead (Rev 1:18).
A Bodily Resurrection
Jesus resurrection was a bodily resurrection. Many who claim to believe in the
resurrection of Christ refuse to believe that His was a bodily resurrection. They explain His death
and resurrection as being merely the two sides of the one experience: in His death He passed out
of His physical life, and in His resurrection He passed into His spiritual life. Thus His death and
resurrection are declared to be simultaneous events.
The appearances of Christ are explained as those of His spirit or as mere subjective
hallucinations. Except for differences in the explanation of Christ's post-resurrection
appearances, this theory is held by the destructive critics of our day, by the Millennial Dawnists,
or Jehovah's Witnesses, by the Christian Scientists, and others. Many explain the disappearance
of Christ's body by suggesting that it may have been dissolved into gases, or that it may be
miraculously preserved somewhere.
Proof of His Bodily Resurrection
1. Jesus Himself declared after His resurrection that He had flesh and bones.
(Lk 24:39-40)

2. Matthew declares that the women who met Christ on the resurrection morning held
Him by the feet (Mt 28:9).
264
3. The tomb was empty and the grave clothes were in order when the disciples examined
the tomb (Mk 16:6; Jn 20:5-7).
4. Christ partook of food in the presence of His disciples after He had arisen.
(Lk 24:41-45)
5. He was recognized by His own after the resurrection, even the nailprints.
(Lk 24:34,37-40; Jn 20:25,27-28; 21:7)
6. Christ predicted that He would rise bodily (Mt 12:40; Jn 2:19-21).
7. The angels in the tomb declared that He had risen as He had said (Lk 24:6-8).
8. Many Scriptures would be unintelligible on the theory that His was a spiritual
resurrection (Jn 5:28-29, 1 Co 15:20; Eph 1:19-20).
9. David declared before-hand by the Spirit that Christ's flesh should not see corruption.
(Ps 16:10; Ac 2:31)
Although this may not "prove" the resurrection it does show a "prophetic" inkling in the
Hebrew Scriptures.
A Unique Resurrection
Jesus' resurrection was a unique resurrection. The Shunamite's son, Jairus' daughter, the
young man of Nain, Lazarus, and Tabitha undoubtedly all died again. Thus they did not receive
a resurrection body, as Christ did. Christ's body, however, was characterized by the following:
1. It was a real body. It could be and was touched (Mt 28:9); it had flesh and bones.
(Lk 24:39-40)
2. It was recognized as the same body, not another. Christ Himself mentions His opened
side (Jn 20:27). It appears that these marks of His passion will be visible even at His second
coming (Rev 1:7; Zec 12:20). At different times we are told that His own recognized Him after
the resurrection (Lk 24:41-43; Jn 20:16,20; 21:7).
3. Yet His body was in some respects different after the resurrection. He passed through
closed doors (Jn 20:19), and undoubtedly did not need to eat and sleep after that time.
4. He is now alive forevermore (Ro 6:9-10; 2 Ti 1:10; Rev 1:18).

265
THE RESULTS OF THE RESURRECTION
Attests the Deity of Christ
As we have already seen, Paul teaches that the resurrection of Jesus Christ attests to His
deity (Ro 1:4). Christ had pointed forward to His resurrection as a "sign" that would be given the
people of Israel (Mt 12:38-40; Jn 2:18-22), and Paul declares that it was a sign of His deity.
Assures us that God Accepts Atonement
The resurrection of Christ assures us that God has accepted the atoning work of
Christ (Ro 4:25). The preposition in this reference with the accusative, has the force of "on
account of," "because of," "for the sake of." We could not have the same confidence that God has
accepted Christ's sacrifice had He not risen from the dead.
Gives Christ His Rightful Position
Through the resurrection, Christ became the Intercessor, Executive, and Protector of
His people (1 Ti 2:5-6; Ro 8:34; Eph 1:20-22; Ro 5:9-10).
Gives Personal Realization of Salvation
By Christ's resurrection, provision has been made for the personal realization of the
salvation which He has provided, in His bestowal of repentance, forgiveness, regeneration, and
the Holy Spirit (Ac 2:33; 5:31; 3:26; Jn 16:7; 1 Pe 1:3).
Gives Basis for Power and Service for Believers
His resurrection is made the basis of assurance to the believer that all necessary power
for life and service is available to Him (Eph 1:18-20; 4:8). If God could raise Him from the
dead, He is able to supply all the needs of the believer (Php 3:10).
Guarantees Resurrection of Believer
Paul further tells us that the resurrection of Christ is a guarantee that our bodies too will
be raised from the dead (Ro 8:11; Jn 5:28-29; 6:40; Ac 4:2; 1 Co 15:20-23; 2 Co 4:14; 1 Th
4:14).
Gives Proof there will be a Judgment
The resurrection of Christ is also God's concrete proof that there will be a judgment of
the godly and the ungodly (Jn 5:22; Ac 10:42; 17:31). The Day of Judgment has been appointed,
and so has the Judge. Of these facts God has given assurance unto all people, in that He has
raised Christ from the dead.

266
Prepares the Way for the Coming Kingdom
Finally, the resurrection of Christ prepared the way for Him to sit on the throne of
David in the coming Kingdom (Ac 2:39).
THE HISTORICITY OF THE RESURRECTION
We have seen then how integral the resurrection of Jesus is to the whole fabric of the
Christian religion. Without it Christianity is torn to shreds. Thus if its credibility is in question,
the whole of the Christian religion comes into question. Therefore, the historicity of the
resurrection is critical to either undermining or buttressing the gigantic claims of Christianity.
Luke tells us in writing his second volume (Acts) that in his first volume (Gospel of
Luke) he "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day He was taken up to
heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy spirit to the apostles He had chosen. After His
suffering, He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was
alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of
God" (1:1-3).
"Many convincing proofs" is what Luke claims for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore we have every right to investigate the many "proofs" or evidences.
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, like all bodily resurrections, was an event which
was at once bodily and open to normal historical investigation. If this were not true, we
would not be able to investigate the evidences.
Karl Barth has warned about allowing the gospel narratives to be subjected to critical
historical scrutiny partly because Paul and the other apostles are not calling for the "acceptance
of a well-attested historical report," but for "a decision of faith."11 According to Barth, historical
investigation cannot legitimate or provide security for such faith; nor can faith become
dependent upon the "provisional" results of historical inquiry. Barth's point is that faith is a
response to the risen Christ, not to the empty tomb. Such reasoning is faulty in that the "risen
Christ" is not risen if He did not rise from an empty tomb in Palestine as claimed by His
followers. Furthermore, Barth sees the resurrection of Christ as part of a much larger network of
ideas and events, which cannot be disclosed or verified by historical inquiry. While this is true, it
does not negate the function of historical inquiry, however limited in scope that inquiry may be.
Historical inquiry, though it does not have the tools to determine the theological implications of
Jesus' resurrection, it nevertheless has tools—historical rather than theological tools.
It is obvious that historical inquiry cannot determine whether Jesus' resurrection has
salvific value in that it completes God's redemptive plan, or whether it has eschatological
significance by guaranteeing the resurrection of Jesus' followers, etc. But historical investigation

267
can give credible evidence as to whether a man named Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead
outside Jerusalem nearly two thousand years ago. Thus while the meaning and significance of
the resurrection is not attainable through historical investigation, the event itself, is.
By downplaying this role of historicity, though it has its limitations, Barth leaves himself
vulnerable to liberal attacks and slips dangerously close to the very subjectivism of Rudolph
Bultmann which he so vigorously fought.
Jesus' uniqueness to Christianity is so in a historical sense. Frank Moore Cross of
Harvard put it:
"It is not the idea of redemption through suffering but the 'event' of the crucifixion
understood as the atoning work of God that distinguishes Christianity. It is not
the doctrine of resurrection but faith in the resurrection of Jesus as an eschatological
event which forms the basis of the Christian decision of faith. It is not faith that a
Messiah will come that gives Christianity its special character, but the assurance
that Jesus rules as the Messiah who has come and will come. It is not the hope of
a New Creation that lends uniqueness to Christianity, but the faith that Jesus is the
New Adam, the first of the New Creation. Finally, it is not a 'love ethic' that
distinguished Christianity from Judaism—far from it. The Christian faith is
distinguished from the ancient faith which brought it to birth in its knowledge of a
new act of God's love, the revelation of His love in Jesus' particular life and death
and resurrection.12
These historical claims are true, these events took place in time and space, regardless of
the truth claims of Christianity, which are bound up with the "person and work" of Jesus, who
He was and what He did.13
Consideration, therefore, will be given to three broad areas of evidence for the
resurrection: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and four key features of the early
church which seem to presuppose the resurrection. Then consideration will be given to alternate
explanations of the evidence.
Credibility of Resurrection
The credibility of the resurrection of Christ has to do with the evidence capable of being
believed and substantiated. It must be examined by the same criteria as is any other past event
in history.
The resurrection of Christ as a miracle meets the kind of evidence needed to prove this
fact in the same way as that which we need to prove any other miracle. Inasmuch as all miracles
are not to be proved by reference to such laws. They have valid proof of their occurrence, but it
is not proof such as the naturalist insists upon as necessary. The following are evidences of the
physical resurrection of Christ.

268
The Resurrection Narratives The most obvious evidence to begin with is the
resurrection narratives themselves. There are four accounts of the resurrection found in each
of the four Gospels. While they are independent for the most part, they are harmonious and thus
give evidence for reliability.
Their independence is seen in the variation of detail in the accounts. This does not mean
that there was no overlap since any given incident may have circulated throughout the Christian
church when these books were being written. There is no evidence that the four biographers sat
down and conspired to make up the story of Jesus' resurrection. If they would have, there would
have been much greater agreement between the details of the accounts. Instead we find many
small, but apparent, contradictions. Yet at the same time there is amazing agreement in the
accounts. This would be highly unlikely in a fabricated account by four different writers. These
resurrection narratives have "the ring of truth" that would be expected of separate accounts
prepared by eyewitnesses.14
One example would be the variety of statements about the moment at which the women
first arrived at the tomb. While Matthew says that it took place "toward the dawn of the first day
of the week" (Mt 28:1), Mark claims that it was "very early on the first day of the week . . . when
the sun had risen" (Mk 16:2), Luke says that it was "at early dawn" (Lk 24:1), and John claims
that "it was still dark" (Jn 20:1). These kinds of phrases are the kind of thing the authors would
have standardized if they had been working on their accounts together. Does this mean these are
contradictions. Not necessarily. Although John says that it was "still dark," he does not
necessarily intend to mean that it was pitch black. The next phrase says that Mary Magdalene
"saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb." The women may have started out while
it was yet dark but by the time they arrived at the garden the day was breaking.
It is the characteristic of the resurrection narratives (e.g. the number of women who made
the first visit to the garden—Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:10; Jn 20:1, the disciples failure to
recognize Jesus when he appeared to them—Jn 20:14; Lk 24:16; Mt 28:17, or Christ's statement
to Mary that she was not to touch Him because He was "not yet ascended to the Father"—Jn
20:17 vs. the account given by Matthew—Mt 28:9) that they leave the problems of the
"conflicting" accounts for the reader that would have been eliminated were they fictitious. The
details given in the resurrection accounts simply do not make sense if persuasion is the goal. The
reason why the seeming contradictions are included in the narratives is that they are, in fact, the
way the story happened. Thus they give evidence that these are honest accounts of what the
biographers believed took place.
The Extreme Reserve of the Narrative Accounts.
The resurrection narratives are reported with extreme reserve. By comparing these
biblical narratives with the reports in the apocryphal literature of the second century is seen the
radical difference. The Apocrypha gives detailed explanations about how the resurrection took
place with the Gospel of Peter reporting a cross coming out of the tomb after Jesus and Jesus

269
being so tall that He towers above the clouds. Several extremely dramatic miracles and
pronouncements are made which demonstrate that "all power in heaven and on earth" has been
given to Jesus. In contrast the accounts in the New Testament are simple and straight-forward.
Subjective Hallucinations or Objective Visions
Some have argued that Jesus' appearances were subjective hallucinations or objective
visions. This is the theory that God gave these to His people, but they were not visions of a
physical being. J. P. Moreland, in his book Scaling the Secular City, gives various reasons why
such a theory is faulty.
The appearances happen to several individuals. Some appearances were to a single
person while another was to a group of 500. That these were mere hallucinations is highly
unlikely since they do not fit in with the Jewish expectations of that time. It was the Jewish
understanding that no one would be raised by himself. Rather there was to be only one
resurrection or translation where everybody was to be raised together or transported, all at once.
According to biblical scholar Wilckens, the Jewish understanding of visions contained two
elements: they were understood as being visions of people directly translated to heaven and not
raised from the dead, and in Jewish tradition, visions were always experienced by individuals
and not by groups.15
Since Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, the implication is that if the reader were
skeptical, he could ask several of these people because they were still alive.
Five hundred people do not hallucinate at once. This is psychologically ridiculous. In
fact, it is highly unlikely that even two or more people would have the same hallucination at the
same time. Also, hallucinations happen to persons who are high-strung, highly imaginative,
anxious, and nervous. Not exactly the characteristics of Jesus' disciples.
Hallucinations do not receive an interpretation which is entirely new. Rather they
combine (possibly in a new way) the beliefs already present in the collective subconscious of the
person having the hallucination. Thus they are linked in an individual's subconscious to his past
beliefs and experiences. If the disciples had hallucinations, they would have interpreted them to
mean that Jesus had been translated, not resurrected, and they would not have come up with the
picture of Jesus' body which is presented in the appearance narratives.16
As James Dunn points out, Jesus' reference to His "coming on clouds of glory" as a
heavenly figure would have stirred the imagination of the disciples and would have provided a
picture to interpret hallucinations they might have had. Yet nothing of this figure appears in the
resurrection narratives.17 Thus James Dunn reasons:
"The oddness and unexpectedness of the first Christian belief that God had raised
Jesus from the dead should not be discounted. A belief that God had vindicated
Jesus or exalted him to heaven after death would have been more understandable.

