About Those Ladies

The prominent role of women (Luke 24:10) in the Gospels on the very first Easter morning poses a strong challenge to the so-called “feminist’” critique of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Significantly, women are not mentioned at all in the Apostle Paul’s treatment of Jesus resurrection in his first Letter to the Corinthians (15:1f) for the simple reason that in every culture in those times the testimony of a woman had no legal standing.  On this account many wish to charge Paul with being anti-woman (that charge is demonstrably false for a host of reasons that include his overarching statement in Galatians 3:28).  It was for the actual reason just mentioned, and that reason alone, that no women are included in his list of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

The exclusion of women from Paul’s roster of witnesses actually bolsters the historical reliability of the Easter narratives in the Gospel accounts of Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20.  In those documents it is the women (two Marys and a Joanna, as well as others who are unnamed) who are the actual stand-outs.  It is they who, in a bold step of courage, made their way to the tomb to anoint the presumably dead body of Jesus with myrrh and aloes while the men (by and large) remained behind locked doors ”for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19).  The feminist interpretation of the Gospel accounts that appear in modern Bibles suggests that these documents are “paternalistic” perversions of a story that was originally centered in goddess worship.  It is males, they allege, who re-fashioned that originally “pristine” story into a new narrative where male leadership becomes validated in the Gospel accounts as we find them today.

Why then, I repeat, is it women who are stated to play the prominent role in the Easter accounts in such an impressive fashion?  It is because the Gospel writers (by the way, all males) told the bare truth of the matter concerning what actually happened that day.  While the Apostle Paul laid out the case for Jesus’ resurrection in the manner that the standards of testimony required, the Gospel accounts simply laid out the entire story, even at the expense of embarrassing the writers, whose goals was simply to let the plain truth be known.

Have a truly blessed Easter weekend in the certainty that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead on the first Easter.

I will be away from my post for the next few days, but look forward to returning to my blog this next weekend.

Remember to fight the good fight of faith.  The truth is on our side!

Exposed For Their True Intention to Overthrow

Stated very briefly, the pro-homosexual movement can no longer claim desire simply to belong to the mainstream.  It is now inescapably clear that their true intentions are to overthrow the time-honored foundations of our civilization.  Where indeed is there any indication in their line of argument of a willingness to either compromise with others, or consider the consequences of such a change with respect to children?   

"Finished" in What Way? (John 19:30)

Taken in isolation, John chapters 18 and 19 portray Jesus as finished off in a most unfortunate way.  When we add the chapters of Matthew 26 and 27, Mark 14 and 15, and Luke 22 and 23 to our reading list, our imaginations experience what our senses would have told us had we actually been in Jerusalem on the Friday we today call “Good.”  Had we been there in person we would not have said of the occasion, “This is good!”

Having been hauled away from the Garden of Gethsemane by the guards the night before, Jesus firstly faced Annas the Jewish High Priest and then the whole body of Jewish authorities.  At daybreak He was made to stand before Governor Pontius Pilate, then before Judean King Herod Antipas, and then back again to face Pilate and the gathering crowds who shouted of Jesus, “Crucify him!  Crucify him!”  Jesus was then mocked and beaten and then forced to carry His cross to the place of execution (a task someone else had to complete since He was too weak for the job).  Nailed to the cross at 9:00 am, He hung against the sky until he succumbed to death six hours later.  The Gospel accounts of the events of that day close with His removal from the cross and the subsequent burial of his body in a tomb.  Our eyes and ears would therefore have judged by these events that Jesus was finished off most thoroughly.

It is true that Christians use the word “finished” in the context of Jesus’ passion and death.  We use that word because Jesus Himself used it (John 19:30).  He, however, did not use that expression in a cry of despair, but as a statement of accomplishment.  The English translation is absolutely correct when it says, “It is finished.”  Grammatically it is “perfect” infinitive.  The “perfect” tense regards the act that is described as complete for all time.  The “infinitive” mood turns the action into a noun.  What all this means is that Jesus is not talking about Himself as finished.  Jesus is not saying, “I’ve had it with the world.”  Something else besides Jesus is finished.  What is actually finished as a result of Jesus’ death on the cross, is the condemnation the results from sin.  Jesus dealt with this matter fully when He died on the cross that day to pay for our sins.

