Shane Scott Online

The Original Songs of Jesus' Birth - Part 2 The Song of Zechariah

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:04:00 +0000

Introduction

You all got to meet my niece, Darby, this past Wednesday. I have had lots of pretend nieces and nephews, but it was very cool to spend some time with my only real one. Incidentally, I had the same effect holding her that I do preaching to you – I put her right to sleep!

You all know that I have joked that my sister-in-law Kelli and her husband Ryan timed having Darby just to steal the spotlight away from Kristi and me, since she was born just a few weeks after we were married. But they had waited a long time to have a child, so it just made that time of year even more special for all of us.

If you are a parent, do you remember when you first discovered you were going to have a child? How did you feel? Were you exhilarated? Were you surprised? Did you cry tears of joy? Did you cry another other sort of tears?!

Today we are going to study about a person who got the same sort of unexpected message Mary did – you are going to have a child. But Zechariah’s reaction in Luke 1 could not have been more different than Mary’s. By the end of the story, though, he will be singing a very similar tune.

Background

Though Mary’s song is the first one recorded, the events leading to Zechariah’s song come before the story of Mary.

Luke 1:5-7

A godly couple, unable to have children. This has a familiar ring to it. It is the story of Abraham and Sarah, as well as the other matriarchs of Israel introduced to us as barren, like Rebekah and Rachel. So the very introduction of Elizabeth and Zechariah is couched in language that calls to mind key characters of Israel’s past and predisposes us to think that God is once more going to miraculously enable an Israelite family to have a child.

There were thousands of priests like Zechariah in the first century, organized into the 24 ancient divisions established by King David. Only a few priests got the once-in-a-lifetime chance to actually serve in the temple, and Luke tells us that the lot of divine providence chose Zechariah for service.

Luke 1:8-9

The Jews began to pray while the priests offered incense, equating their prayers with the sweet smoke ascending to God. Verse ten tells us that the people prayed while Zechariah was serving, and as we will see in verse 13, apparently the old priest was praying for something as well.

But his prayers and priestly service were suddenly interrupted.

Luke 1:11-14

Just imagine the swirl of emotions that must have filled Zechariah when the angel – whose presence at first alarmed him, as angelic visits often did in the Bible – informed him that he would have a son.

And not just any son. Notice Luke 1:15a. “He will be great before the Lord.” All of you think your children are special. You are all wrong! Every child is special, of course, but the son of Zechariah will be very special.

First, he will be born under a special vow, called the Nazirite vow (described in detail in Numbers 6). This vow indicated separation to God for special service, and some of its characteristics are mentioned by the angel in Luke 1:15b.

Samson was born under this vow, but an even more relevant comparison is Samuel. Remember, Samuel’s mother, Hannah, had also been barren, and she vowed to dedicate her son to God’s service if the Lord granted her one. So the son of this priest will be devoted to God’s service just like Samuel.

But there is something even more special about this child. He isn’t merely going to be another prophet – he will be a very special prophet, the one who will announce the arrival of Israel’s Messiah, paving the way for the coming of the Christ.

Luke 1:16-17

Gabriel ties together two important passages from the OT about the coming of the King. One comes from the last book of the OT, the prophet Malachi, the last inspired messenger God sent His people until the coming of John.

Malachi 41 For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall.

God will heal His people with the rising of the sun of righteousness while destroying those who arrogantly do evil. But to prepare for this fateful day, the Lord tells Malachi in verses 5-6-

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.

The Jews considered Elijah the greatest of the prophets, and no doubt because of the mysterious nature of his departure from this world, all kinds of speculation arose about him in the non-biblical literature. But Malachi gives us the truth from God. Someday “Elijah” will return, and he will turn the hearts of the people so that they can avoid judgment.

Look again at Luke 1:16-17a.

John is to be that very Elijah figure who will come before the Lord’s decisive action in history.

There is one other important promise Gabriel references. Verse 17b concludes: “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

This is the language of Isaiah, from the start of the great 40^th chapter of his message:

3 A voice cries:“In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
   make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be lifted up,
   and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
   and the rough places a plain.
5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed,
   and all flesh shall see it together,
   for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

Isaiah announces that a voice will cry out to prepare the way of the Lord, and that it will happen in the wilderness. Gabriel says that John will be that voice, “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” And at the end of Luke 1, John is poised to begin his work in the very place the prophet predicted – verse 80.