270
But that they should conclude from these 'sightings' (and the empty tomb) that
God had actually begun the resurrection of the dead is without any real precedent.
There must have been something about these first encounters (visionary or
otherwise) which pushed them to what was an extraordinary conclusion in the
context of that time. A careful jury would have to ask why the first Christians
drew such an unusual conclusion. In the light of the considerations outlined
above, the answer would be quite proper: A unique explanation for a unique
event."18
Also, hallucinations usually occur at particular places such as places of nostalgia which
trigger a reminiscing mood.19 This was hardly the case of these New Testament eyewitnesses.
The appearances of Jesus are reported to have taken place during a very specific period of
40 days. After this period, they end abruptly, except for some appearances to Apostle Paul.
Hallucinations, however, typically recur over a long period of time.20
Three Greek words are used to denote the appearances. The most important verb form is
ophthe, which means "he appeared." While this term may refer to a subjective vision, it usually
implies seeing something which was objectively present outside the mind of the observer.21
The appearances do not happen only to believers. Although everyone who saw an
appearance recorded in the New Testament became a believer, they were not necessarily
believers at the time of the appearance. Paul and James (Jesus' brother), for instance, were not
believers when they saw Jesus. It was later that they embraced Him as their Messiah.22
So compelling is the historical evidence of Jesus' appearances that Norman Perrin, a
skeptical New Testament scholar of University of Chicago, has conceded, "The more we study
the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which
they are based."23
Predisposition of the Disciples
Those who argue that the disciples were predisposed to believe must remember that the
biblical record is clear that the disciples themselves were so skeptical of Jesus' resurrection that
they described the women's testimony that they had seen the resurrected Jesus as "sheer
imagination."
The disciples were slow to believe. To point this out is not in the interest of the biblical
record since it casts the leaders of the early church in a bad light and thus possibly undermines
their authority and ministries. Yet their unbelief makes sense in light of the fact that the picture
of the Messiah in Jewish thought at that time did not include the idea of a resurrection. As New
Testament scholar George Ladd puts it:

271
"In light of these facts, the Gospel story is psychologically sound. The disciples
were slow to recognize in Jesus their messiah, for by his actions he was fulfilling
none of the roles expected for the Messiah."24
Argument from Cause and Effect
Every effect has a cause. There are a number of effects in Christian history that must be
traced to the bodily resurrection of Christ for their cause.
Argument from Testimony
The unusual manifestations of God's power are not to be deduced from the usual ones.
They must be established on other grounds, the argument from testimony being one of these.
Three things are necessary to make a testimony trustworthy:
1. The witnesses must be competent, that is, be eye-witnesses.
2. They must be sufficient in number.
3. They must have a good reputation, if their testimony is to be received at full value.
Testimony of Apostles
The apostles repeatedly refer to the fact that they were eye witnesses (Lk 24:33-36; Jn
20:19,26; Ac 1:3,21-22) and that they did not base their teaching on the reports of others.
The historical records indicate that subsequent to his death, Jesus "appeared to Cephas
[Peter], then to the twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time
most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep . . ." (1 Co 15:3-8). British
theologian C.H. Dodd has commented that "There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the
fact that most of the five hundred are still alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, 'the witnesses are
there to be questioned.'"25 Besides appearances to His disciples, there was a convincing
appearance to a brother, Thomas, who had before rejected Him, and another that converted an
enemy, Saul of Tarsus.
In our courts one witness is enough to establish murder; two, high treason; three, the
execution of a will; seven an oral will; and seven is the greatest number required under our laws.
Five hundred witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, therefore, is more than ample evidence to His
claims being authoritative.
Radical Change of the Disciples
It is well established that the disciples of Jesus abandoned and denied association with
Him during His arrest, trial and crucifixion (Mt 26:56, 69-75; Jn 20:19). Why? It was because of
fear for their lives. These fear-drenched "followers" were transformed from scared men hiding

272
in the Upper Room to bold, flaming evangelists who gladly risked their lives for their conviction
that Jesus had risen from the dead and was thus the Savior of the world. All but one of the eleven
disciples died a martyr's death, yet no one ever denied seeing Jesus alive after His death.
Only the resurrection of Jesus adequately explains the transformation of the disciples.
Pinchas Lapide put it well:
"When this scared, frightened band of the apostles which was just about to throw
away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee; when these peasants,
shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master and then failed
him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission
society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after
Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain
such a revolutionary transformation. For a sect or school or an order, perhaps a
single vision would have been sufficient—but not for a world religion which
was able to conquer the Occident thanks to the Easter faith."26
This disproves the fraud that the disciples stole the body because liars do not make
martyrs. People do not die for what they know is a lie.
The Transformation of James the Brother of Jesus
According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, James, the brother of Jesus, died
a martyr's death for his faith in his brother. This is significant especially since the Gospels
point out that James was an unbeliever who opposed Jesus, his brother, during Jesus' life (Jn
7:5). What could account for such a drastic transformation? Would impressive teachings by a
carpenter from Nazareth? Would an influential life? What would cause a Jew to believe that his
own brother was the very Son of God and to be willing to die for such a belief? According to
Paul, only the appearance of Jesus to his brother James can adequately explain such a
transformation (1 Co 15:7). The same is true of the other disciples.
The Transformation of Peter
Peter provides an interesting study in a person's transformation. Before the resurrection
Peter is in Jerusalem quietly and timidly tagging along behind the arresting party for fear of what
might happen to him if he is identified with the Nazarene. That very night he denies Jesus three
times. Later in Jerusalem we find him, with the other disciples, hiding behind closed doors for
fear of their lives.
Yet all is changed after the resurrection. Then we see Peter preaching with great boldness.
His first sermon, which took place on the day of Pentecost, is a case in point:

273
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to
you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through Him,
as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set
purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put Him
to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead,
freeing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to
keep its hold on Him"(Ac 2:22-24).
Later we witness Peter before the Jewish Sanhedrin (the body which condemned Jesus to
death--the equivalent to our Supreme Court) proclaiming,
"Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than
God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (4:19-20).
Shortly thereafter Peter along with the other apostles were warned about their continued
preaching mission. Peter spoke on behalf of all of them:
"We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from
the dead--whom you had killed by hanging Him on a tree. But God exalted
Him to His own right hand as Prince and Savior that He might give repentance
and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the
Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (5:29-32).
Only the risen Christ accounted for such a transformation of character!
The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus
The experience of Saul of Tarsus with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus (Ac 9:1-
9; 22:4-16; 26:9-18; 1 Co 15:8-9; Gal 1:11-24) testifies to the fact that Christianity is, as
British theologian Alister E. McGrath put it, "grounded in experience and that the Christian
experience of Jesus is consistent with the idea of His resurrection."27 No one provides a better
paradigm for radical conversion than Saul of Tarsus (which he himself claims—1 Ti 1:16) in
that he was a fierce enemy of "The Way" (the fledgling Christian movement). Paul gave the
following as credentials to show that if anyone had reason to have confidence in one's religious
heritage, he did:
● "circumcised on the eighth day"
● "of the people of Israel"
● "of the tribe of Benjamin"
● "a Hebrew of Hebrews"
● "in regard to the law, a Pharisee"
● "as for zeal, persecuting the church"
● "as for legalistic righteousness, faultless" (Php 3:5-6).

274
In fact, so zealous was Paul in hunting down this new religious movement called "The
Way," that he took sadistic delight in seeing her first martyr Stephen stoned to death (Ac 7:54-
8:1). He was probably involved in other similar cases as well (22:4; 26:10).
Paul was a unique witness to the risen Christ in that he was not among the 500 other
believers who had seen Him resurrected. Rather, he was "last of all" (1 Co 15:8) allowed to see
the risen Christ. The Lord's appearance to Paul was not only postresurrection but postascension.
It was not during the forty days in which Jesus appeared to all the others, but several years later
that Paul saw the risen Christ. All the others to whom Jesus appeared, except possibly James,
were believers, whereas Paul (then known as Saul) was a violent, hateful unbelievers when the
Lord manifested Himself to him on the Damascus road. In addition to this encounter, Paul also
experienced Jesus' appearances elsewhere (Ac 18:9-10; 23:11; 2 Co 12:1-7).
What turned this zealous firebrand around? Paul gave the reason repeatedly:
encountering the risen Christ (9:1-19; 22:3-21; 26:1-18; 1 Co 15:8-9; Gal 1:13-16; 1 Ti 1:15-
16). It was this same Paul who wrote the most extensive treatise on the resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15. Only the resurrection of Jesus, says Paul, can adequately explain his own
sudden change from zealously persecuting Christianity to vigorously promoting it with his very
life (Ro 8:36).
Paul never got over God's grace in revealing Himself to him. He never ceased to be
amazed that Christ would have called him to apostleship. He not only considered himself to be
"the least of the apostles" (1 Co 15:9), but not even "fit to be called an apostle, because [he]
persecuted the church of God" (v. 9).
Paul's memory of having persecuted the Christian church was a powerful motivation for
his being determined that God's grace would not prove vain in his life (1 Ti 1:12-17; 2 Co 11:23-
12:12).
It was the resurrected Christ who changed Paul from being the greatest persecutor of the
church to being her most dynamic defender. As zealously as he had once opposed the Christian
movement, he now served it.
George Ladd said of the historical significance of the change in the apostles:
"The historian must also admit that historical criticism has not yet found an
adequate historical explanation for these facts; that for the historian the transfor-
mation in the disciples is an unsolved problem. He must also admit that the view
that Jesus actually rose from the dead would explain all the facts."28

275
Testimony of People through the Ages
In considering Christian experience through the ages, while this is difficult to assess since
it is so subjective, it is clear that Christians have experienced Jesus in such a way that they
refuse to speak of Him in any way other than that of a living Savior and Lord. Those who claim
to have encountered Him in a personal way have found that He is not merely a great Teacher or
unique historical figure, but a present and living reality.
Character of Witnesses
As to the character of the witness neither the Scriptures nor any honorable opponent has
ever assailed them on ethical grounds. The quality of the witnesses is unimpeachable. Even a
skeptic like Strauss admitted that the apostles firmly believed that Jesus had arisen. And there is
no reason to believe they could have had any ulterior motive for proclaiming so stupendous a
fact, and that they proclaimed Christ's resurrection at the risk of their lives.
Simon Greenleaf, former Professor of Law, Harvard University, testified to the veracity
of the New Testament witnesses:
"All that Christianity asks of men . . . is, that they would be consistent with them-
selves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other
things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal
with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human
tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and
with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as
if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness
being subjected to rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently
believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth."29
Empty Tomb
There is first, the empty tomb. The Scriptures tell us that the tomb was empty. If this
were not true, someone would have shown that the disciples were deceivers--that the tomb was
not empty.
William Craig, in his book The Son Rises, has shown that archeological discoveries have
verified the accuracy of the description of Jesus' burial and tomb and the plausibility of its
location. Tombs just like the ones that are described in the gospels have been discovered by
archeologists in the very place in Jerusalem where Jesus is said to have been buried.30

276
It is estimated that there were at least fifty tombs of holy men during the time of Jesus in
Jerusalem that were sites of religious veneration. The location of Jesus' tomb, therefore, would
have been carefully noted by His followers in order to venerate Him after His death. Yet there is
no evidence that His tomb was ever a site of veneration.31 The obvious explanation for this is
that His tomb was empty.
Scholars are generally agreed that Jewish beliefs about the afterlife included the concept
of a physical resurrection of the body.32 This involved a continuity with the body that a person
had before death. This is one of the reasons why Jewish religion, unlike most other religions, has
such a high regard for the human body. Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide has
examined the various schools of Jewish thought during and prior to New Testament times, and
all schools agreed in holding to a notion of physical resurrection.33 Even though the Sadducees
denied the resurrection altogether, even they agreed that if there was a resurrection, it would be
bodily. Lapide concludes: "Any life in general was conceived of as bodily and spatial."34
British New Testament scholar James Dunn has shown that this view of the afterlife is
confirmed by archeological discoveries about some first-century Jewish customs.35 During
Jesus' time, it was common to visit a loved one's tomb about a year after his burial to gather up
the bones and put them in an ossuary. This practice was tied to the belief that the bones should be
kept together, so that in the resurrection God could easily use them to reconstruct the body. This
testifies to the belief that the resurrection body had some continuity with the body a person had
before his death.
Theologians Jurgen Pannenberg and Paul Althaus agree that the proclamation of the
resurrection in Jerusalem so soon after Jesus' death (most likely within seven weeks) is very
significant. Within the earliest Christian community there must have been a reliable testimony to
the empty tomb. Had there been no empty tomb, there would have been no belief in a
resurrection and no preaching of the resurrection. Thus, the early preaching is evidence that the
tomb was empty. Pannenberg also observes that in the Jewish polemic against the Christian
message of Jesus' resurrection there is no claim at all that Jesus' grave was not empty.36
A theory that used to be quite popular was the so-called "swoon theory." This holds that
Jesus did not really die on the cross but rather swooned and therefore was believed to be dead
and thus He was buried alive. However, in the cool temperature of the tomb He revived, moved
the stone, and appeared to a crowd as having risen from the dead. Such an outlandish explanation
is untenable for several reasons.
In the first place, it is difficult to believe that a Roman guard entrusted with the execution
could be fooled in such a way. Secondly, it is highly improbable that the spear thrust into Jesus'
side would not have killed Him even if He had been swooning. Thirdly, how likely is it that a
weak person who has barely survived a gruesome whipping and crucifixion could have moved a
large stone and overcome Roman guards? Not only that, but then He would also have convinced