The single Greek word covering the three English words “It is finished,” is tetelestai.  Archaeologists have encountered this word written across bills of sale that have been discovered from ancient times contemporaneous with the life of Jesus.  Monetary bills are not a new invention!  That word meant literally, “Paid in full” in the sense that the debt in question is removed.  Is that not good news to encounter in our own daily lives that this or that debt is finally ”paid in full?”  So the Apostle John uses the word tetelestai in order to convey the complete, fully finished, work of salvation accomplished on the cross.  It is as the Apostle Paul writes, Jesus “canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands, this he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14), so that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1f).

It would be true that had the story of Jesus actually ended with His burial in the tomb, we would have to conclude that He was finished off that day.  But following behind chapter 19 comes John chapter 20.  Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.  It is not my purpose this day to lay out the case for His resurrection.  I will continue that matter in the days that follow as I have already begun it.  For today let us understand that on Good Friday Jesus Christ dealt with the sin of the world by His death on the cross.

 

Is the Easter Story Legend or Myth? Part IV

In previous blogs I addressed the utter lack of available time that would have been required in order for legend and myth to develop around Jesus.  The facts found there establish that the New Testament documents would have been completed and circulated within 35 years of Jesus’ public ministry.  This means that Jerusalem and the surrounding land was filled with eye-witnesses, both sympathetic and hostile, to the Christian claims concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

Two additional themes remain concerning the question, “Are the New Testament accounts of Jesus the product of legendary development and mythological reshaping?  My next blog to address this theme will address the question of relationship (or non-relationship) of the death and resurrection of Jesus with the mystery religions of the surrounding cultures.

First, however, I want today to consider the characteristics of the Gospels themselves.  Renowned literary critic Erich Auerbach makes the following observation about legendary development by contrasting the two terms legend and history in his book, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. (Princeton, 1953), p.19.

“Legend runs far too smoothly.  All cross-currents, all frictions, all that is casual, secondary to the main events and themes, everything unresolved, truncated, and uncertain, which confuses the clear progress of action and simple orientation of the actors, has disappeared.  The historical event [by contrast]…runs much more variously, contradictorily, and confusedly.” (boldface mine)

Of the four Gospels in our New Testament canon, the Gospel of John is often singled out as being the most “spiritual” and the least earthy in its treatment of the life of Jesus.  This makes the argument from John even more significant.  Consider his treatment of the events of Easter morning.

There are at least six factors, as I count them, in John chapter 20 that are at odds with the tendency of legendary material just described by Auerbach: 1) With great restraint, the author makes no attempt to describe the actual drama itself of Jesus rising from the dead.  Readers are treated only to the events that followed after the encounter with the empty tomb.  2) Mary neither recognized Jesus initially (v.14), 3) nor even considered there was anything special about Him (v.15).  4) Indeed, even by the end of the day the men (in contrast to the women) were still in hiding "for fear of the Jews" (v.19), 5) while the women were portrayed as the first courageous witnesses of the risen Jesus.  Were the Gospels the free creation of paternalistic (male dominant) bias, as feminists charge, it is incredible their alleged creators would have invented women for this role.  The testimony of women didn't even count legally in ancient Middle Eastern cultures.  6) Yet it was their courage going to the tomb on Sunday morning that effectively put the men's cowardice to shame.

I want to remind you to visit my website at www.christianityontheoffense.com.  There you may download my full treatment of Jesus’ resurrection in my essay, “Hoax? Myth? Or Literally True?”

Stay tuned for my next posting covering the theme of Jesus in contrast to the neighboring mystery religions.

Answers to Challenges Part II

"Adherents of the traditional view of marriage are extremists."

Answer:  The traditional view of marriage is exactly as the name implies.  It is a vision of marriage that is based on a long and universally recognized understanding that marriage involves a life-long commitment between a man and a woman.  This is not to deny that both homosexuality and polygamy have been considered acceptable alternatives in certain societies down through history as well.  But those arrangements were never made to redefine marriage itself in terms of sexual roles.  For this reason, it is those who wish to overthrow the traditional definition of marriage that are the extremists.

"Advocates for the traditional view of marriage are bigots."

Answer:  This charge is simply absurd.  It merits no response.  That the charge is made is a reflection more on the narrow mindedness of the person who hurls it at traditionalists, than it is on a person who simply wishes to maintain a time-honored vision of marriage and the family for the protection of the defenseless.  The implied assumption that unless you agree with the actions of another person, you must instead be filled with hatred toward that person, commits the “black or white” fallacy, is reflective of the infantile thinking of a spoiled child (of any age) who doesn’t get their own way, and, applied consistently, would render impossible every single social relationship everywhere.