Now at this point you might expect Zechariah to start singing. And he will – but his first reaction to Gabriel is to sing different tune that’s off key!

Luke 1:18

Zechariah’s reaction is much different than Mary’s. He isn’t simply astonished like she was – he is doubtful. So doubtful he wants a sign to confirm the news. “How shall I know this?”

I am not trying to be unnecessarily critical of Zechariah – I am sure I would have doubted too if I was in his place. His reaction only serves to highlight just how special Mary’s faith was. And the angel does indeed grant him a sign, though probably not the kind Zechariah had in mind-

Luke 1:19-20

We all know the old proverb that it is better to be quiet and to be thought a fool than to speak and erase all doubt. Well, maybe it is best that Zechariah doesn’t say anything else! And most likely (based on the fact that in verse 62 people communicate with him by sign language) Zechariah was deaf as well as mute, two conditions which often go together. But even though he was hesitant to believe God’s promise, God was not slow to keep it!

Luke 1:21-25

Just as Hannah faced reproach as she was spitefully treated because of her barrenness, only for the Lord to grant her a son, Elizabeth understands that God has taken away her reproach, and replaced it with joy. Let’s pick up the thread of the narrative in verse 57.

Luke 1:57-58

“Mercy,” you might recall, was a key theme in Mary’s song, The Magnificat (see verses 50, 54). Now all of Elizabeth’s loved ones rejoice at God’s mercy in her life. Literally, the text says, “the Lord had magnified his mercy to her” (ASV). Enabling this godly woman to have a son after so many years of trying was indeed a magnificent display of God’s mercy.

When Luke introduced this couple to us, he described them as “walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord” (1:6). As a couple faithful to God’s Law, they knew that in keeping with God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 (and the requirement of the Law in Leviticus 12) that on the eighth day of their son’s birth he was to be circumcised.

Luke 1:59a

Sometimes parents named their child immediately, and sometimes they waited until circumcision (we were joking about Amy and Daniel taking so long to name William Reagan, but maybe they were just following this biblical precedent!). The father usually named the child, but of course Zechariah can’t. And the family and friends assume that when the child is named, by default he will called by his father’s name.

Luke 1:59b-63

The people “all wondered,” probably because Zechariah was deaf, and couldn’t have heard what Elizabeth said to name the child. They don’t know what Zechariah has known for 9 months, and so they are astonished that he chose the same name as she did, one that is uncommon to his family line.

The most important word in Zechariah’s response is, “is.” Zechariah wrote, “His name is John.” Not, “shall be,” but “is.” As far as he has been concerned, this child’s name was John from the time he was in the temple with the angel. And right on cue, precisely as Gabriel had declared, Zechariah speech returned to him.

Luke 1:64

You can learn a lot by not talking! And once you learn, when you do speak, it is significant. Zechariah’s blessing, and the miracle of John’s birth, made a huge impact on all their neighbors-

Luke 1:65-66

A sense of awe filled the hearts of the people in the hill country where Elizabeth and Zechariah lived. In the past 9 months they have seen Zechariah inexplicably lose the ability to see and hear, they have seen this couple childless for so many years give birth, and then they were eyewitnesses to Zechariah’s recovery. And on top of it all, as Luke explains in verse 66, it was clear to everybody that this child was indeed special, “for the hand of the Lord was with him.”

Amazing, wonderful work of God like this should prompt a sense of amazement, and praise. It took Zechariah a little longer to understand this than it did Mary, but the old priest has a song to sing, too.

The Benedictus

It’s called The Benedictus, “benediction,” stemming from the Latin translation of the first word in verse 68, “Blessed.” And just as Ephesians 5:18-19 says, “be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,” Zechariah is filled with the Holy Spirit as he sings this song, which is part hymn and part prophecy.

Luke 1:67-68a

Just as our songs have recurring choruses, there are certain words that reappear throughout this song.

“Visit” in 1:68, 78

“Salvation” in 1:69, 77

“Prophet” in 1:70, 76

“Enemies” in 1:71, 74

“Mercy” in 1:72, 78 (as you recall that was a key word in Mary’s song)

“Way” in 1:76, 79

Just a glance at these terms gives us an idea of the message of this hymn. God had visited His people to give them salvation from their enemies and guide them in His ways because of His mercy just as His prophets had foretold.