277
His skeptical disciples (they did not believe He would rise from the dead) that He had overcome
death triumphantly. Hardly plausible! Such a theory takes much more faith than believing the
biblical account.
The lie invented by the chief priests and the elders of that day—that the disciples came
and stole the body while the soldiers slept, has been accepted by some people as the truth. This is
highly implausible for several reasons.
The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. There is no way
they could have sustained such a life of hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrdom it they knew
what they were preaching was a lie.
These disciples were Jewish theists. To think of first-century Jews making up a religion
for gain, was tantamount to lying against the God of Israel, as Paul himself argues in 1 Corinthians
15:12-19. They had been taught that the Law, sacrifices, and the Sabbath itself must be kept
for salvation. They believed in monotheism (or nontrinitarianism) and that there was only a
political Messiah, not a dying and rising one. How could such a group of devoted Jews, who had
been so culturally and religiously indoctrinated, risk their own spiritual well-being to follow a
carpenter from Nazareth? By such an act they would have known very well that they would be
risking the damnation of their own souls. Does it make sense that they would risk eternal torment
for a few years of prestige as leaders of a new religion?
The picture the disciples presented of such a Jesus was not in line with the current
expectations of what the Messiah would be like since the Jewish people were hoping for a
theocratic ruler who would deliver Israel from Gentile oppression. How were they going to
convince these Jews that such a Messiah (a suffering Servant) was the true Messiah?
The presence of hostile witnesses would have made such a stupendous fabrication
unlikely and dangerous.
If the empty tomb and resurrection were a fabrication, why did not at least one of the
disciples part company from the rest and start his own version of Christianity? Or, why did not at
least one of them own up to their fabrication? Why would all these disciples be so unified if their
motives were fraudulent since it is the tendency of human nature to want to promote itself?
People who lie for personal gain do not stay together very long, especially when hardship makes
the benefits minimal.
The evidence for the resurrection of Christ is established by the fact that the Lord's
graveclothes were found undisturbed—only the napkin that had been around His head had been
removed and laid to one side (Jn 20:3-6). Surely, this could not have been the case had the
disciples come and stolen the body.

278
Some argue that the enemies of Jesus had stolen His body. If they did, all they had to do
to dismiss the apostles' claim that Jesus had risen from the dead, was to have produced Jesus'
body or to have alluded to the fact that they had taken it. No evidence exists that the Jews ever
used this strategy against the early church. Their only counterargument implies that they did not
take Jesus' body (Mt 28:11-15). No motive could explain such silence if, in fact, they had taken
Jesus' body.
Thus naturalistic explanations are inadequate in explaining away the resurrection
narrative.
Most scholars are agreed that Joseph of Arimathea was a real, historical person and that
Jesus was actually buried in his tomb.37 The gospels point out that he was a member of the
Sanhedrin, a group of 71 leaders whose members were very well known among the populace.
Why would anyone have invented a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if
such were not the case since almost everyone knew who served on the Sanhedrin. If this were a
fictitious character, it would have been much more plausible to propose someone who was
obscure.
There was no good reason to make up the story that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb.
Probably the only logical reason would be to give prestige and authority to a major leader in the
church. But if the early church was led by men who were deceivers, there is no evidence that
Joseph was a significant leader in early Christianity.
Because Joseph was a public figure, people would have known him, or known of him,
and the location of the tomb. Therefore, if Jesus would not have been buried in his tomb, this
would have been easy to verify. Thus to mention such a public figure would have been
problematic if he had been fabricated.
Joseph is called rich in the biblical text, and archeological discoveries have confirmed
that only rich people in New Testament times owned the kind of tombs described in the burial
account. John also tells us that Jesus' tomb was located in a garden. Again archeology has
confirmed that this was characteristic of the tombs of prominent or wealthy people.
Paul Maier, historian at Western Michigan University, sums up his assessment:
"Accordingly, if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed
justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the
tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty
on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been
discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archeology that would disprove
this statement."38

279
The Presence of Women
The mention of women in the resurrection narratives (Mk 15:40-41,47; 16:1-8) is another
indication to the authenticity of the Easter event since it makes the accounts to have a high
degree of probability of being historically correct.39 In the first place, if someone were going to
make up an account of the first witnesses to the empty tomb and the risen Christ, why would
they choose women instead of the disciples?
This is foolish in that it makes the disciples look cowardly and the women courageous.
This hardly enhances the view of the disciples in the early church. Also, the women are named
specifically. This would be foolish in fabricating a story since if these women were not actual
people, members of the early church would have wondered who knew these women and what
happened to them.
In first-century Judaism, a woman's testimony was almost worthless. A woman was not
allowed to give testimony in a court of law except on rare occasions. It makes absolutely no
sense to have invented a story and made women the first witnesses to the empty tomb since the
presence of women was an embarrassment. Yet they are included in the gospels because the
gospels are attempting to describe what actually happened.
To make bad things worse, the inclusion of one woman, Mary Magdalene, who had been
possessed by demons (Lk 8:2), is another indication of the brutal honesty of the biblical account
since such possession would have cast even more doubt on her veracity. Is it any wonder that the
disciples did not believe the women's report:
"But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them" (24:11).
Lord's Day
There is, in the second place, the Lord's Day. The Seventh Day Adventists claim that
Sunday observance originated with the pagan Romans centuries after Christ, and then quote
Catholics in such a way as to give the impression that these Catholic authorities say that "their
Roman Church, hundreds of years after Christ, made the change."40 Canright, who for many
years was a Seventh Day Adventist, shows that the Lord's Day originated with the apostles and
not with pagan or ecclesiastical Rome.41
Some who admit that the apostles changed the day, hold that they did it in order to setup
a new religion or to honor their now dead Master. But the remarkable thing about that is the fact
that the apostles were Jews; and that any Jew should turn from the observance of their timehonored
Sabbath Day, which had been given in Eden and been made a sign of their covenantrelation
with God (Ex. 31:13; Ezek. 20:12,20), for such reasons as these, is absurd. As poor
fisherman they were in no position to introduce a holiday in honor of any mere man. The origin

280
of the Lord's Day can be accounted for only on the ground that the apostles changed it in honor
of Christ's physical resurrection and with His approval (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1,19;
Ac 20:7; 1 Co 16:2).
The Christian Church
The Christian Church is an effect that is traceable to some cause. The impression made
upon the disciples by the life of Christ among them was great, but all their hopes were blasted
when He was crucified. Nothing could have motivated these discouraged disciples to assemble
themselves for meditation and the worship of a Master if they believed He was dead. Certainly
nothing could have induced them to proclaim His name to their fellow Jews in the face of
persecution without the absolute assurance that Christ had risen from the dead. Their assemblies
were the beginnings of the Christian Church. Thus the Christian Church can be accounted for
only on the assumption of the physical resurrection of our Lord.
This point is so compelling that an orthodox Jewish rabbi, a Jewish scholar of New
Testament in Germany, Pinchas Lapide, came to believe in the historicity of the resurrection
(though he does not believe in the Christian interpretation of the resurrection). In his book which
defends this position he writes:
"How was it possible that His disciples, who by no means excelled in intelligence,
eloquence, or strength of faith, were able to begin their victorious march of
conversion only after the shattering fiasco of Golgotha."42
How did such a movement succeed? Instead of being founded on the commonly held
beliefs such as loving your neighbor or doing good, Christianity emphasized a message of death
and resurrection of an uneducated carpenter from Nazareth. This unique message was hardly the
stuff of which great movements are made! As German New Testament scholar Martin Hengel
explained:
"To believe that the one pre-existent Son of the one true God, the mediator at
creation and the redeemer of the world, had appeared in very recent times in
out-of-the-way Galilee as a member of the obscure people of the Jews and even
worse, had died the death of a common criminal on the cross, could only be
regarded as a sign of madness."43
According to her own records, the Church's beginnings are attributed to the resurrection.
Peter in his sermon at Pentecost, declared that
“this Jesus did God raise up, whereof we are all witnesses. Being therefore by
the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of
the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this, which you see and hear" (Ac 2:32-33).

The first converts accepted his word as truth, and their united assembly to hear the
apostles' teaching and to share in the breaking of bread and prayers (v. 42) constituted the
Church.
281
The body of believers was formed on the assumption that Jesus had really risen from the
dead and that the coming of the Holy Spirit was a direct consequence of His ascension. This
assumption was never disproved, although the educated hierarchy of the Jewish nation which had
plotted and had finally accomplished Jesus death, opposed the movement bitterly.
Had Jesus’ body still been accessible, they could have produced it and thus have nullified
the preaching of the apostles. The priesthood did not refrain from doing so because they feared
popular opinion, for on several occasions they arrested the apostles and held them in jail for trial.
The obvious inference is that they did not deny the resurrection because they could not refute the
fact. The body could not be found, and no other explanation than resurrection could account for
its absence from the tomb.
The book of Acts records the remarkable growth of the church
Early Christianity, unlike Islam, was not spread at the point of the sword, by force, but
through the persuasiveness of her preaching. By the early fourth century, Christianity had
become so widespread and influential that she was recognized as the official religion of the
Roman Empire. While from this point onwards her successes must be attributed, at least in part,
to her new official status, before this point she had "nothing to commend her except her
beliefs."44 Church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette of Yale wrote in History of the Expansion
of Christianity:
"It was the conviction of the resurrection of Jesus which lifted his followers out of
the despair into which his death had cast them and which led to the perpetuation
of a movement begun by him. But for their profound belief that the crucified had
risen from the dead and they had seen him and talked with him, the death of
Jesus and even Jesus himself, would probably have been all but forgotten."45
A follower of Buddha writes of that religious leader,
“When Buddha died it was with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever
remains."46
Mohammed died on June 8, A.D. 632, at the age of 61. His tomb is visited yearly by tens
of thousands of Muslims. But they come to mourn his death, not to celebrate his resurrection.
Yet the church of Jesus Christ, not only on Easter Sunday, but on every Sunday, celebrate
the victory of her Lord over death and the grave.

282
G. B. Hardy has said, "Here is the complete record:
Confucius' tomb - Occupied
Buddha's tomb - Occupied
Mohammed's tomb - Occupied
Jesus' tomb - EMPTY"47
Daniel Fuller who wrote one of his doctoral dissertations on the subject of the relation of
history and Easter faith claims: ". . . to try to explain this (the church) without reference to the
resurrection is as hopeless as trying to explain Roman history without reference to Julius
Caesar."48
New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University puts the challenge to the
secular historian:
"If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested
by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of
Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?"49
The bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the most rational historical explanation for
the birth of Christianity.
The Sacraments of the Church
In the early church two sacraments were prominent. Each presuppose the resurrection of
Jesus. The first sacrament was the Eucharist (from the Greek word eucharisto meaning "giving
thanks" also called "The Lord's Supper" or "Communion") which was an early practice which
began no later than just a few years after Jesus' death. This sacrament is the commemoration of
Jesus death with the elements of bread to symbolize Jesus' broken body and the wine to
symbolize His shed blood (1 Co 11). This is a commemoration and celebration not of His life,
not of His teachings, but of His death and His continued presence with them.
Baptism is the other sacrament. The meaning of this sacrament is also linked to Jesus'
death and resurrection (Ro 6:1-6; Col 2:12). John the Baptist's baptism was a baptism of
repentance which was probably an adaptation of the act of baptism practiced in Judaism. Jesus'
baptism, however, was not only a sign of repentance and cleansing from sin, and an outward
commitment to follow Jesus, but it was also an identification with Him in His death and
resurrection to usher in a new life in the Spirit because of His enduring presence.
Thus both of these sacraments point to the resurrection as a necessary precondition for
such a change from the Passover Meal to the Eucharist and from the Baptism of Repentance to
Christian Baptism.
Evaluation Concerning the Veracity of the Resurrection by Prominent People through History
such as Legal Experts, Philosophers, Educators, Historians, and Theologians

283
Legal Experts
Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Law at Harvard University, produced a famous work
entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority
on evidence in the entire literature of legal jurisprudence."50 Professor Greenleaf came to the
conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more
evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other
event in history.51 He also wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four
Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In this work he
examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. He critically
observes:
"The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the
dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope
for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only
under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors
that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a
malefactor by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow
the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the
teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great
men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.
Propagating this new faith, even the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they
could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions,
stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously
did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay rejoicing. As
one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their
work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford
scarcely an example of this like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching
courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their
faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these
motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific
frequency.
It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths
they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not
known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible
for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead
them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood,
after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which
man could inflict, from without, but to endure, for life, all the evils which man
could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious
guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of good conscience, no expectation
of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to
come.