 
"Straight marriages are not impacted, and are certainly not damaged, by the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual arrangements."

Answer:  Arguments for the standard traditional model of marriage do not rest on whether current marriages are impacted.  They rest fundamentally on matters of morality, including the very existence of morality, the disruption of society when morality is abandoned, the potential harm to children who are left without a vision of marriage when marriage is redefined, and parents and teachers who are hindered from providing that vision to their children when traditional marriage is ridiculed.

"The sorry record of high divorce rates in straight marriage demonstrates that the traditional view of marriage is a failure."
 
Answer:  So much for human nature!  The Bible calls this sin.  It also offers the remedy for human sin through the forgiveness of our sins in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  But the suggestion that the reality of human failure means we should throw out standards altogether, is absolutely preposterous.  That very proposition toward overhaul removes all hope for moral improvement.  And it removes the very standard that provides direction for moral improvement.  Indeed it renders the very notion of moral improvement incoherent and meaningless. 
 
"Religion has no legitimate role to play with respect to secular public affairs."
 
Answer:  The United States constitution offers no restriction whatsoever to the use of religious argumentation.  If it did, it would effectively offer free expression of opinion to everyone else EXCEPT those who believe in a God who has revealed His will in the Bible.  Our founding documents argue OTHERWISE.  The first amendment to the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”       

Compiled by Pastor Gary Jensen

Zion Lutheran Church

Snohomish, Washington

March 28, 2013

Answers to Ten Challenges By the Pro-Homosexual Movement Part I

Answers to Ten Challenges Posed By the Pro-Homosexual-Marriage Movement

"Homosexuals should have the right to marry." 

                Answer:  Homosexuals already do have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they choose not to marry under the standard definition of marriage.  For this reason, their non-participation in marriage is their choice.

"Marriage is a right and not a privilege.  Therefore it should be accessible to all."

                Answer:  All homosexuals already do have the right to marry under the terms described above, which apply universally to all.  That they wish not to accept the invitation to do so does not give them the right to change the definition of marriage for society.

"All people who love should be free to marry."

                Answer:  Everyone is already free to love whom they will.  All people are legally free to express sexuality with whomever person they will (excluding children).  This does not give homosexuals  the right to overthrow the traditional definition of marriage in order to include different arrangements.  If it is argued that people should have the right to redefine whatever sexual arrangement they choose as marriage, then it is “logical” to broaden the definition of marriage all the way to including polygamy, bestiality, and sex between “loving” adults and children.  Once moral objections are removed from the traditionalist’ battery of arguments on the allegation that moral arguments cannot be used to place restrictions on marriage, then the pro-homosexual marriage movement must accept other relationships including polygamy, etc. as the logical extension of removing moral concerns from the argument.

"All loving relationships have the right to be recognized as married."

                Answer:  Since marriage is at present legally defined as between a man and a woman, couples involved in homosexual relationships (which do not fit that definition) do not even logically have the right to being recognized as being married, since they are actually not.

"The weight of opinion is moving in favor of homosexual marriage.  Therefore the vote of the people should reflect this new reality."

                Answer:  Viewed historically, until this movement became a majority (as is currently claimed) the gay marriage lobby consistently rejected the will of the people in favor of court rulings designed to overturn the will of the majority.  Only now, after the tide of popular opinion appears to be changing in favor of gay marriage, is the pro-homosexual marriage movement eager to put the matter to a vote.  This cynical reversal of strategy merely for the sake of advantage betrays a fundamental dishonesty with respect to promoting “the will of the people.”  

 This present trend to deal with issues of morality exclusively by means of popular vote represents a departure from the vision of our nation’s founders.  They recognized the existence of a “higher,” moral law which gives foundation to the laws which govern our nation.  The disintegration of morality as the ultimate social standard of society logically turns the means to social change into unchecked mob rule by the majority.  As 2^nd President John Adams wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  (http://historicwords.com/american-history/john-adams-our-constitution-was-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/)

Is the Easter Story Legend or Myth? Part III

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day…and that he appeared…”  (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

The passage just cited includes the two words, “delivered” and “received.”  The Apostle Paul is here noting that the passage found in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-8 (I encourage you to read the entire section), is not his own words.  He is instead passing on to his readers what amounts to a credal statement that he received from the Christian community as a whole.  This statement concerning Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection was already in circulation when Paul chose to incorporate it into his own letter.  There are two matters of importance here.  First, the central message of Christianity right from the very beginning revolved around these three words (themes).  Second, this passage is dated between three and five years after Jesus’ crucifixion.  This time frame is assumed not (only) by fundamentalist Christians, but by a body of radical skeptical scholars (the “Jesus Seminar”) who deny the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Robert Funk, ed.  The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? (Polebridge, 1982), p.454)).  Indeed, this is the broadly agreed upon time frame across New Testament scholarship.