Mary’s song was a wonderful tapestry of many key ideas and passages from the OT, and so is Zechariah’s. Unlike so many of the popular “Christmas Carols” sung today, which contain few if any connections to the OT, these songs of Jesus’ birth are virtual summaries of the great themes of the OT.

Verse 68b contains two of these important themes, “visitation” and “redemption,” both of which are deeply embedded in the story of the Exodus.

Luke 1:68b

First, “visit.” God’s “visitation” can refer to God acting on behalf of humanity graciously, or punitively, or to both at the same time. Rescuing the righteous and punishing the wicked.

When Moses and Aaron relayed to the people God’s promise to deliver them from bondage, Exodus 4:31 says:

“And the people believed; and when they heard that the LORD had visited the people of Israel and that he had seen their affliction, they bowed their heads and worshiped.”

The other key word is “redeemed,” which means “to set free.” It is the word Moses used in his song in Exodus 15, celebrating the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea.

13 You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed;
you have guided them by your strength to your holy abode.

When the psalmist later reflected on God’s help for Israel in Psalm 106, he put these two words to music.

In verse 4 he asked the Lord to visit him with salvation-

4 Remember me, O LORD, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation (KJV)

And in another part of the psalm he praised God’s redemption of Israel-

9 He rebuked the Red Sea, and it became dry,
   and he led them through the deep as through a desert.
10 So he saved them from the hand of the foe
   and redeemed them from the power of the enemy.
11 And the waters covered their adversaries;
   not one of them was left.
12 Then they believed his words;
   they sang his praise.

And now Zechariah sings a similar refrain, that just as God visited and redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt, He is once again going to come to the aid of His people and deliver them.

And how is God going to visit and redeem His people? By raising up “a horn…”

Luke 1:69-70

In our culture we don’t spend much time with animals like wild oxen with horns, so this imagery is lost on us. But in the ancient world one of the most vivid metaphors for strength and power was the horns of an ox.

Deuteronomy 33:17 described the house of Joseph as-

A firstborn bull—he has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall gore the peoples, all of them, to the ends of the earth

In fact Hannah concluded her prayer,

1 Samuel 2:10
The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces;
   against them he will thunder in heaven.
The LORD will judge the ends of the earth;
   he will give strength to his king
   and exalt the horn of his anointed.

What Zechariah has in mind when he speaks of this “horn of salvation” is the power of God’s anointed, the king who would come from David.

Luke 1:69b

The Messiah would come, and do what the prophets said, save the people from their enemies.

Luke 1:71-75

Zechariah says that God is going to save Israel from its enemies -twice – verses 71 and 74. And the basis for this hope is the great promise around which the entire Bible story revolves – the covenant with Abraham (verses 72-73a). And the purpose for this salvation is so that Israel may “serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness” (verses 74b-75).

This is again the language of the Exodus, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob kept His promise and saved His people from their Egyptians enemies. The song of Moses included these words:

Exodus 156 Your right hand, O LORD, glorious in power,
   your right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy.
7 In the greatness of your majesty you overthrow your adversaries;
   you send out your fury; it consumes them like stubble.
8 At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up;
   the floods stood up in a heap;
   the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.
9 The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake,
   I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them.
   I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.’10 You blew with your wind; the sea covered them;
   they sank like lead in the mighty waters.

And remember, why did God save His people? What was the message God sent to Pharaoh through Moses?

“Let My people go that they may serve Me” (Exodus 7:16).

So to return to The Benedictus, Zechariah says that once again God is keeping His promise to Abraham to deliver Israel out of the hand of its enemies so that His people may serve Him in righteousness and holiness.

Now on the surface, this language would lead us to think that God is about to destroy King Herod, the first century version of Pharaoh, who slaughtered Hebrew babies. Or maybe to think of the Romans, under whose occupation the Jews resentfully lived. We sometimes say that the Jews (mistakenly) looked for the Messiah to be a military liberator. This is true, but we need to see that there was a reason they made this mistake. Lots of the language in the Bible that speaks of salvation does so in those very terms.

One non-biblical Jewish book that expresses the hope of the Jews in the first century says this:

Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, At the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction. (Psalms of Solomon 17:23-25)

So since Jesus did not lead armies in revolt of the Romans, or cause the Mediterranean Sea to wash the legions away, in what sense did He come to deliver Israel from its enemies?