284
Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with
the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet
their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by
the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued
by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions,
temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have
been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there
was no possible motive for its fabrication.52
The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what he proclaimed
himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection.
On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favor as a
living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative,
factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring
in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."53
--Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England
". . . either the supreme fact in history or it is a gigantic hoax . . . [and if it is true,
then] to fail to adjust one's life to its implications means irreparable loss."54
--J.N.D. Anderson, former Director of the Institute of
Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the
first Easter day. For me, the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in
the high court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling.
Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and
disdains effect; the gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a
lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were
able to substantiate.
The evidence for our Lord's life and death and resurrection may be and often has
been shown to be satisfactory. It is good according to the common rules for
distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of
persons have gone through it piece by piece as carefully as every judge summing
up an important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade
others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the history
of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written
about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is better
proved by fuller evidence than the great sign that God has given us that Christ
died and rose again from the dead."55
--Sir Edward Clarke, British Lawyer

285
"My faith began with and was grounded on what I thought was revealed in the
Bible. When, particularly, I came to the New Testament, the Gospels and other
writings of the men who had been friends of Jesus Christ seemed to me to make
an overwhelming case, merely as a matter of strict evidence, for the fact therein
stated. . . .
The same approach to the cardinal test of the claims of Jesus Christ, namely,
His resurrection, has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to
believe it as a fact beyond dispute."56
--Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England
Philosophers
"Our Savior's resurrection is truly of great importance in Christianity, so great
that His being or not being the Messiah stands or falls with it."57
--John Locke, 18th century British Philosopher
Historian
"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to
examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I
know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and
fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the
great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the
dead."58
--Thomas Arnold, Chair of Modern History, Oxford University
"What does the critical historian do when his evidence points very strongly to
the reality of an event which contradicts his expectations and goes against the
naturalistic view of reality? I submit that he must follow his critically analyzed
sources. It is unscientific to begin with the philosophical presupposition that
miracles cannot occur. Unless we avoid such one-sided presuppositions,
historical interpretation becomes mere propaganda.
We have a right to demand good evidence for an alleged event which we have
not experienced, but we dare not judge reality by our limited experience. And
I would suggest that we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth."59
--Ronald Sider, Professor of History, Eastern College
Educator
"Had the crucifixion of Jesus ended his disciples' experience of him, it is hard to see
how the Christian Church could have come into existence. That church was founded
on faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. A crucified Messiah was no Messiah at all. He

286
was one rejected by Judaism and a curse of God. It was the resurrection of Jesus,
as St. Paul declares in Romans 1:4, which proclaimed Him to be 'the Son of God
with power'."60
--H. D. A. Major, Former Principal at Oxford University
Theologians
"Whether the resurrection of Jesus took place or not is a historical question, and
the historical question at this point is inescapable. And so the question has to be
decided on the level of historical argument."61
--Wolfhart Pannenberg, Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Munich
"Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic
incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ.
Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested
the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."62
--Brook Foss Westcott, Professor of Textual Criticism at Cambridge University

287
17. ONLY SIX OPTIONS: THE CHALLENGE TO DECIDE

288
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Jesus is the Son of God, you know."
Jane Fonda: "Maybe he is for you, but he's not for me."
Archbishop: "Well, either he is or he isn't."1
MAN OR ANGEL
The first option is that Jesus never claimed to be God. This means He was either a mere
man or an angel, perhaps the archangel (as Jehovah's Witnesses claim). But we have carefully
looked at the evidence from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament and found that
such a hypothesis is simply unfounded. Scripture is replete with evidences for the deity of Christ.
In no uncertain terms Scripture testifies to the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. He did not
leave any other options for those who take Holy Scripture seriously.
As we face the claims of Christ, therefore, there are only four other possibilities. He
was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend or the Truth. If we say He is not the Truth, we are
automatically left with the other three options.
LIAR
One possibility is that Jesus Christ lied when he said that He was God. If He knew He
was not God then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the
cost, while He Himself taught and lived a colossal lie. And worse than that, He was a demon,
because he told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He could not back up His claims
and knew it, then He was indescribably evil. And also He was a fool because it was His claims to
being God that led to His crucifixion.
Miracles—Works
Jesus pointed to His works as proof of His deity. During His ministry, Christ stilled the
raging tempest, walked on the water, healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, fed the hungry and
raised the dead.
Peter, who had been an eyewitness to these miracles, when confronting those who had
put Jesus to death, reported, "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by
miracles, wonders and signs" (Ac 2:22). Not a voice of protest was raised. No one dared even
suggest that those miracles had not occurred. They had occurred so openly that they could not be
denied. Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces that could belong only to God who is
the author of those forces.
Miracles are essential to the integrity of the Person of Christ and the authenticity of
Christianity. As C. S. Lewis points out:

289
"All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you
subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammadanism,
but you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great
Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically
Christian."2
Miracles not only authenticate Christianity, they are also a part of establishing it:
"Miracles are believed in non-Christian religions because the religion is
already believed, but in the biblical religion, miracles are part of the means
of establishing the true religion. This distinction is of immense importance.
Israel was brought into existence by a series of miracles, and law was given
surrounded by supernatural wonders, and many of the prophets were
identified as God's spokesmen by their power to perform miracles. Jesus
came not only preaching but performing miracles, and the apostles from
time to time worked wonders. It was the miracle authenticating the religion
at every point."3
Philip Schaff, the historian, bears witness to the nature of Jesus' miracles:
"Christ's miracles were in striking contrast with deceptive juggler works and
the useless and absurd miracles of apocryphal fiction. They were performed
without any ostentation, with such simplicity and ease as to be called simply
His works."4
The scientific community as a whole has condescendingly rejected outright even the
possibility of miracles. Their "scientific" objection to the credibility of miracles is based upon
their "discovery" and thus understanding of natural, physical laws by which the universe
operates. According to these laws miracles are simply impossible.
Some of these scientists claim that people who used to believe in miracles did so because
they had a very primitive understanding of science. Such Christian doctrines as the virgin birth
and the resurrection of Christ, for example, were probably the result of a prescientific worldview.
Such reasoning is spurious since people of every age have known that two human parents are
required for conception and that death is irreversible.
Others argue that although people in New Testament times knew that the kind of miracles
performed described in the gospels and the book of Acts were extremely extraordinary, their
openness or predisposition to the belief in the supernatural resulted in their belief in what science
has now proved incredible and thus impossible.
The scientific community today is not as sure of their understanding of natural, physical
laws as it once was. Many scientists do not follow Rudolf Bultmann's pronouncement a
generation ago that "man's knowledge and mastery of the world have advanced to such an extent
through science and technology that it is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold the New
Testament view of the world."5

290
Does modern science make belief in miracles and spirits irrational? Is it necessarily true
that those of us who embrace the technology of science must also commit ourselves to a
scientific world view on which that technology is dependent?
In fact, is that technology really dependent on "the scientific world view"? The answer to
all these questions is increasingly "No" even in the scientific community.
Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck in his book, People of the Lie, gives countless cases of "evil"
people some of whom were obviously demonized. Peck does not hesitate to refer to Satan as the
personification of evil. Sociologist Wade Davis of Harvard University discovered in Haiti that
spirits are real and that they possess people. He also found that his scientific tools were useless in
evaluating such spiritual realities. After observing a woman holding a live coal in her mouth for
three minutes, Davis writes:
"The woman had clearly entered some kind of spirit realm. But what impressed
me the most was the ease with which she did so. I had no experience or
knowledge that would allow me to rationalize or to escape what I had seen."6
In recent years physical science has undergone such a revolution that the belief in the
inviolability of the laws of Newtonian mechanics has given way to quantum theory. Thus
physical "laws" are recognized as only "provisional descriptions of observed regularities in
nature."7
Heisenberg's "principle of indeterminacy" illustrates the radical nature of this scientific
revolution. This means that physicists are incapable of knowing at the same time both the
position and momentum of a subatomic particle. This makes it impossible to rule out a given
configuration of particles. Any physical occurrence, therefore, could theoretically happen at
some time by sheer chance, no matter how slim the probability of that occurrence may be. The
unpredictable combinations of subatomic activity, however, have not replaced the principles of
how the larger objects function which these particles make up. Thus gravity, for instance, is still
intact. It still prevents people from flying (unaided) or walking on water.
The belief in miracles does not mean the denial of the validity of the regularities of
nature. It is plain to any thinking person that the laws of our universe work in a very definite
order or we would live in utter chaos. The belief in the supernatural intervention (special acts of
God) in the course of human history does not necessarily mean that one believes that such
intervention (miracle) must be a violation of the laws of nature. Rather the belief in miracles is
based upon the supposition that God, who created this universe in the first place, can and does
suspend or transcend the laws of nature that are otherwise fixed in regularity.
The point is that there is no need for any laws to be violated if a new causal agent is
introduced. While belief in miracles does not destroy the integrity of scientific methodology, it
does destroy its sovereignty. This means that science cannot legitimately claim to explain all
events as being natural, rather, only those that are regular, repeatable, and/or predictable.

291
This makes perfect sense since we have at least two analogies to illustrate this fact. In the
first place, there are laws in our universe which transcend other laws. The law of thermodynamics,
for example, makes it possible for something heavier than air to fly (i.e. the airplane).
Obviously this law of thermo-dynamics has not jettisoned the law of gravity, it has merely
transcended it.
In the second place, in the area of human behavior we see that people, even with their
limited, finite powers and abilities, can change events and bring about new events which would
not have taken place by natural forces alone. If this is true of human beings, if they can actually
make changes in the physical world, by what kind of logic can we dogmatically state that the
Creator of this universe cannot do so?
Miracles are logical if theism—the belief in one God, the triune God—is true. If we
acknowledge Genesis 1:1, that God created the heavens and the earth, then it logically follows
that He can supernaturally intervene in nature and in our personal lives according to His
sovereign wisdom.
Influence
Wherever the true message of Jesus has gone, new life, new hope, new purpose for living
have been the result. This gospel has not only converted individuals; it has also changed society.
On every mission-field the message of Jesus has established "standards of hygiene and purity;
promoted industry; elevated womanhood; restrained anti-social customs; abolished cannibalism,
human sacrifice and cruelty; organized famine relief; checked tribal wars; and changed the social
structure of society. Paul's Gospel accomplished the same in the first century for those who
comprised the early church.
Because Jesus is the greatest personality that ever lived, therefore His personal impact is
the greatest of any man that ever lived.
Lecky, the great historian of the last century, after a careful study of great leaders came to
this conclusion:
"It was reserved for Christianity to present the world an ideal Character which
through all the changes of nineteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with
an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, temperaments,
and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue but also the
strongest incentive toward its practice; and thus has exercised so deep an influence
that it may be truly said that the simple record of those short years has done more
to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of the philosophers and
all the exhortations of the moralists."8
Philip Schaff, historian and author of The History of the Christian Church, said,

292
"Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than
Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed and Napoleon; without science and learning,
He shed more light on things human and divine than all the philosophers and
scholars combined; without the eloquence of the school, He spoke words of
life such as were never spoken before, or since, and produced effects which
lie beyond the reach of orator or poet. Without writing a single line, He has
set more pens in motion and furnished themes for more sermons, orations,
discussions, works of art, learned volumes, and sweet songs of praise than the
whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. Born in a manger and
crucified as a malefactor. He now controls the destinies of the civilized world
and rules a spiritual empire which embraces one-third of the inhabitants of the
globe."9
Schaff adds:
"That ministry lasted only three years—and yet in these three years is condensed
the deepest meaning of the history of religion. No greater life ever passed so
swiftly, so quietly, so humbly, so far removed from the noise and commotion
of the world; and no great life after its close excited such universal and lasting
interest."10
Jesus has accomplished more good for mankind than any one who has ever lived. If His
claims are false, a lie has accomplished more good than the truth!
Few, however, seriously hold to the position that Jesus lied about who He was. For even
those who deny His deity affirm His goodness—after all, "He was a great moral teacher." This,
however, is a ludicrous position to hold for the simple fact that those two statements are a
contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if He were merely a man and said the
sort of things Jesus said. C. S. Lewis makes this point emphatically in his book, Mere
Christianity:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often
say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept
His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely
a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He
would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—
or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man
was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut
Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at
His feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."11
From the very outset of His ministry to its very conclusion, Jesus constantly asserted and
reasserted that He was the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Now, either those claims
were true or they were false. If He is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, then it is
blasphemy and nonsense for us to talk patronizingly about Him as a mere teacher. This is an
option not left open to us. You must make your choice.

293
LUNATIC
Another possibility concerning Jesus' claims is that He was sincere but self-deceived. For
someone to think that He is God, especially in a culture that is fiercely monotheistic, and then to
tell others that their eternal destiny depends on believing in Him are the thoughts of a lunatic.
Was Jesus such a person?
The closer one looks at the life of Jesus the more difficult it is to find abnormality and
imbalance as found in deranged persons. Instead, in the person of Jesus we see the perfect
symmetry of character.
Jesus combined in Himself all of the virtues and graces that make for beauty and strength
of character. He is wonderfully balanced with neither excess nor deficiency. In Jesus' character
no strong points were obvious because there were no weak ones. He is without flaw or
contradiction. He towers far above the greatest, the noblest, and the best of men who have ever
lived.
Virtue easily degenerates into vice. Courage may degenerate into cowardice on the one
hand or rashness on the other. Purity may slip into either prudery or impurity. While the pathway
to virtue is narrow and slippery, in Jesus there was no deflection.
In speech as in silence His perfect blend of character was displayed. He never spoke
when it would have been wiser to remain silent. He never kept silent when He should have
spoken. Neither mercy nor judgment prevailed at the expense of the other, but blended in all His
words and actions. Exact truth and infinite love united in His winsome personality, for He
always spoke the truth in love.
His blistering words and severe denunciations (e.g. Mt 23) were joined with tears. He
displayed sympathy without surrendering principle. His inner strength never degenerated into
mere obstinacy. He manifested the prudence of the serpent and the simplicity, sensitivity, and
gentleness of the dove.
Although He was tender-hearted He was not weakly sentimental. Mercy and justice,
tenderness and toughness met and were harmonized in the character of Jesus. In His use of the
whip with the money-changers we see Jesus' moral indignation and even physical bravery.
Jesus showed uncompromising frankness as He called people to follow Him by warning
them of the cost of discipleship. He never concealed the call to cross-bearing and death to self to
gain a disciple. No one was ever tricked into His mission and ministry. Every person who was
challenged to join Him was given an opportunity to count the cost. He was not looking for "yesmen,"
but for devoted followers who intelligently thought through what it meant to leave their
former way of life to join Him.