It is important to recognize that the 3-5-year time-frame just cited does not mean that this was the date when the resurrection stories were invented.  It means instead that documentable evidence for a publically-agreed upon creed was already in broad circulation by that time.  Three to five years is how amazingly close in time we can approach concrete, primary documentation for Christian belief about Jesus resurrection from the dead.  The so-called gap in time between the alleged event (the resurrection) and widely-held conviction about that event is utterly without parallel in ancient history.  There is absolutely no reason to think that within the remaining tiny gap of time that the story of Easter was invented out of nothing.

I wish to separate the question of legend from myth for reasons that I will explain in future blogs.  But for the present I include quotations from literary scholars, who treat both together, who argue that legendary development does not happen immediately.  To the contrary, it is documented to take generations. Consider the following:

“”The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time than can be the case…Heroditus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.”  (A.N. Sherwin-White. Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament. (Oxford, 1962), p.189,90).

“Myth is usually characterized by remoteness in time and space…as having taken place long ago.”  The Gospels by contrast concern “an event that had a particular definite location in Palestine…under Pontius Pilate, only a generation or so before the New Testament account of these happenings.”  (John Macquarie. God Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology. (Harper and Row, 1967), p.177, 180). 

 

In the last blog I laid out the decisively strong arguments for dating the close of virtually the entire New Testament within 35 years of Jesus’ public ministry.  Within this time frame a significant portion of the population of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem, many of whom were hostile to the Jesus’ message, had access to the body of evidence surrounding Jesus of Nazareth.  Opportunities abounded to cross-examine the witnesses and explore the actual facts of the case.  Motivation was strong and prevalent for opponents to find means to undermine the Christian movement.  Therefore the weight of evidence points away from assertions that the Gospels are legend.  They stand up for these reasons as trustworthy historical testimony to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus’ resurrection within history.

Is the Easter Story Legend or Myth? Part II

Don’t Forget the Calendar!

A major crisis in Israel’s history occurred in the year 70 AD when the temple in Jerusalem was completely demolished under General Titus’ Roman military.  Following its destruction, the entire sacrificial system (the offering of animal sacrifices on its altar) came to a complete end and has never been resumed.  About 35 years earlier John the Baptist announced at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).  The entire point of Jesus’ coming into the world, according to the New Testament, was that He was (and is) the fulfillment of the entire sacrificial system of the Old (first) Testament.  He fulfilled the previous arrangement by Himself acting as its ultimate, final, and entirely sufficient sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 7:23-25).  For this reason, it is astonishing that the New Testament never anywhere makes mention of this crisis in Jerusalem that brought the end to the Jewish sacrificial system on account of the destruction of the temple!  I am here using the “argument from silence,” a form of argumentation which should be used with caution, yet under certain circumstances is entirely valid.  The New Testament is entirely silent on the very event which brought a complete end to the sacrificial system that Jesus' death and resurrection replaced.  For this reason, the year 70 AD has a strong bearing on the question of the endpoint concerning the dating of the New Testament writings.

Another important year is 65 A D.  It was in that year that both Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, the former by crucifixion upside down, and the latter by beheading, according to strong tradition.  The significance of this year for the purposes of today’s blog is that the death of the Apostle Paul is not mentioned in the Book of Acts.  Acts’ closing words are, “And he [Paul] lived there [Rome] two whole years…teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered” (28:30,31).  The Apostle Paul is not treated in the Book of Acts in an incidental manner.  To the contrary his personality is front and center for a substantial portion of the book.  The flow of his life and ministry are chapter after chapter described in detail.  His intentions to eventually take the Gospel to Spain (Romans 15:28) add weight to the strong assessment that the author of Acts was not finished with the story of the Apostle Paul’s journeys.  For this reason alone there is strong reason for dating the Book of Acts prior to the death of Paul in 65 AD.