The key to unraveling this puzzle has to do with why Israel was in captivity in the first place. We know from our study of the OT that Israel was enslaved many times in its history, beginning with Egypt, then during the downward spiral of the days of the Judges, and finally at the end of Kings and Chronicles. In each and every case, why did Israel find itself oppressed or exiled? The answer is SIN.

Which also means that lurking behind the Egyptians, the Philistines, or the Romans was a far more sinister enemy, one whose handiwork resulted in Israel’s dire predicament. This enemy is exposed in the exchange between Jesus and the disciples in Luke 10:17-20-

Luke 10:17-20

The real enemy of Israel was Satan. Every time Jesus cast out one of Satan’s demons, or healed one of those oppressed by an illness from an unclean spirit, or forgave sins, Jesus was demonstrating that He did indeed come to defeat Israel’s true enemy. Jesus knew that in His ministry, and most of all His death and resurrection, the real adversary of Israel (and of humanity) would be destroyed.

Isn’t this exactly how Jesus explained His miracle in Luke 13, when He healed the woman who had a disabling spirit that bent her over for 18 years.

Luke 13:16

That is the same tune Zechariah is singing in The Benedictus, the triumph of Jesus over the Satanic enemy who had enslaved Israel and the rest of the world. How different this song is from “Christmas Carols.” Viewed in light of Jesus’ mission to overthrow the devil, the nativity scene was actually a battlefield, in which King Jesus was born to spell the doom of Satan. If you wanted to paint a greeting card to explain the birth of Jesus, paint a great red dragon poised to attack a woman with child, who instead is cast down from heaven while the child ascends to rule the nations with a rod of iron! That is how John visualized the point of Jesus’ birth in Revelation 12, and that is the song Zechariah sings in Luke 1.

And the one who will pave the way for the Christ to begin His work will be the son of this priest. That’s how Zechariah concludes the song-

Luke 1:76-79

God will save His people by dealing with the real issue, their sins, and John will be the prophet who prepares the people for their King by (according to Luke 3:3) “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

And why does God intend to forgive His people? Verse 78a – because of His “tender mercy.”

I realize I have said some derogatory things about traditional Christmas Carols today, but they are not all bad. One of my favorites incorporates the last part of The Benedictus. Look at the last verse of Hark! The Herald Angels Sing:

Hail the heav’n born Prince of Peace!

Hail the Son of Righteousness!

Light and life to all He brings,

Ris’n with healing in His wings

Compare that with the rest of Zechariah’s song-

Luke 1:78b-79

Malachi spoke of the sun (S-U-N) of righteousness rising with healing in his wings. That prophecy is now Zechariah’s, as he sees the mission of his child, to ready the people for the S-O-N of God, who will rise like the sun and bring healing to the hurting and bring light to those in the gloomy darkness of captivity.

Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most well-known prophecies of Jesus’ birth, but if you read its larger context you will see the very same story Zechariah is telling in his song –

Isaiah 9 2 The people who walked in darkness   have seen a great light;
those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,
   on them has light shone.
3 You have multiplied the nation;
   you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
   as with joy at the harvest,
   as they are glad when they divide the spoil.
4 For the yoke of his burden,
   and the staff for his shoulder,
   the rod of his oppressor,
   you have broken as on the day of Midian.
5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult
   and every garment rolled in blood
   will be burned as fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
   there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
   to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
   from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Conclusion

Mary and Zechariah are an interesting contrast. She conceives a child before she was married, while Zechariah has one after being “advanced in years.” Some of you had kids right away, while others of you waited a while.

That’s also a pretty good way to illustrate the difference in their decision to believe what God was saying. Mary believed God from the start, while Zechariah came to believe a little later.

I would bet that in our assembly today there are those for whom faith came early and easily, and those for whom it came later and with difficulty. I wish I could be more like Mary, but I’m much more prone to doubt, to worry, to question, like Zechariah. But after all of that he did believe, and through that faith he experienced the joy of salvation. That promise isn’t just for those like Mary, but also for the Zechariah’s of the world.

Full Preterism and the Resurrection

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:35:00 +0000

The word preterist comes from the Latin word for “past,” and in the study of biblical prophecy preterism refers to the belief that prophetic events have already been fulfilled in the past. My notes on the Book of Revelation, for instance, would be described as “partial preterist,” because I take the view that most of the book’s prophecies have already been fulfilled.