294
Jesus manifested strength and self-control by His silence. No matter how ruthlessly He
was provoked, Jesus never stooped to self-vindication, much less retaliation. Even before the sly
Pilate and the arrogant Herod He maintained a majestic silence though both of them possessed
the power of life and death. His silences were just as eloquent as was His speech.
One finds here a character distinguished by calmness and self-possession. Here we find
meekness without a trace of weakness, holiness without the sham of hypocrisy, humility
detached from inferiority, power without the blemish of pride and arrogance, suffering without
the companion of self-pity, success without self-seeking, love that knows no limit even in the
face of death.
While most great people are notable for one conspicuous virtue or grace such as Moses
for his meekness, Job for his patience, and John for His love; Jesus is notable for all virtues or
graces held in perfect balance. He is always consistent in Himself.
Jesus—His Person, life and ministry—is the synonym of all that is compassionate,
gracious, beautiful, strong, just, holy, and true.
O. Quentin Hyder, psychiatrist in New York City, analyzed the records of Jesus'
personality, relationships, and behavior in general to see if there were any symptoms of
psychiatric disorders. He concluded his study with these words:
"A person is free to maintain that Jesus, out of honest delusion, made His claim
to deity. But if one takes this position, he does so without any psychological
evidence in its support and, indeed, in spite of considerable evidence to the
contrary."12
As a psychiatrist, James Fisher searched for years for an adequate psychological basis for
personal well-being. His dream was to write a handbook that would be simple, practical and easy
to understand. He wanted to help people learn how to really live—what thoughts, attitudes and
philosophies to cultivate, and what pitfalls to avoid in seeking mental health. After 50 years of
dealing with emotional, mental and physical problems he discovered that such a work had been
completed nearly two thousand years ago, known to the community of faith as The Sermon on
the Mount.13
James Fisher did not exaggerate when he testified:
"If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by
the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental
hygiene—if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the
excess verbiage—if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the
parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific
knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would
have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And
it would suffer immeasurably through comparison."14

295
Could a demented person produce such a sermon?
If Jesus were demented then one would hope that the whole world were affected with His
kind of insanity!
LEGEND
A third alternative is that either the Person of Jesus or His claims to deity is but a legend,
that the stories themselves are legendary. To believe that Jesus Himself is mere legend is flying
in the face of an overwhelming number of evidences outlined in chapters 2 and 3. It would be
incredible and inconceivable that the One whose birth was without question the greatest event in
human history is pure legend. His momentous birth that has changed the course of history is even
reflected in our calendars as history has been divided into two parts—B.C., before Christ; and
A.D., anno Domini, in the year of our Lord. Those who believe that Jesus is legendary, view the
belief in Jesus' claims to deity as equally incredible. They believe that what actually happened
was that Jesus' enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put into Jesus' mouth
words He would have been shocked to hear and would have repudiated. For the disciples to have
created such a person as Jesus would be nothing less than phenomenal. In fact, the biblical record
shows that these followers had a very difficult time even grasping who Jesus was (Peter being
the first). They slowly learned what His teaching meant and found it difficult to apply it to their
own lives. If there is one thing that impresses us about them, it is that they were cut out of the
same cloth of humanity that we are. They were representative of humanity at large. Since Jesus is
beyond human comprehension, only God could reveal such a Person and only God could be such
a Person. The finite mind cannot comprehend, much less produce, the infinite. Like begets like.
This is true in the realm of imagination as well as in the physical and material realm.
To propose, therefore, that the Jesus propagated by the disciples is the figment of their
own imagination (in that their portrait of Him is exaggerated), is simply ludicrous. Such a belief
requires a giant leap of credulity!
Testimonies of Jesus' Character
The contemporaries of Jesus gave the following unusual testimonies concerning Him:
"I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood" (Mt 27:4).
--Judas Iscariot
"I find no basis for a charge against this man" (Lk 23:4).
--Pontius Pilate
"He commited no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. . . .
A lamb without blesmish or defect" (1 Pe 2:22; 1:9).
--Apostle Peter
"He had no sin" (2 Co 5:21).
--Apostle Paul

296
"This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased."
(Mt 3:17; 17:12; Mk 9:2)
--God the Father
Is it any wonder that Jesus challenged His enemies with the statement,
"Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (Jn 8:46)
Then He adds,
"If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe Me?" (Jn 8:46)
TRUTH
The only other alternative left open is that Jesus spoke the truth—that He is who He
claimed to be--God in the flesh—the God-Man—the Savior and Lord of sinners.
When Thomas, the doubting disciple, asked Jesus how they could know the way since
they didn't know where He was going, Jesus assured him:
"I am the way and the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6).
Then He went on and told him:
"No one comes to the Father except through Me" (v. 6).
Your response to the question of Jesus Christ's identity must not be put aside as an idle
intellectual exercise. You simply cannot put Him on a shelf as a good man or a great moral
teacher. He has not left that option open to you. Either He is who He claimed to be or He isn't.
The evidence, however, is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord.
Prophetic Anticipation
No person in history has been so universally anticipated as Jesus Christ. Scholars and
leaders throughout the centuries plus the Jewish prophets spoke longingly of a god-Man who
would soon appear.
Socrates urged his disciples to seek for one who would deliver them from fear of death.
Plato, four hundred years before Christ, in one of the most moving paragraphs in Pagan literature
affirmed that when the “perfect man" came, the world would first scourge, then crucify him.
Aeschylus, the greatest of the Greek poets, announced that he knew of one who would one day
dethrone Jupiter.15
Taeitus and Suetonius claimed that it was an ancient tradition that universal sovereignty
would one day rise out of Judea.16

297
Virgil, the Roman poet, warned the world of the advent of a king not like any other king
under whose reign the lion and lamb would one day dwell together in peace.17
Confucious predicted the coming of one who would revolutionize the world.
Zoroaster, the Persian, prophesied the nearness of the one who would be the universal
destroyer of evil.
Is not Jesus Christ "more than" all these yearnings? Does He not fulfill all these prophetic
longings?
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? A man, an angel, even the archangel, a liar, a lunatic, a legend
or the Truth? Your life upon this earth and for all eternity is affected by your answer to this
question.
The apostle John wrote,
"These things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in His name" (Jn 20:31).
THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD
Holy Scripture and experience testifies to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ,
the Son of God.
Napoleon, during a conversation with a general in exile on St. Helena, stated:
"I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a
resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other
religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and
whatever other religions the distance of infinity . . . Everything in Christ astonishes
me. His spirit overawes me, and His will confounds me. Between Him and whoever
else there is in the world, there is no comparison. He is truly a being by Himself.
His ideas and sentiments, the truth which he announces, His manner of convincing,
are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things . . . His
religion is a revelation from an intelligence which certainly is not that of man. . . .
One can absolutely find nowhere, but in Him alone, the imitation or the example
of His life . . . I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or
anything which can approach the Gospel. Neither history, nor humanity nor the
ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or explain
it. Here everything is extraordinary."18
Other testimonies have also been given by people of influence in the literary and
theological worlds:

298
"You should point to the whole man Jesus and say, 'That is God.'"19
--Martin Luther
"Jesus Christ is a God to whom we can approach without pride,
and before whom we humble ourselves without despair."20
--Blaise Pascal
"The most pressing question on the problem of faith is whether a man,
as a civilized being . . . can believe in the divinity of the Son of God,
Jesus Christ, for therein rests the whole of our faith."21
--Feodor Dostoevsky
"This Man Jesus Christ . . . does not only live through God and with
God. He is Himself God."22
--Karl Barth
"He was God."23
--C. S. Lewis
"Jesus is God."24
--Wolfhart Pannenberg
"God suffered in the sufferings of Jesus, God died on the cross of Christ. . . .
God became the crucified God so that we might become free sons of God."25
--Jurgen Moltmann
"Instinctively we do not class Him with others. When one reads His name in
a list beginning with Confucius and ending with Goethe we feel it is an
offense less against orthodoxy than against decency. Jesus is not one of the
group of the world's great. Talk about Alexander the Great and Charles the
Great and Napoleon the Great if you will . . . Jesus is apart. He is not the
Great; He is the Only. He is simply Jesus. Nothing could add to that . . . He
is beyond our analyses. He confounds our canons of human nature. He
compels our criticism to overleap itself. He awes our spirits."26
--Carnegie Simpson
Is it any wonder that Ernest Renan said:
"All history is incomprehensible without Christ."27
HIS OPEN INVITATION
"Hell is God's great compliment to the reality of human freedom and the
dignity of human choice."28
--G. K. Chesterton

299
As we have repeatedly seen, Jesus makes Himself—His life, His teaching and ministry
the issue all mankind has to deal with. He openly invites us to give ourselves to Him in whom
somehow manhood and Godhead are connected. He forces all of us to make a decision—for or
against. Neutrality He has not left as an option. To those who had seen and heard Him and who
yet had not believed on Him He said:
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now,
however, they have no excuse for their sin. . . . If I had not done among them
what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen
these miracles, and yet they have hated both Me and My Father" (Jn 15:22,24).
Jesus, His life, teaching and ministry is the issue. Because of who He is—the sinless Son
of God, the Savior of the world, the Judge of mankind (Jn 7:22-23; Mt 7:13-27), the Lord of
lords and King of kings—we must decide. Either we embrace Him wholeheartedly and
experience eternal life or we reject Him and invite His banishing us to eternal destruction. The
apostle John wrote:
"These things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that believing you might have life in His name" (Jn 20:31).
The German poet Angelus Silesius put it:
"Were Christ a thousand times to Bethlehem come,
And yet not born in you, it would spell your doom.
Golgotha's cross, it cannot save from sin,
Unless for you that cross is raised within.
I say, it helps you not that Christ is risen,
If you yourself are still in death's dark prison."
The incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection have little relevance to anyone unless they
are received and appropriated by faith. The Person of Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, but
He must be born in us if He is to make any difference in our lives.
Behold the God-Man!
Man has frenziedly tried to untwist and remove the name or the memory of the Son of
Man from the hope and heart of the world but has found that it is impossible. For He has changed
the world! It has never been the same since He walked into it. Nor can any person be the same
once he confronts Jesus. Loti was right
"When once you look into His face, nothing again will ever satisfy."
The Christian religion is not so much a philosophy or an ethic as it is a perfect Life
which, having entered the world, can never be expelled. What has been written about Him is
true:

300
"Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty,
and then for three years He was an itinerate preacher. He never owned a home.
He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never
went to college. He never put his foot inside a big city. He never traveled two
hundred miles from the place where He was born. He never did one of the things
that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself . . . While
still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends ran
away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went
through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves.
While He was dying His executors gambled for the only piece of property He
had on earth—his coat. When He was dead, He was taken down and laid in a
borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is the centerpiece of
the human race and the leader of the column of progress. I am far within the mark
when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever were
built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put
together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as that
one solitary life."29
Mahatma Gandhi's earlier statement concerning the indifference to the historicity of Jesus
sounds strange to Christians whose Bible makes the historical Jesus, and one's response to Him,
the issue of eternal life and eternal death (damnation).
"I have never been interested in a historical Jesus. I should not care if it were
proved by someone that the man called Jesus never lived, and that what was
narrated in the Gospels were a figment of the writer's imagination. For the
Sermon on the Mount would still be true for me."30
Such indifference to the historicity of Jesus is nonsensical from a Christian standpoint.
Not only in the Sermon on the Mount, but throughout all His teaching, Jesus frames the issue in
such a way that the question of who He was and is cannot be avoided.
We are not asked to simply accept His teaching, but to accept Him. This is true even in
the Sermon on the Mount which so often is used as a pretext for claiming that who Jesus was is
un-important. He refers to Himself in this famous Sermon as the Judge on the Day of Judgment
who will be standing at the gate of heaven allowing only those who can pass His judgment to
"enter the kingdom" (Mt 7:21-23).
Our primary purpose, therefore, is not to find a religion or believe a doctrine, but to have
a personal encounter with a Person—Jesus Christ. Not a voice among many voices, but the
Voice. Not a teacher among many teachers, but the Teacher. Not a gate among many gates, but
the Gate. Not a road among many roads, but the Road. Not a savior among many saviors, but the
Savior. Not a lord among many lords, but the Lord. Not a king among many kings, but the King.

301
As we end our journey of examining who Jesus is, we must embrace not only His
authoritative teaching and believe in His miracles, but even more important, we must embrace
the Preacher, the Teacher, the Person—Jesus Christ—vere Deus and vere homo—very God and
very Man: the God-Man.

302
NOTES
PREFACE
1
J. S. Whale, Christian Doctrine cited in “Quotations of J. S. Whale (Page 1-2 of 2)
http://www.youressay.com/quotes/authors/J_S_Whale-14895 (2/13/2009).
INTRODUCTION
1
Os Guinness, Fit Bodies Fat Minds (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), n. p.
2
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (Penguin Press, 2005), n. p.
3
Thomas Howard, Christ the Tiger (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1967), n. p.
4
C. Stephen Evans, The Quest For Faith (Regent College Publishing, 1994), n. p.
5
“Confessing Evangelical Sundhar Singh” (Page 1 of 3) cited in
http://www.confessingevangelical.com/?tag=sundar-singh (2/14/2009).
CHAPTER 1
1
New York Times (February 9,. 1994), n. p.
2
Ibid.
3
C. H. Spurgeon, “Preface,” The Sword and the Trowel (n. d.), n. p.
4
Luke Timothy Johnson, “Reshuffling the Gospel: Jesus According to Spong and
Wilson,” Christian Century (April 28, 1993), 457.
5
Alistair E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Boackwell, 1994), n. p.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
“Savory Sensations” http://savorysolutions.blogspot.com/2011/03/instinct-forbeautiful.html
(10/15/2011), 1.
9
A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Christian Publications, 1960).
10
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (Touchstone, 1995), 47.