The author of Acts, known as Luke (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24), also (obviously) authored the third Gospel that bears his name (see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1).  Since Acts is the second of a two-volume work (that was written in chronological order—see Acts 1:2) that begins with the Gospel of Luke, it then follows that the Gospel According to Luke was written substantially earlier than 65 AD.
 

I will continue to expand on the significance of the above two dates with respect to the dating of the New Testament.  For now I simply state that they demolish the assertions of the skeptics that the New Testament documents were compiled way after the time of the events they purport to describe.  The truth is the New Testament presents us with trustworthy accounts substantiated by eye-witness experiences of the events surrounding Jesus’ life, death, and the empty tomb on the third day.

To be continued…

Is the Easter Story Legend or Myth? Part I

“For I delivered to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins..., was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared…”
(1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

For the remainder of my series on the case for the Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead, I will include at the outset the paragraph italicized below.  I wish to begin today, however, by make three important clarifications.  First, the following “facts” really are conceded to be true by the harshest critics of the Gospels.  It follows then (secondly) that it is important to make a distinction between the acceptance of the data on the one hand, and belief in Jesus' actual resurrection on the other.  Many scholars who trust the facts themselves do not accept Easter as their conclusion.  Yet I argue that this situation strengthens the case for trusting the 12 facts themselves.  As I mentioned in my last posting of March 20, when atheist Peter Singer asserts, as he has in public, that there is no substantial set of facts to support Christian belief in this matter, he is simply betraying his ignorance of the state of New Testament studies.  Thirdly, one strategy used by historians (and scientists) to establish the authenticity of historical events is called “inference to the best explanation.”  This methodology does not rush to make “God” the explanation of circumstances we don’t fully understand.  It instead exhaustively analyzes the data, considers the entire range of potential explanations, discards those theories that are found deficient, and arrives at the best over-all explanation.  This final explanation avoids an ad hoc strategy involving special pleading, while searching for that answer which provides the greatest explanatory scope, and explanatory power in terms of the whole range of widely-acknowledged historical facts.

What, if any, are the facts?

New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has made a list of twelve historical facts that are conceded to be true by the majority of New Testament scholars, including even the harshest of critics, all of which point inescapably to the truth that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day.  These facts include:  1) Jesus died by crucifixion.  2) He was buried.  3) His disciples despaired.  4) The tomb was discovered to be empty just a few days later.  5) The disciples became convinced that they experienced the risen Jesus.  6) They were transformed from doubters into bold proclaimers, who lived and died violently as martyrs for their convictions.  7)  Jesus’ resurrection was the central message of their preaching.  8) They proclaimed their message in Jerusalem where the facts of the matter could be investigated and easily overthrown if demonstrated to be false.  9) The church grew against all odds, without means of sword and against the disapproval of the hostile Roman government.  10) Their worship day moved from Saturday to Sunday.  11) James, Jesus’ skeptical brother was converted after seeing the risen Jesus.  12) And Saul the great enemy of Christianity was converted and became a most loyal disciple, at a high personal cost, all the way to his own violent death by beheading.

Using standard historical method, there are no solid grounds for explaining away any entryfrom the above list of historical facts.  In the blog that is about to follow, I will continue to make the very solid case that the claim of the New Testament about Jesus’ resurrection is historically true.  Suffice it to say that at this point, using inference to the best explanation concerning these facts, the notion that the Gospel accounts are legend is repudiated.  Every last fact on the list points to the historicity of Jesus coming back to life following his own death.  None of the above facts count against it.

Stay tuned.

The Fact of Jesus' Historical Resurrection part II

Our culture has a huge problem.  For all our boasting otherwise, we nevertheless care far too little about matters of truth.  Just this morning I had a conversation with my atheist friend Jim who, in the context of the recent election of the new pope (Pope Francis), decried his observation that the Roman Catholic Church will, in sexual matters, continue their outmoded opinions in opposition to a new wave of (secular) thinking which is gaining in momentum.  Ironically, just this last minute on the radio it was announced that the acceptance of the concept of homosexual marriage is increasing in popularity across all ages of people.  I replied to Jim that faddish movements are not necessarily driven by careful thinking.  It is critical, I said, that people actually think for themselves and explore the specific facts of the case at hand (see my blog dated March 18, 2013 at www.offensivechristianity.blogspot.com) as opposed to blindly following the pack.