There is also a form of preterism known as full preterism. This is the belief that all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, including the second coming, the resurrection, and the judgment. Among brethren this view is sometimes called “the AD 70 doctrine,”

since its advocates believe the destruction of the Jewish temple in that year ushered in the consummation of all Bible prophecy.

I personally believe that full preterists are correct in seeing a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in many passages traditionally said to refer to the second coming (such as Mathew 16:27 and Revelation 1:7). I also believe that full preterists are driven by a desire to be true to Scripture, and to be consistent in their hermeneutic. I have profited from reading the criticisms of dispensationalism from these authors.

At the same time, I am in profound disagreement with their rejection of a future personal return of the Lord and future bodily resurrection. And while I believe it is possible to interpret many passages which speak of the Lord’s coming in connection with the fall of Jerusalem, I do not believe it is possible to interpret the New Testament passages on the resurrection in any way other than that there will be a bodily resurrection of all the dead on the last day (John 5:28-29; John 6:44; 1 Corinthians 15:23-26; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

Indeed, I believe the resurrection is the “hair in the ointment” of full preterism. You may wonder how full preterists interpret the resurrection passages I just listed. From what I have read, there are basically two ways they look at these verses. One way is to say that the resurrection of the body is corporate, that it refers to the body of Christ rising from the grave of Judaism, just as a butterfly bursts forth from its cocoon. The other way I have seen full preterists deal with the resurrection is to argue that at death the righteous immediately receive a new spiritual body in paradise.

The root of both of these interpretations is a rejection of the bodily resurrection. One full preterist author explicitly denies the bodily resurrection as follows:

The people [Jews] were expecting an earthly king and kingdom, and the renovation of a literal temple and city. Quite naturally, this affected their concept of the resurrection, giving it fleshly overtones. The Pharisees especially were distinguished for their belief in a resurrection, but their concept of it had some faith destroying power among the Sadducees. Their rejection of the resurrection was due largely to the fleshly concepts taught and believed in that day…The Pharisees, however, accepted the doctrine, but held it in a gross and carnal form, which eventually had its fatal consequence regarding faith in Christ. (Max King, The Spirit of Prophecy, pages 217-218).

It is true that the Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, but was their view a “gross and carnal” misunderstanding of the doctrine? I emphatically reject this charge. In Acts 23:6, Paul specifically identified himself with the Pharisees and against the Sadducees on this very issue. “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead.” Later, in Acts 24:15, he affirmed that he had “hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall be certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” If Paul was associating himself with the Pharisees on the resurrection simply as a political tactic, but actually believed that the Pharisaical interpretation of the resurrection was “gross and carnal,” then I would suggest that the apostle was guilty of disingenuity in the highest degree.

It is clear from these texts that Paul held the same belief in the bodily resurrection as did the Pharisees. That bodily resurrection of all who are in the grave has yet to occur, and for this reason I must reject the doctrine of full preterism. Further, I would argue that full preterists have traded away the biblical view of the resurrection for a view that has more in common with Greek philosophy than biblical truth.

The Original Songs of Jesus' Birth - Part 1 The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55)

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:30:00 +0000

Introduction

Last year’s series on “Christmas Carols”

-Did not focus on the many trappings of the traditional Christmas story that are not what we find in Scripture (date of Dec. 25; 3 wise men).

-Instead, focused on the overall feel of the songs, which often sterilize the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that makes it completely unrealistic to picture as a historical event.

“All is calm, all is bright” vs the upheaval that marked the Jewish experience of Roman domination in the first century.

This year I want to do three lessons on the songs that were actually sung about Jesus’ birth. They are all found in Luke’s gospel:

-The song of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Luke 1:46-55

-The song of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, in Luke 1:67-79

-The song of Simeon, a righteous man who saw the baby Jesus at His presentation in the temple, in Luke 2:29-32

As we go through these three songs, I want you to constantly ask yourself the question, how do these songs differ from the “Christmas carols” of our culture?

Our first song about Jesus’ birth is that of Mary. Let’s begin by looking a few verses earlier in Luke to understand why she had a song on her heart.

Background

Luke 1:26-31

“Sixth month” of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, an elderly relative of Mary who had been barren all of her life but whose husband Zechariah was told by the same angel that she would give birth – 1:13.

This angel now travels to an obscure city in Galilee called Nazareth, an insignificant village viewed by some Jews as a backwater, a far cry from the glories of Jerusalem and the temple.