71.
303
11
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man (Westminster John Knox Press, 1968), 70-
12
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (Simon & Shuster, 1988), n. p.
CHAPTER 2
1
A. M. Renwick, “Gnosticism,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol.
Two. General Editor: Geoffrey Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1987), 484.
2
Ibid., 488.
3
Ibid., 490.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Book of Mormon.
7
Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Moody, 1999), 253.
8
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3 (Philip H. Nicklin, 1816), n. p.
See also “Calvin Quotes http://www.famousquotes.com/author/john-calvin (10/15/2011), 1.
9
F. F. Bruce, “The Person of Christ: Incarnation and Virgin Birth,” Basic Christian
Doctrine, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), 125.
10
Gordon Lewis and Neil Duddy, “Who is this ‘Other Jesus’?” Moody Monthly (April,
1984), 28.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., 27.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., 28.

304
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid., 28-29.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid. See also The Way http://www.biblebb.com/files/THEWAY.TXT (10/15/2011).
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ronald Enroth, Evangelizing the Cults (Ann Arbor: Servant Publications, 1973), 14-15.
See also Elliot Miller, “The New Age Movement – What Is It?” Christian Research
Institute http://www.equip.org/articles/the-new-age-movement-what-is-it (10/15/2011).
29
Shirley MacLaine, Dancing in the Night (NY: Bantam Books, 1985), 133.
See also her most famous book, Out on a Limb (NY: Bantam Books, 1983), n. p.
30
Ibid.
CHAPTER 3
1
Maurice Goguel, Life of Jesus (Macmillan, 1948), 231.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.

142.
305
6
Ibid., 233.
7
Ibid.
8
Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (London: Oxford University Press, 1989),
9
Ibid., 233. See also Goguel, Life of Jesus, 233.
10
Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the
Setting of Early Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Comp., Rev. Ed.,
1983), n. p.
11
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, 18, 116-119.
12
T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Westminster Press, 1962), n. p.
13
Ibid., 242.
14
Ibid., 232.
15
Ibid., 233.
16
J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (n. d.), n. p.
CHAPTER 4
1
William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992) cited in
“A Brief Look at the Life of Christ at Kingdom Living Seminars (Page 1 of 3)
http://spiritual.org/seminars/a-brief-look-at-the-life-of-christ (2/13/2009). See also Martin
Luther, Luther’s Works (Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1957) vol. XXXI, 32 cited in Carleton
Toppe, “Of the Papacy – Today.”
2
James Denney, The Place of Christ in New Testament Faith
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jdplacechrist.htm (10/11/2011).
3
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 3, 159.
4
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (London: SCM, 1968 [1980]), 11.
5
Emil Brunner, Dogmatics. Vol. 2 (Westminster, 1950-1962), 23.
6
Peter Stoner, Peter. Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the
Bible (1944), 109-10.

306
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
B. B. Warfield, “Inspiration” cited in http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield4.html
(10/12/2011).
12
D. M. Baillie, D. M. God was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement
(London: Faber & Faber, 1956), 126-127.
13
Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Harper & Row, 1974), 204-206.
14
Ibid., 206.
15
Thomas T. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ (Eerdmans, 1983), 72.
16
Don Richardson, Peace Child (Regal, 1976), 91.
17
Ibid.
18
Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, 72.
19
Ibid.
20
I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977), n. p.
21
Terrence J. Rynne, Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence (Orbis, 2008),
n. p.
22
C. S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” Christian Reflections (Geoffrey
Bles, 1967), 155.
23
J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, “A Christian’s Rebuttal,” Does God Exist? (Prometheus
Books, 1993).
24
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.
Trans. by Mike Licona, Michael R. Licona (InterVarsity Press), 2010.
25
Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, n. p.

26
Ibid. See also Marshall, “Our knowledge of God” www.BiblicalTraining.org.
(10/12/2011).
307
CHAPTER 5
1
Don Bierle, Surprised by Faith (H.I.S. Ministries, 1993), 27.
2
Geoffrey Bromiley, “The Doctrine of the Word of God,” An Introduction to the
Theology of Karl Barth (Eerdmans, 1979), 43.
3
Ibid., 44.
4
B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Presbyterian and Reformed,
1948), n. p.
5
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
(10/12/2011).
6
John Stott, The Spirit-Filled Christian, Design For Discipleship, Book 2 (Colorado Springs: The
Navigators, 1973), 14.
See also “Grappling with God: God’s Word, Prayer and Quiet Time”
http://www.greenfieldsonline.co.za/media/In%20Gods%20Grip%20Part%205%20-
%20Grappling%20with%20God.pdf (10/12/2011).
7
Aurelius Augustine, Aurelius. The works of Aurelius Augustine: A new translation. Vol.
6. (T. and T. Clark, XXVIII), 80.
8
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10 ad. 3 cited in Charles Ryrie, Basic
Theology (Moody, 81), n. p.
9
Martin Luther, Works of Luther, XV (1841) cited in Ryrie, Basic Theology, 81.
10
John Wesley, Journal, VI, 117.
11
The following books by evangelical theologians which address this issue are:
Gleason Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties: Based on the NIV and the
NASB (Zondervan, 2001).
F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (InterVarsity Press, 1983).
Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 95-104.
12
E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1948), 196.

308
13
Bromiley, An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth, 5.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
A. W. Tozer, Of God and Men (Christian Publications, n. d.), n. p.
18
Bromiley, An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth, 6.
19
Ibid.
20
Geoffrey Bromiley, “The Interpretaton and Authority of Scripture,” adaped from Holman
Family Reference Bible (Holman, 1970), n. p.
21
Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Vols. 69-70 (The Leonard Scott
Publishers, 1879), 153.
22
Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert; History of Negev (Jewish Publications Society of
America, 1969), 31.
23
Ibid.
24
William F. Albright, Archeology and the Religion of Israel (John Hopkins Press, 1953),
129.
25
Ibid.
26
“Archeology and the Bible,”
http://laymanswatch.com/LaymansWatch_files/BiblicalAccuracy/InspirationTheBibleandArchae
ology.htm (10/13/2011), 2.
27
Frederick Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology (Harper & Row, 1940), 288-289.
http://www.john-lee-ministries.org/Historicity_of_the_New_Testament_Page.html (10/13/2011),
1.
28
“The Bible’s Archeological Evidence” http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bibqur/bibarch.htm
(10/13/2011), 1.
29
Ibid.

309
30
Ibid.
31
Sir William Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the
New Testament (Baker, 1953), 222.
32
Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology, 289.
33
Wilbur Smith, Have You Considered Him? (InterVarsity Press, n. d.), 7
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uc72JMk3UwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
(10/13/2011), 1.
34
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/03/credibility-of-four-canonical-gospels.html
(10/13/2011). 1.
35
T. R. France, The Evidence for Jesus (InterVarsity Press, 1986), n. p.
36
McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology, 290.
40
McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, 39-65.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology, 290.
44
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 1954), 178.
45
Ibid.
46
Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, n. d.), n. p.
47
Ibid.
48
Kenyon, The Bible and Archeology, 291.

2-3.
310
49
F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Hendrickson Publishers, 2007),
50
B. B. Warfield, “Inspiration” cited in http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield4.html
(10/12/2011), n. p.
51
Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? n. p.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament,
222. Also see
http://books.google.com/books?id=bW3iHV2eUeoC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Bernard+Ram
m+says+concerning+its+accuracy (10/13/2011).
56
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. 3, chs. VI, X.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
Geoffrey Bromiley An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Eerdmans, n. d), 3.
60
Bruce M. Metzger, “Apocrypha,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce M.
Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 37-41.
61
Ibid.
62
The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, ed. Wayne A. Meeks
(New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1989), 1435.
63
Robert P. Meye, “Canon of the New Testament,” The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1979), 602.
64
Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1961), 406.
65
Ibid., 407.

311
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Meye, “Canon of the New Testament,” The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, 604.
69
Ibid., 407-408.
70
Ibid., 408.
71
Meye, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 605.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Packer, God Speaks to Man, 81.
78
Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (Eerdmans, 1961), 411.
79
Barth
80
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 33.
81
Ibid., 28.
82
Tim LaHaye, How to Study the Bible for Yourself (Harvest House, 1976), 122.
83
Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Trustees under the Will
of Mary Baker Eddy, 1934), 338 cited in James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting (InterVarsity Press,
1980), 65.
84
Ibid., 586 cited in Sire, Scripture Twisting, 66-67.
85
Ibid., 70.

86
Ibid., 162.
87
Ibid.
312
CHAPTER 6
1
Draper, Draper’s Book of Quotations for the Christian World (Wheaton:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992), 333.
2
Ibid., 334.
3
J. Oswald Sanders, The Incomparable Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 24.
4
J. I. Packer, Knowing God (London: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 45-46.
5
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 155.
6
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,1972),
339-340. See also Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3 (1877) and “Creeds and
Confessions,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, edited by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 805-812 and
Lon Mendelsohn, CHRISTIA File Archives, excerpted from file CREEDS EARLY,
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm (12/2/2005), Page 1 of 1.
7
THE BOOK OF CONCORD: The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord–The
Person of Christ, http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/person.html (12/2/2005), Page 2 of 2.
8
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion cited in “John Calvin: Biography from
Answers.com http://www.answers.com/topic/john-calvin (1/10/2009),
Page 11 of 26.
CHAPTER 7
1
Charles Wesley, Hymn, Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, 1739.
2
Packer, Knowing God (InterVarsity Press, 1973), 46-48.
http://bible.org/seriespage/what-child-john-11-18 (10/13/2011), 4.
3
Lewis, Mere Christianity, n. p.
4
“Quotation Collection” http://amazing-quotation-collection.blogspot.com (10/13/2011).

313
5
France, The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986. See also
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol12/worship-of-jesus_france.pdf
(10/13/2011).
6
Early Church Hymn, “Received Up into Glory”
http://www.freegrace.net/articles/don%5Cdfarticle657.htm (10/13/2011).
7
Kathisma Matins cited in St. Athanasius Epistle to Antiochus
http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/who_is_the_ancient_of_days.htm (10/13/2011), 1.
8
User Quotes by George Truett http://www.1-love-quotes.com/quote/9057 (10/13/2011),
1.
9
Christian Christmas Quotes by George Truett
http://quotations.about.com/od/specialdays/a/christmas10.htm (10/13/2011).
10
Knowing Christ as Infinite and Finite http://www.gpp-
5grace.com/Knowing/knowchrist3.htm (10/13/2011).
CHAPTER 8
1
Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, The Novels of Ivan Turgenev: Dream tales and prose poems
(Macmillan, MCMXX), 303.
2
J. Oswald Sanders, The Incomparable Christ (Moody Press, 1971), 113.
3
Jeremy Taylor, The whole works of the right Rev. Jeremy Taylor—An Essay (Frederick
Wesley and A. H. Davis, MDCCXXXV), 130.
4
Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Harper & Row, 1974), 229-230.
5
J. B. Phillips, Ring of Truth: A Translator's Testimony (Macmillan, 1967), n. p.
6
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (1946 edition of Let God Be True), 272.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Ladd, "Kingdom of God," G.W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed. International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (ISBE), revised, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 24; B. Klappert, "King,
Kingdom," Colin Brown, Gen. Ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 376-377.

314
CHAPTER 10
1
Hermann Cremer, Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (T. & T. Clark,
MDCCCLXXII), n. p.
2
Joseph Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with
Strong’s Concordance Numbers (Hendrickson, 1996), n. p.
3
William F. Arndt and Wilbur F. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Second Edition (The University of Chicago Press, 1979),
n. p.
4
Sam Shamoun, Jesus in the Rabbinic Traditions” http://answeringislam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm
(10/14/2011).
5
Ibid.
6
Marshall, “The Divine Sonship of Jesus,” Interpretation. XXI (1,1967), 93.
7
P. G. Mathew, Sermon: “Our Lord Jesus Christ: Believe & Confess”
http://www.gracevalley.org/sermon_trans/2011/Lord_Jesus_Christ_Believe_Confess.html
(10/14/2011), 1.
8
Ibid.
9
Daniel Wallace, “A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule”
http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Sharp%20Redivivus%20A%20Reexamination%20of%20the
%20Granville%20Sharp%20Rule.htm (10/14/2011), 1.
10
Ibid.
11
B. M. Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April,
1953), 78-79.
12
H. E. Dana, and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Macmillan: New York, 1957), 147.
13
Stephen E. Jones, “Jesus is Jehovah Quotes” (Feb., 2008)
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/JiJ/jwuq0802.html (10/14/2011).
14
William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
[rev. ed], 1976). The Daily Study Bible Series, 283.

315
15
“The Problem with “The New World Translation.”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/nwtrans.htm 10/14/2011.
16
Ernest C. Colvell, “A Definite Role for the Use of the Debate in the Greek New
Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933)
http://ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf (10/14/2011).
17
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), 76.
18
James Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), 61.
19
Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 23-24.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Clint Tibbs, “Communication with God’s Holy Spirits”
http://www.communicationwithgod.info/page1 (10/14/2011).
23
Metzger, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological
Appraisal,” Theology Today 10/1 (April 1953), 65-85.
24
H. H. Rowley, “Quote”
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081201005111AAbO5lT (10/14/2011).
25
Dana, and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, n. p.
26
“What Greek Scholars Think” http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/jw-015.txt
(10/14/2011), 1.
27
“Facing the Facts” http://www.ftfacts.com/jehovahwitnesses/jwnwt.htm (10/14/2011), 1.
Nida
28
Barclay, THE EXPOSITORY TIMES (Nov., 1985), n. p.
29
Ernest C. Colvell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), 20.
30
“Secrets of the Watchtower”
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/dirty_watchtower_secrets_pt2.htm
(10/14/2011), 1.