As for the case for Jesus’ resurrection, just a week ago I observed a debate on the existence of God between a world-renowned atheist thinker (Dr. Peter Singer) and scientist and Christian, Dr. John Lennox.  I expected to disagree with Singer’s position.  Yet I also expected him to get his facts right.  But I was disappointed the entire debate about this matter.  Now I will limit my comments here to one issue only.  I was quite frankly appalled to listen to Dr. Singer speak so eloquently on the one hand, yet so ignorantly on the other, about the state of evidence concerning Jesus.  He argued that there was virtually no evidence.  Yet in reality he did not get a single fact correct concerning the story of Jesus.  To believe or not believe in Jesus is of course his choice.  But given the state of current scholarship on what we can confidently know about Jesus, there is little excuse for his doubting the truth of the broad outline of His life, death, and the empty tomb.  He really needs to read up on this matter.

New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas (I have had the privilege of visiting briefly with him) has made a list of twelve historical facts that are conceded to be true by even the harshest of critics, all of which point inescapably to the truth that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day.  These facts include:  1) Jesus died by crucifixion.  2) He was buried.  3) His disciples despaired.  4) The tomb was discovered to be empty.  5) The disciples became convinced that they experienced the risen Jesus.  6) They were transformed from doubters into bold proclaimers, who lived and died for his message.  7)  Jesus’ resurrection was their central message.  8) They proclaimed their message in Jerusalem where the facts of the matter could be investigated.  9) The church grew against all odds, and without the means of either sword or governmental power.  10) Their worship day moved from Saturday to Sunday.  11) James, Jesus’ skeptical brother was converted after seeing the risen Jesus.  12) And Saul the great enemy of Christianity was converted and became a most loyal disciple too.

These facts point in one direction only.  Indeed Christ Jesus is risen from the dead!

 

The Fact of Jesus' Historical Resurrection part I

I just wrote this essay for the April 2013 newsletter of Zion Lutheran Church here in Snohomish Washington.  The list of historical facts at the end will be expanded on in the posts that will follow.  Even this essay will be divided into two halves.

“But Indeed Christ Has Been Raised From the Dead!”

(1 Corinthians 15:20)

I find that the Christian proclamation about the risen Jesus gains in power when we concede what a surprise it actually was that he did so.  The resurrection of Jesus is a miracle.  It follows after the humiliation, brutal beating, and the horrific crucifixion of the very one who had been expected to overthrow the powers of the world in His day (the Romans).  Within hours after celebrating the Passover with his disciples he was shown wasted and dead.  For the several days that followed after his burial in the tomb, his disciples despaired to the point of leaving their buried Jesus behind in Jerusalem and returning to their earlier lines of work on the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-5).  Clearly they expected their previous chapter with Jesus was now closed.

Of course we Christians today know the whole story in a way that the disciples didn’t see at their moment in time.  Unlike those disciples, we Christians today appeal to an actual miracle after the fact, which gives weight to Jesus’ predictions (Matthew 16:21).  They, by contrast, were confused by his predictions (Mathew 16:22 and 17:23).  We also know the promises the Bible made concerning Jesus throughout the Old Testament which foretold the ultimate victory of the coming Messiah (Psalm 16:9-11).  And thirdly we understand that the God who made the heavens and the earth can, if He indeed wishes, do all things.  Yet it is also true that resurrections from the dead are hardly common occurrences!  Jewish believers understood that there would be a general resurrection of all people at the end of the world.  But not in the middle of history!  (John 11:24).  And in fact, coming back from the dead has never been claimed to have happened within history (except just once so far).  Yet this is what Christians confess about Jesus of Nazareth: that his dead body which had been placed in a tomb came back to life again on the third day.  And that is no less than a surprising miracle!

Christian belief says, “It is indeed true that Christ Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day and therefore He is alive this very day as Lord of all.”  When we say the words, “This is true,” we are making a very bold statement.  We are declaring by this statement that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is an absolute fact for the entire world, and not just for Christians.  This makes the central Christian claim the most important fact in the entire world.  Consequently this claim also raises important questions.  Does it stand up under scrutiny?  Can it stand up?  Is it supposed to stand up according to the Bible itself?  Christians claim the resurrection of Jesus is a fact.  Yet there is also another fact.  Many people within our very own culture either do not believe our claim, or they live their lives as though this claim is of no importance to them.  So the final question is, do (un)popularity polls have any bearing on the truth of our claim?
 

To be continued...