Luke 1:27

And to a young peasant girl, named Mary, or in Hebrew, Miriam. On a personal level she was as obscure as her village, certainly not as prominent as a priest like Zechariah. But if there is anything to learn from today’s lesson, it is that God’s kingdom is not made for those who have status and prestige by this world’s standards.

Luke 1:28-30

“You have found favor” – phrase used in the OT to describe those through whom God was going to do something special, such as Noah in Gen. 6:8.

And the particular means by which God will use her for His purposes is through giving birth to a son. In language reminiscent of the announcement of the birth of Ishmael and Samson, the angel says:

Luke 1:31

Many times in the OT God announced that those who previously had no children would have a son, but because Mary is a virgin, the most significant parallel to this angelic message is found in Isaiah’s famous prophecy in Isa. 7:14-

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Matthew quotes this very statement in his account of the message to Joseph, and explains that “Immanuel” means “God with us.” In Luke’s account of the message to Mary, the focus is not on the meaning of Jesus’ name – which means “the Lord saves,” but rather on the significance of His title, “Son.”

Luke 1:32-33

When we hear “Son of the Most High,” or “Son of God,” our minds immediately think of Jesus’ deity. And the Bible certainly teaches that Jesus was indeed God with us. But in the minds of the Jews, “Son of God” referred first and foremost to royalty, to the king, the line of rulers God promised to David.

This language is found in the very promise God made to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16-

¹² When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹³ He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴ I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, ¹⁵ but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. ¹⁶ And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” The “son of God” is the king, through the rightful line of David.

Solomon was the first to obtain this title, as 1 Chron. 22:9-10 explains-

⁹Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his surrounding enemies. For his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. ¹⁰ He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.'

But all of the kings through David were the “son of God,” and when the Israelites meditated on what the ideal king would be like, they pictured him as a righteous son, one who would bring justice, especially for the poor and downtrodden. For an example of this hope, look at Psalm 72-

¹Give the king your justice, O God,
   and your righteousness to the royal son!
²May he judge your people with righteousness,
   and your poor with justice!
³Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people,
   and the hills, in righteousness!
⁴May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
   give deliverance to the children of the needy,
   and crush the oppressor!

As you know from our recent study of 1-2 Kings, with a few exceptions, the kings of David’s lineage fell far short of the idealized picture of passages like Psalm 72. They were often unfaithful to God and negligent in their duty to the people. But the prophets longed for the days of the ultimate king like David, the Messiah, the “Son of God” par excellence who would care for the people.

So for instance Isaiah 11 promises-

¹There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
   and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
²And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him,
   the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
   the Spirit of counsel and might,
   the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
³And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
   or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
⁴but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
   and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
   and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
⁵Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist,
   and faithfulness the belt of his loins.

By the way, notice that when David’s offspring judges for the poor and the meek, he will at the same time be judging against those who are wicked. That is the way salvation works – to save the poor and meek is to overthrow the wicked who oppress them. And that is what the Messiah, David’s son – God’s son - and according to Gabriel – Mary’s son - would do.

But Mary apparently understands Gabriel to mean that she is to give birth in a relatively brief period of time, before her betrothal period is scheduled to end. And since she is a woman of integrity and purity, this leads to an obvious question-

Luke 1:34

The answer was astounding-

Luke 1:35-37

God’s Holy Spirit and power would “overshadow” her – terminology used to described the cloud of God overshadowing the tabernacle in Exodus 40, and the presence of God that overshadowed the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration in Luke 9:34. God’s very presence would come over Mary and do what is impossible by human accounting – conceive a child in a virgin.

But as Gabriel points out, “nothing will be impossible with God.” Just as the angels told Abraham that Sarah would give birth – news that caused Sarah to laugh – to which they responded by asking, “Is anything too hardfor the LORD?” once again an angel reminds us that God can do what seems impossible to us.

Almost as remarkable as this message is Mary’s response.

Luke 1:38

Of course it was a great honor to bear the Messiah, news that moves Mary to sing with joy. But think about the practical realities of her situation. She is going to be pregnant before marriage, and as we know from Matthew’s account, this fact nearly cost her a husband. And we know from pagan writings of the early period of church history that the common explanation for Jesus’ birth was that He was the product of an illicit relationship. Mary was going to suffer the significant loss of her own reputation, not to mention the rigors of carrying a child and giving birth, all for the purpose of God.