1.
316
31
Harry Sturz, THE BIBLE COLLECTOR (July-December, 1971), 12
CHAPTER 11
1
Napoleon Bonaparte http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Napoleon.html (10/14/2011),
2
“My Pastoral Hero” http://www.btz.lt/article/articleview/342/1/419 (10/14/2011), 1.
3
“The ecclesiastical edicts of the Theodosian code”
http://www.archive.org/stream/ecclesiasticaled00boyd/ecclesiasticaled00boyd_djvu.txt
(10/14/2011).
4
“Christ the Lord in Creation and Redemption
http://cranfordville.com/G496CLess03RIQ2WBCQuote.pdf (10/14/2011).
5
“Apostolic and polemic in the New Testament”
http://www.archive.org/stream/apologypolemicin00heff/apologypolemicin00heff_djvu.txt
(10/14/2011).
6
John Calvin, The Epistle of Philippians
http://calvin.biblecommenter.com/philippians/2.htm (10/14/2011).
7
“LIGHT for LIGHT” (Nicene Creed) 12-26-09
http://www.stmanglican.org/meditationsept08.htm (10/14/2011).
8
William Evans, What Every Christian Should Believe About Jesus Christ (Moody Press,
1922) http://www.wholesomewords.org/etexts/evans/deity3.html (10/14/2011).
9
Napoleon Bonaparte-select quotes http://www.kevinstilley.com/napoleon-bonapartequotes
(10/14/2011), 1.
CHAPTER 13
1
Journal of religious psychology: including its anthropological ..., Volumes 3-4
edited by Granville Stanley Hall, Alexander Francis C (The Commonwealth Press, 1908), 184.
2
Philip B. Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim To Deity In His Parables,” Trinity Journal 02:1
(Spring 1981).
3
“Philosophy” http://www.why-jesus.com/philosophy.htm (10/15/2011), 1.

317
4
A Walk of Faith http://bwebbjr.xanga.com/691990711/revelation-from-plato-socratesaristotle-%E2%80%A6-or-jesus
(10/15/2011), 1.
5
“The Great Proposition” http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep20.html
(10/15/2011).
6
“The Life of R. W. Dale of Birmingham”
http://www.archive.org/stream/lifeofrwdaleofbi00dale/lifeofrwdaleofbi00dale_djvu.txt
(10/15/2011).
7
“The Incomparable Christ”
www.winkiepratney.com/_files/pdf/tracts/TheIncomparableChrist.pdf (10/15/2011).
8
Robert L. Reymond, “God as Trinity” http://learntheology.com/god_trinity.html
(10/15/2011).
9
Kenneth R. Samples and Ronald Nash, Without Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith
Questions (Baker, 2004), 104.
CHAPTER 14
1
Martin Luther, The Larger Catechism (Concordia, 1921), 565-773
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-12.html
(10/15/2011).
2
Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Harvest House, 1997) cited in “hottubreligion,
Voices of Heresy” http://hottubreligion.wordpress.com (10/15/2011), 1.
3
Kenneth Copeland, "Following the Faith of Abraham," tape 01-3001 (n. d)
www.cephasministry.comkenneth-copeland.html (10/15/2011).
4
Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis cited in “hottubreligion, Voices of Heresy”
http://hottubreligion.wordpress.com (10/15/2011), 1.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
CHAPTER 15
1
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (Eerdmans, 1940), 382.

318
CHAPTER 16
1
John Updike, “Seven Stanzas at Easter,” Telephone Poles and Other Poems (Alfred A.
Knopf, Random House Inc, 1961).
2
Acts 2:24,32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30-37; 17:31; Romans 4:24, 25; 6:4,9; 7:4; 8:11;
10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; II Corinthians 4:14; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12;
I Thessalonians 1:10; II Timothy 2:8; I Peter 1:21.
3
George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 1975), 188. See also “No Christianity without the resurrection,” EXPLORING
CHRISTIANITY – RESURRECTION, Page 1 of 2 cited in http://www.christianity.co.nz/res-2.htm
(2/4/2009).
4
Sir William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the
New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 81 cited in “No Christianity without the
resurrection,” EXPLORING CHRISTIANITY – RESURRECTION, Page 1 of 2
http://www.christianity.co.nz/res-2.htm (2/4/2009).
5
Ibid.
6
J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 175.
7
Ibid., 175-176.
8
Dudley Canright, The Complete Testimony of the Early Fathers (Fleming H. Revell,
1916), 54.
9
Ibid.
10
Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 188.
11
Ibid.
12
Tacitus, Annals 15:44.
13
Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.1, 63-64.
14
Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 176.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., 175-176.

319
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 173.
19
Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 188.
20
Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2002),175-176.
21
Alister McGrath, Resurrection (Fortress Press, 2008), 70.
22
Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 188.
23
Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999), 260.
24
Ibid.
25
Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, 176.
26
Ibid.
27
McDowell, Josh. The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense. Comp. Bill Wilson.
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993). 228.
28
Paul L. Maier, First Easter (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 11.
29
Ibid.
30
John F. MacArthur, “The Resurrection Cover-Up” (Grace Community Church, Panorama
City, CA., n. d.), n. p.
31
Paul Maier, The Very First Easter (Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 118.
32
Ibid.
33
Dudley Canright, The Complete Testimony of the Early Fathers, 54.
34
Alister McGrath, Resurrection, 72-73.
35
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity (Zondervan
Publishers, 1983).
36
McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, 261.

320
37
Ibid.
38
Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1970).
39
Ibid., 188.
40
C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (SCM Press, 1967), 3,13. See
also D. Cairns, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
edited by Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 163.
41
McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, 262.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid., 28-30.
44
Ibid., 118.
45
Ibid.
46
William Craig, Interview with Lee Strobel. The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998), 285.
47
McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, 179.
48
Ibid.,
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid., 180.
51
Ibid., 401.
52
Ibid., 179.
CHAPTER 17
1
Nicky Gumble, Searching Issues (Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Kingsway Publications,
1994), 99 cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for faith, 58.
2
C. S. Lewis, Miracles (Harper One, 2001), n. p.
3
Ibid.

4
Philip Schaff, The Person of Christ. Kessinger Publishing Company, 2007, n. p. This
quote also appeared in a tract entitled The Person of Christ by the American Tract Society
(1913).
321

322
5
Rudolf Bultmann, “The Mythological Element in the Manuscripts of the New Testament
and the Re-establishment of its Message” http://www.religiononline.org/showchapter.asp?title=431&C=292
(10/15/2011), 1.
6
Wade Davis, The Serpent and Rainbow (Warner Books, 1985), 47-48.
7
Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 106.
8
W. E. H. Lecky, W. E. H. History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in
Europe (n. d.), n. p.
See also Thirty thousand thoughts being extracts covering a comprehensive … Vol I. Ed. Henry
Marice Spence-Jones (Funk & Wagnals, 1889), 129.
9
Schaff, History of the Christian Church. 8 Vols. Hendrickson Publishers; 3rd edition,
2006., n. p.
10
Ibid.
11
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 52, 40-41.
12
O. Quentin Hyder and F. F. Bruce and Jon A. Buell, Jesus: God, Ghost, or Guru?
(Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), n. p.
13
James Fisher and L.S. Hawley, A Few Buttons Missing (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1951),
273.
14
Ibid.
15
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), 186-193.
16
Eduard Meyer, Origin and Beginning of Christianity, 178.
17
T. R. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 138.
18
Napoleon’s Testimony to Christ at St. Helena
”http://www.stempublishing.com/magazines/bt/BT17/1889_319_Napoleons_Testimony.
html (10/15/2011), 1.
19
“Proverbs/Globala” http://proverbs.globala.ru/1722-you-should-point-to-the
(10/15/2011), 1.
20
“Quotes about Jesus Christ” http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/jesus-christ.htm
(10/15/2011), 1.

323
21
Thinkexist.com “Quotes about Fyodor Dostoevsky”
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_most_pressing_question_on_the_problem_of/264830.html
(10/15/2011), 1.
22
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), 13-15.
See also Thinkexist.com “Quotes about Fyodor Dostoevsky”
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_most_pressing_question_on_the_problem_of/264830.html
(10/15/2011), 1.
Investigating Christian Theology 2, “Clergy Development” (Church of the Nazarene, 2003), 27.
23
Wayne Martindale and James Root, The Quotable Lewis (Tyndale, 1990), 261.
24
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man trans. Lewis Wilkins (Westminster John Knox
Press, 1968), n. p.
25
Moltmann. The Crucified God, n. p.
26
John R. Stott, Basic Christianity (InterVarsity Press, 1958), 36.
27
“The Center of History,” Devotional of the Day
http://propheciesofrevelation.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-center-of-history (10/15/2011), 1.
28
Famous Quotes” http://famousquotesblog.com/famous-quotes/quote-from-gilbert-keithchesterton-161
(10/15/2011), 1.
29
Anonymous, “One Solitary Life” cited in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that
Demands a Verdict.
See also “One Solitary Life” http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-is-lord.htm
(10/15/2011), 1
30
“Ecclesiastes: Easter,” Redemption Hill Church,
Newsletterhttp://redemptionhill.com/ecclesiastes-easter (10/15/2011), 1.

324
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, Mortimer J. Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth,
Macmillan, 1990.
Anonymous, “One Solitary Life” http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-is-lord.htm
10/15/2011.
“Apostolic and polemic in the New Testament”
http://www.archive.org/stream/apologypolemicin00heff/apologypolemicin00heffdjvu.txt
10/14/2011.
Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1982.
Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Second Edition. The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Augustine, Aurelius. The works of Aurelius Augustine: A new translation. Vol. 6. XXVIII.
“A Walk of Faith” http://bwebbjr.xanga.com/691990711/revelation-from-plato-socrates-
aristotle-%E2%80%A6-or-jesus 10/15/2011.
Baillie, D. M. God was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement. London: Faber &
Faber, 1956.
Barclay, William. The Letters of James and Peter. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Rev.
Ed. 1976. The Daily Study Bible Series.
_____________. Many Witnesses, One Lord. Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
_____________. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES. November, 1985.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. S.P.C.K., 1955.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956.
Bilezikian, Gilbert. Christianity 101. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
Bierle, Don. Surprised by Faith. Excelsior, MN: H.I.S. Ministries, 1992.
Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. InterVarsity, 1987.
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/03/credibility-of-four-canonical-gospels.html
10/13/2011.
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. Simon & Shuster, 1988.
Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship. Touchstone, 1995.
Brown,Colin. Miracles and the Critical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1984.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans, 1982.
__________________. An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, n. d.
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? InterVarsity Press, 1972.
Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics. Vol. 2. Westminster, 1950-1962.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 3. Philip H. Nicklin, 1816.
_________. The Epistle of Philippians http://calvin.biblecommenter.com/philippians/2.htm
10/14/2011.
Cairns, D. “The Resurrection of Jesus,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982.
Canright, Dudley. The Complete Testimony of the Early Fathers. Fleming H. Revell, 1916.

325
Carnell, E. J. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1950.
“The Center of History,” Devotional of the Day
http://propheciesofrevelation.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-center-of-history
Colwell, E. C. “A Definite Role for the Use of the Debate in the Greek New Testament,” Journal
of Biblical Literature 52. 1933 http://ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf
10/14/2011.
Case, Shirley J. The Historicity of Jesus. University of Chicago Press, 1912.
“Christ the Lord in Creation and Redemption”
http://cranfordville.com/G496CLess03RIQ2WBCQuote.pdf 10/14/2011.
“Confessing Evangelical>Sundhar Singh (Page 1 of 3) cited in
http://www.confessingevangelical.com/?tag=sundar-singh 2/14/2009.
Colwell, Ernest C. “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, 52. 1933.
Conybeare, F. C. The Historical Christ. 1914.
Craig, William L., Gerd Lüdemann, Stephen T. Davis, Michael Goulder, Robert H. Gundry, and
Roy Hoover. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment. Ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K.
Tacelli. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
_____________. Interview with Lee Strobel. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1998.
Cremer, Hermann, Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. T & T Clark,
MDCCCLXXII.
Dana, H. E. and Mantey, J. R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Macmillan:
New York, 1957.
Davis, Wade. The Serpent and Rainbow. Warner Books, 1985.
Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden. The Proseus Books Group, 1995.
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
10/12/2011.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor Mikhailovich. The Brothers Karamazov, Great Books of the Western
World edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins and translated by Constance Garnett.
Chicago: The University of Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1984.
Draper, Edythe. Draper’s Book of Quotations for the Christian World. Wheaton:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992.
“The ecclesiastical edicts of the Theodosian code”
http://www.archive.org/stream/ecclesiasticaled00boyd/ecclesiasticaled00boyd_djvu.txt
(10/14/2011).
“Ecclesiastes: Easter,” Redemption Hill Church,
Newsletterhttp://redemptionhill.com/ecclesiastes-easter 10/15/2011.
Enroth, Ronald. Evangelizing the Cults. Servant Publications, 1973.
Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesiastical History. Trans. Christian Frederick Cruse, 1850; reprint,
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Evans, C. Stephen. The Quest for Faith. Regent College Publishing, 1994.
Evans, William. The Great Doctrines of the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
____________. What Every Christian Should Believe About Jesus Christ (Moody Press, 1922)
http://www.wholesomewords.org/etexts/evans/deity3.html (10/14/2011).