Applying the Scientific Method to Redefining Marriage

“Test everything”

(1 Thessalonians 5:19)

Just this morning over coffee, an atheist friend of mine asked me what I thought about the new pope.  He volunteered his concern that Pope Francis was continuing the same outmoded position of his predecessors that homosexual marriage is wrong.  And he suggested that the old line of thinking of the Catholic Church actually runs in the opposite direction of the new wave of thinking that is building and gaining momentum.  I replied that movements are not necessarily driven by legitimate, serious reflection, and that in this case in particular, there is very little thinking at all!  The letter that appears below exposes the double-standard that is so prevalent in our time where, in contrast to their diligent research in other matters, many of the social movers in our society fail to consider the potential ramifications that follow from redefining marriage.   Indeed, I fear they don’t even know what the questions are.  But I will now let my letter to the editor of the “Everett Herald” speak for itself.  This entire matter is heightened most recently by both Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s reversal of opinion on this matter, and Hillary Clinton’s outspoken support for homosexual marriage.

Dear Editor, 

      

As I write this letter I am hearing news of a highway project being halted because of the discovery of an insect!  Examples of caution abound in the construction world whenever projects are proposed, all with the question whether they might disrupt the natural order.  That is as it should be.  But when it comes to redefining marriage no such caution exists at all.  The pro-homosexual marriage column on the front page of the Opinion section of Sunday’s Herald failed to address even one potential damaging consequence of redefining marriage.  Tragically this same failure to address consequences is repeated across the entire movement, including editorial writers and politicians.  Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose.  Accommodating visitation privileges for loved ones is a reasonable request that society can work to achieve.  But the utter lack of reflection, and the judgment of politicians that the overthrow of traditional marriage is the only way to achieve that goal, must all be judged as gross incompetence.

Drop the nonsensical straw-man assertion that redefining marriage has no impact on existing married couples.  No straight person argues otherwise.   The harm goes to children and young people in need of a time-tested vision of what it means to one day marry and have a family.  The harm also extends to parents who struggle to instill this vision.  Government must not stand in their way, most especially with the kinds of leaders that are intent on blindly pushing their agenda ahead with no foresight at all.

Rev. Gary Jensen (Zion Lutheran Church, Snohomish, WA)

No Particle Gets to Be God, Ever!

“…because they worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator…” (Romans 1:25) 

Christians ought to celebrate scientific discoveries that arise from the exploration of the natural world.  As John Heilprin of the Associated Press (The Everett Herald, (03-15-2013) puts it, the recent actual discovery of the “Higg’s boson,” following 20 years of searching for this elusive entity (out of an educated hunch that it must be “out there somewhere”) has provided an important piece to the puzzle as to how the building blocks of matter stick together.  The fact is a host of factors that were present at the very beginning of creation reveal an intentionality on the part of an intelligent and all-powerful God. However, for a number of years now, this sought-after entity that was just discovered has been called the “God particle.”

It is important in this context to remember several matters.  The first is the affirmation that the scientific enterprise is a godly venture which the Bible blesses (Psalm 19, Romans 1:18-20).  Second, it is important for all people (including both the scientifically-minded and the religiously-minded) to understand both what science is, and what it is not.  Science investigates natural processes within the realm of nature.  Science does not deal with events that lie outside the natural order.  This leads directly to the third matter.  When we consider the matter of the Higgs boson it is important to be clear philosophically about what the Higgs boson is.  Is it an ultimate cause of everything else which brings all of nature into existence?  Or is it a secondary cause within nature which advances an explanation about the rest of the natural order?

Heilprin opens his article in a very unhelpful way by stating, “It [the boson] helps solve one of the most fundamental riddles of the universe: how the Big Bang created something out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago.”  Here the author is confusing ultimate causes with secondary ones by making a contradictory statement.  Since it is understood that the boson is an entity within nature that can be studied by scientific means, then it must be conceded that the boson cannot be the cause of nature itself.  As Einstein stated from his general theory of relativity, all of matter, energy, space, and even time itself came into existence out of nothing.  This includes the Higgs boson.  The boson did not self-create.  When we explore nature we are meeting the handiwork of the Transcendent God of the Holy Bible who by His intentional design brought all things into existence by His command (Hebrews 11:3).  The plethora of scientists who helped launch the scientific enterprise at the beginning of the renaissance (the fruits of whose efforts we receive today) were all motivated by the notion that they were thinking God’s thoughts after Him.  They did not mistakenly “worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator” (see Romans 1:25).  There is no scientific excuse today for parting from the wisdom of the earlier scientists who believed in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.”  So let us not confuse a newly-discovered “god particle” with the actual Creator of all things.    