326
“Famous Quotes” http://famousquotesblog.com/famous-quotes/quote-from-gilbert-keith-
chesterton-161 10/15/2011.
Finnerty, Robert U. Jehovah's Witnesses On Trial. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1993.
Flew, Antony and Habermas, Gary. Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? Harper Collins, 1987.
France, T. R. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Fuller, Daniel. Easter Faith. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1970.
Goguel, Maurice. Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? Prometheus Books, 2006.
_____________. Life of Jesus. Macmillan, 1948.
“Grappling with God: God’s Word, Prayer and Quiet Time”
http://www.greenfieldsonline.co.za/media/In%20Gods%20Grip%20Part%205%20-
%20Grappling%20with%20God.pdf (10/12/2011).
“The Great Proposition” http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep20.html
10/15/2011.
Guinness, Os. Fit Bodies Fat Minds. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.
Habermas, Gary and Licona, Michael. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel
Publications, 2004.
Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press:
Joplin, MI 1996).
_____________. "Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars
Saying?" Journal for the Study of the New Historical Jesus, 2005-JUN; 3.
_____________. The Historical Jesus. MO: College Press, 1996.
Hanegraaff, Hank. Christianity in Crisis. Harvest House, 1997.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1940.
Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.
“hottubreligion,” “Voices of Heresy”
http://hottubreligion.wordpress.com 10/15/2011.
Howard, Thomas. Christ the Tiger. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1967.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, edited by Bromiley, Geoffrey W.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
“The Incomparable Christ”
www.winkiepratney.com/files/pdf/tracts/TheIncomparableChrist.pdf 10/15/2011.
Jeeves, Malcolm A. & Berry, R. J. Science, Life and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1998.
Jewett, Paul K. God, Creation, & Revelation: A Neo-Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.
Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
______________. The Wedge of Truth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities 18.3.1, 63-64.
Jones, Stephen E. “Jesus is Jehovah Quotes.” February, 2008.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/JiJ/jwuq0802.html (10/14/2011).
Jurgens, William A. The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1979.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,1972.
Klappert, B. "King, Kingdom," Colin Brown, Gen. Ed., New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.

327
Ladd, George Eldon. "Kingdom of God," G.W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed. International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (ISBE), revised, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
________________. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 1975.
Lapide, Pinchas. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Wipf & Stock Publishers,
2002.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of the Expansion of Christianity. Zondervan Publishers,
1983.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.
“LIGHT for LIGHT” (Nicene Creed) 12-26-09
http://www.stmanglican.org/meditationsept08.htm 10/14/2011.
“The Life of R. W. Dale of Birmingham”
http://www.archive.org/stream/lifeofrwdaleofbi00dale/lifeofrwdaleofbi00dale_djvu.txt
10/15/2011.
Little, Paul. How To Give Away Your Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976.
_________. Know Why You Believe. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.
Luther, Martin. The Larger Catechism. Concordia, 1921.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-12.html
10/15/2011.
MacArthur, John F. “The Resurrection Cover-Up.” Grace Community Church, Panorama City,
CA, n. d.
McGrath, Alister. Resurrection. Fortress Press, 2008.
Maier, Paul L. First Easter. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Manson, T. W. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Westminster Press, 1962.
Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus.
________________. “The Divine Sonship of Jesus,” Interpretation. XXI. 1,1967.
Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting
of Early Christian Worship. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
Rev. Ed., 1983.
Martindale, Wayne and Root, James. The Quotable Lewis. Tyndale, 1990.
Matins, Kathisma. St. Athanasius Epistle to Antiochus.
http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/who_is_the_ancient_of_days.htm 10/13/2011.
Mendelsohn, Lon. CHRISTIA File Archives, excerpted from file CREEDS EARLY,
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm 12/2/2005.
Metzger, Bruce M. "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ." Theology Today. April, 1953.
_______________. The Text of the New Testament. Eerdmans, n. d.
Meyer, Eduard. Origin and Beginning of Christianity (1897).
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999.
_____________, More Than a Carpenter. Tyndale House Publishers, 1977.
_____________. The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense. Comp. Bill Wilson. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1993.
Mc Grath, Alister E. Intellectuals Don’t Need God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
Company, 1993.
Miller, Elliot. “The New Age Movement – What Is It?” Christian Research Institute
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-new-age-movement-what-is-it 10/15/2011.

328
Moffatt, James. Jesus Christ the Same. Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945.
Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. Harper & Row, 1974.
______________. The Way of Jesus Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993.
Montgomery, John Warwick, History and Christianity. InterVarsity Press, 1972.
Moreland, J. P. and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1993.
___________. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
Moule, C. F. D. The Phenomenon of the New Testament. SCM Press, 1967.
Nash, Ronald H. Faith & Reason. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1988.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. London: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Payne Philip B. “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity In His Parables,” Trinity Journal 02:1. Spring
1981.
Phillips, J. B. Ring of Truth: A Translator's Testimony. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
Trans. by Mike Licona, Michael R. Licona. InterVarsity Press, 2010.
__________________, Jesus-God and Man. Trans. by Lewis Wilkins. Westminster John Knox
Press, 1968.
“Philosophy” http://www.why-jesus.com/philosophy.htm 10/15/2011.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. Penguin Press, 2005.
“The Problem with “The New World Translation.”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/nwtrans.htm 10/14/2011.
Ramsey, Sir William M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New
Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915.
Reymond, Robert L. “God as Trinity” http://learntheology.com/god_trinity.html 10/15/2011.
Richardson, Stanton W. Studies in Biblical Theology. St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Bible College,
1969.
Rynne, Terrence J. Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence. Orbis, 2008.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Moody, 1999.
Samples, Kenneth R. and Nash, Ronald. Without Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith
Questions. Baker, 2004.
Sanders, Oswald J. The Incomparable Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.
“Secrets of the Watchtower”
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/dirty_watchtower_secrets_pt2.htm
10/14/2011.
Schaff, Philip. The Person of Christ: The Miracle of History. New York: Charles Scribner &
Company, 1866) cited in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/person.txt (2/13/2009).
___________. History of the Christian Church, vol. 2. 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.
Shamoun, Sam. Jesus in the Rabbinic Traditions. ” http://answering-
islam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm 10/14/2011.
Scheler, Jeffery L. Is The Bible True? San Francisco: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1989.
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1963.
Smith, Wilbur. Have You Considered Him? InterVarsity Press, n. d.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uc72JMk3UwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
10/13/2011.
Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. London: Oxford University Press, 1989.

329
Stoner, Peter. Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible. 1944.
Stott, John R. Basic Christianity. InterVarsity Press, 1958.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000.
__________. The Case for Easter. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2004.
Sturz, Harry. THE BIBLE COLLECTOR. July-December, 1971.
Tacitus, Annals 15:44.
Taylor, Jeremy. The whole works of the right Rev. Jeremy Taylor—An Essay. Frederick Wesley
and A. H. Davis, MDCCXXXV.
Tibbs, Clint. “Communication with God’s Holy Spirits”
http://www.communicationwithgod.info/page1 10/14/2011.
Tozer, A. W. The Pursuit of God. Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1960.
Updike, John. “Seven Stanzas at Easter,” Telephone Poles and Other Poems. Alfred A. Knopf,
Random House Inc, 1961.
Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus Outside the New Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2000.
Wallace, Daniel. “A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule.”
http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Sharp%20Redivivus%20A%20Reexamination%20of
%20the%20Granville%20Sharp%20Rule.htm (10/14/2011), 1.
Warfield, B. B. “Inspiration” cited in http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield4.html
10/12/2011.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1946 edition of Let God Be True.
Wenham, John. Easter Enigma: Do the Resurrection Stories Contradict One Another?
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Whale, J. S. Christian Doctrine cited in “Quotations of J. S. Whale (Page 1, 2 of 2)
http://www.youressay.com/quotes/authors/J_S_Whale-14895/ (2/13/2009).
Wood, Herbert. Did Christ Really Live? Student Christian Movement, 1938.
Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press, 2003.
Additional Resources
Bammel, Ernst and C. F. D. Moule, Eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Banks, Robert. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1975.
Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
Borg, Marcus J. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Mellen,
1984.
__________. Jesus: A New Vision. New York: Harper Collins, 1987.
__________. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. The Historical Jesus and the Heart of
Contemporary Faith. Harper SanFrancisco, 1994.
Bornkamm, Günter. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Harper, 1960.
Bowker, John. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Braaten, C. E. and R. A. Harrisville, eds. The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ:
Essays on the New Quest for the Historical Jesus. New York: Abingdon, 1964.
Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots. New York: Scribner, 1967.

330
Braun, Herbert. Jesus of Nazareth. The Man and His Time. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in
Matthew and Luke. Rev. ed. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994.
__________. The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the
Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994.
Buchanan, George W. Jesus: The King and His Kingdom. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1984.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. New York: Scribner, 1958 (1934).
Charlesworth, James H. Ed. Jesus’ Jewishness. Exploring the Place of Jesus within Early
Judaism. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
Cook, Michael J. Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Cook, Michael L. The Jesus of Faith. New York: Paulist, 1981.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.
New York: Harper Collins, 1991.
Johnson, Luke Timothy and Werner H. Kelber. The Jesus Controversy. Perspectives in
Conflict. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Dodd, C. H. The Founder of Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1970.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990.
Efroymson, David P. “Jesus: Opposition and Opponents.” In Within Context: Essays on Jews
and Judaism in the New Testament, eds. D. P. Efroymson et al., 85-103. A Michael
Glazier Book. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993.
Evans, Craig A. Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography. NT Tools and Studies 13.
Leiden: Brill, 1989.
__________. “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology.” Theological Studies 54
(1993): 3- 36.
Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of
Christianity. New York: Knopf, 1999.
Freyne, Sean. Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Galvin, John P. “From the Humanity of Christ to the Jesus of History: A Paradigm Shift in
Catholic Christology.” Theological Studies 55 (1994): 252-273.
Goergen, Donald J. The Mission and Ministry of Jesus. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1986.
Grant, Michael. Jesus. An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. New York: Scribner, 1977.
Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. London: Duckworth, 1982.
Hengel, Martin. Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1973.
__________. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence. Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman
Palestine. New York: Harper, 1987; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993.
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Scribner,
1971.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus. The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the
Truth of the Traditional Gospels. Harper. 1996.
Kasper, Walter. Jesus the Christ. New York: Paulist, 1976.
Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth. Boston: Beacon, 1964.
Küng, Hans. On Being a Christian. New York: Doubleday, 1976.
Lane, Dermot. The Reality of Jesus. New York: Paulist, 1975.

331
Lapide, Pinchas and Ulrich Luz. Jesus in Two Perspectives. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985.
Machovec, Milan. A Marxist Looks at Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Mack, Burton. A Myth of Innocence. Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1988.
Mackey, James P. Jesus: The Man and the Myth. New York: Paulist, 1979.
Manson, T. W. The Servant Messiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.
__________. The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963 (1931).
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol 1, The Roots of the
Problem and the Person. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
__________. A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol 2, Mentor, Message, and
Miracles. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
__________. “Jesus.” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Eds., R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer,
and R. E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1990): 1316-1328.
Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM, 1979. (esp. 129-74)
Nolan, Albert. Jesus Before Christianity. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1976. [with reservations]
O’Collins, Gerald. Interpreting Jesus. New York: Paulist, 1983.
Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM, 1967.
Reumann, John. Jesus in the Church’s Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
Riches, John. Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism. New York: Seabury, 1982.
Rivkin, Ellis. What Crucified Jesus? London: SCM, 1984.
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Schillebeeckx, Eduard. Jesus. An Experiment in Christology. New York: Crossroad, 1979.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. A Critical Study of Its Progress from
Reimarus to Wrede. New York: Macmillan, 1961 (Ger. orig. 1906)
Segundo, Juan Luis. The Historical Jesus of the Synoptics. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1985.
Sloyan, Gerard. Jesus in Focus. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publ., 1984.
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. New York: Harper, 1978.
Sobrino, Jon, S.J. Christology at the Crossroads. A Latin American Approach. Maryknoll:
Orbis, 1978.
Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. New York: Oxford, 1989.
Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. New York: Knopf, 1960.
Tambasco, Anthony J. In the Days of Jesus. The Jewish Background and Unique Teaching of
Jesus. New York: Paulist, 1983.
Theissen, Gerd. The Shadow of the Galilean. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Vawter, Bruce. This Man Jesus. An Essay Toward a NT Christology. New York: Doubleday,
1973.
Winter, Paul. On the Trial of Jesus. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961 (2d rev. ed., 1974)
Witherington, Ben. The Jesus Quest. The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. 2d ed.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.
Wright, N. T. Who Was Jesus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Zeitlin, Solomon. Who Crucified Jesus? New York: Bloch, 1964 (1942).

332
Recommended Reading
Aulen, Gustav. Christus Victor. An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the
Atonement. New York: Macmillan, 1969.
Baillie, D. M. God Was in Christ. An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement. New York:
Scribner, 1948.
Brown, Raymond E. Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A NT Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of
the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
Dwyer, John C. Son of Man and Son of God. A New Language for Faith. Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist, 1983.
Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus.
New Haven, 1988.
Fuller, Reginald H. The Foundations of NT Christology. New York: Scribner, 1965.
Hagner, Donald A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus. An Analysis and Critique of
Modern Jewish Study of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Hellwig, Monika K. Jesus. The Compassion of God. Wilmington: Glazier, 1983.
Hultgren, Arland J. Christ and His Benefits: Christology and Redemption in the New
Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Hurtaldo, Larry W. One God, One Lord. Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Jonge, Marinus de. Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
Knox, John. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1967.
Moule, C. F. D. The Origins of Christology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
____________. Ed. The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus
Christ. London: SCM, 1968.
Neyrey, Jerome. Christ Is Community. The Christologies of the NT. Wilmington: Glazier,
1985.
O’Grady, John F. Models of Jesus. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981.
Turner, H. E. W. The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption. London: Mowbray, 1952.
Tyson, Joseph B. The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina
Press, 1986.
Van Buren, Paul. A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality: Part III: Christ in Context. New
York: Harper, 1988.
Weeden, T. H. Mark: Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Becker, Joachim. Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Charlesworth, James H. Ed. The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea of Israel. London: Allen and Unwin, 1956.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later
Judaism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1956.
Nickelsburg, George and John J. Collins. Eds. Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1980.

Neusner, Jacob. Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Ringgren, Helmer. The Messiah in the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1956.
Scholem, Gershom. The Messianic Idea and Other Essays. New York: Schocken, 1971.
Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and
Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
333