Reconciliation, Truth, and the Bible Too!

It is now time to consider the broad harmony that actually does exist between the text of the creation narratives, including Genesis 1, and the clear testimony of scientific discovery.  As for the text itself, I already made an extended case for the “day-age” interpretation in my blog titled, “What Does the Bible Actually Say About the Days of Genesis One?” which is dated January 14, 2013.  In my most recent essays I have undertaken the rather unpleasant task of challenging the 24-hour-day position on creation.  I take no joy in doing so.  But it appears urgent to me that, for the sake of the advancement of the Gospel, those positions which are discredited and untenable be cast aside in favor of that position which is demonstrated to be true to every realm it touches.  The Title of today’s blog fulfills my promise from just a few posts ago to present the kinds of evidence that in a positive manner demonstrates that the day-age position conforms all down the line with the actual facts of mainstream science.  Details from the following list will be treated in a fuller manner in the posts that are to follow.  So for the present I simply lay before readers my bare outline of the case:

The universe had an absolute beginning in the Big Bang (Genesis 1:1).

The pattern of creation in Genesis 1 matches the findings of science, and separates itself from the pagan mythology of its neighbors and friends.  

No new matter is being created (Gen. 2:1) — 1^st law of thermodynamics.

The cosmos operates under fixed laws (Jeremiah 33:25).

The universe is expanding — The Big Bang.

The number of stars in the heavens is indirectly described as almost innumerable (Gen. 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22).  

Stars differ from each other by the elements they contain (1 Cor.15:41).

Time began at creation (Heb. 11:3). — General Theory of Relativity.

The universe is running down (Isaiah 40:6) — 2^nd law of thermodynamics.

Not True to the World is Not True to the Word

“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things he has made…”  (Romans 1:20)

It is commonly stated by Christians that where scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, God’s Word must have the final say.  This sounds like a more pious statement than it actually is.  Of course it is true that the God of all existence has first-hand understanding about the things He has made.  To dismiss His insight into the creation of the heavens and the earth is obviously an expression of insufferable arrogance.  Yet the real question before us is not what God knows about His own handiwork.  The question before us is the separate concern, what does the Bible say about itself with respect to the relationship between revelation and scientific claims?  If the Scriptures don’t agree with the opening statement referenced at the outset, then insisting on the priority of the Bible over scientific pronouncement is a dogmatic viewpoint that does not honor God. 

 

In my most recent postings I stated that, in the name of rationality and the very definition of “truth,” it is a false step logically to give greater authority to the Bible than to empirically-achieved scientific perceptions about the nature of the world.   What, again, does the Bible itself have to say about the matter?  One Scriptural passage stands out as especially explicit and direct with respect to this statement.  The Apostle Paul begins the body of his systematic treatment of the Gospel with the following statement in Romans:

18.  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who suppress the truth.  19.  For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them.  20.  Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things he has made.  So they are without excuse…”  (Romans 1:18-20).

Not only is the above passage the most pertinent in all of Scripture to today’s question, I cannot think of single other biblical reference which argues to the contrary with respect to my point.  With respect to the Letter to the Romans, four implications logically follow from St. Paul’s opening declaration:

1.    Nature testifies to the existence of the Creator, and humans are held accountable (v.18,20) for the conclusions drawn about God from nature.

2.    Nature is not deceptive, but tells the truth about God’s power (v.18,19).

3.    The suggestion that nature is unreliable testimony diminishes human culpability (“so they are without excuse”) for its disbelief in God (v. 20).

4.    The refusal to test the claims of Scripture against the reality of nature is not biblical.

 I am not arguing that scientific perception is infallible.  Scientific knowledge is not identical to nature (consider Kant’s distinction between the phenomenal and the noumenal).  If these two were the same then scientific investigation would in principle come to an end. 

What I am arguing is that the Bible affirms the validity of seeking to understand nature in the confident understanding that nature does not lie.  Even Luther argued the validity of scientists and not theologians making pronouncements about the natural order (Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther’s Works: Genesis. v.I. (Concordia, 1958) p.41. and Pelikan, ed. Luther’s Works: Ecclesiastes, v.XV. (Concordia 1972), p.18.).

For these reasons one cannot claim biblical support for elevating pronouncements from the Bible above the testimony revealed in the physical things that God has made.  The very act of attempting that separating these two involves the sin of “suppressing the truth” (Romans 1:18,19).