And yet her response to all of this was, “I am the servant of the Lord.” That is why she is such a heroine.

Mary rushed to see Elizabeth, traveling from Galilee to Judea. No sooner had she arrived than something amazing took place –

Luke 1:41-45

Elizabeth becomes the first to acknowledge what Gabriel promised – Mary is indeed a blessed woman giving birth to a blessed child.

The only proper response to such a blessing was to sing about it.

The Magnificat

The Bible observes what we all know to be true – sometimes our heart is so overjoyed we just have to sing. James 5:13 says “Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.” This is exactly what Mary, bursting with joy, does.

The song we are about to read is actually a medley, a remarkable collection of excerpts from passage after passage in the OT. The cross reference system in my Bible refers to 50 passages from the OT in these ten verses.

But if you want to see one particular song of praise that is most like this one, turn back to 1 Samuel 2, where Hannah rejoices that after years of childlessness (and derision because of it) God has blessed her with Samuel -1 Samuel 2:1-10.

The song here in Luke 1 is – in musical terms – a familiar refrain sung in a higher key. A greater miracle, and a greater Son.

By the way, many commentators have questioned whether a young peasant girl could create so remarkable a hymn. How could a young Jewish girl weave together so many passages into this glorious song? I think this line of questioning says far more about us than it does about Mary. Mary lived in a culture soaked in Scripture. It is what she heard in the synagogue every week, what her parents would have taught her every morning and evening. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and it is clear that Mary’s heart was saturated with the word of God. Ours should be as well.

Luke 1:46-47

This song is traditionally called “The Magnificat,” stemming from the Latin translation of verse 46, “My soul magnifies the Lord.” Mary wants to turn the spotlight on God, to draw attention to Him so that everyone knows how awesome He is. And the reason is because of what He has done for her-

Luke 1:48-49

This is always the motivation for worship. If you show me a person who is driven to praise God, I will show you a person who knows “He who is mighty has done great things for me.” And on the other hand, if you show me a person who doesn’t bother to worship – or if they do it is lethargic and perfunctory – I will show you a person who doesn’t understand that God has done great things for them.

Mary does understand. She knows that God is holy – meaning that He is unlike anyone or anything – and that no one is like God in His power to save and deliver.

Psalm 77

¹³Your way, O God, is holy.
    What god is great like our God?
¹⁴You are the God who works wonders;
   you have made known your might among the peoples.
¹⁵You with your arm redeemed your people,
   the children of Jacob and Joseph.

This holy power of God is prompted by His mercy.

Luke 1:50

God wields His holy might for His people not because they deserve it, but because of His tender compassion. God’s mercy is in fact a recurrent refrain in the songs of Jesus’ birth – 1:54, 1:72, 78.

But remember, to save and deliver some is to judge and defeat others.

Luke 1:51-53

Take a look at who will be on the wrong side of God’s mighty strength: the “proud in the thoughts of their hearts” (v 51), the “mighty from their thrones” (v 52), the “rich” (v 53).

This brings me to the biggest difference in the Magnificat and our “Christmas Carols.” This song is a militant celebration of the overthrow of the proud, rich, and mighty. Very few of our traditional Christmas Carols contain language remotely like this. Could it be because by ancient standards we are proud, rich, and mighty?

Even more to the point, on the basis of our commonly sung Christmas Carols, why would anyone have wanted to kill Jesus? “Holy infant tender and mild” doesn’t instill paranoia in anyone. But if you are a rich, proud king and all of a sudden a child is born who is going to “bring down the mighty from their thrones,” that is a different matter. You have reason to be afraid, and do exactly what the king mentioned in Luke 1:5 did. We may not get the point of Jesus’ birth, but Herod certainly got the point.

The Jesus of the Magnificat, the Jesus of the Bible, is a threat to the self-appointed powers of the world, who think they can do whatever they please. Just as Isaiah promised, the Messiah came to set wrongs right, to restore justice. And what that means is turning the world’s corrupt systems upside down, so that the in-crowd (the rich, the powerful, the self-righteous) are out, and those who have been shut out (the poor, the disenfranchised, the sinful) can rejoice in acceptance in the kingdom of God.

What Mary announces here is merely the first verse of a song that reverberates all through the gospel.

4:18-19; 6:20-26; (12:13-21); (16:19-31); (18:18-23)

At this point lots of modern talk show and political commentators would undoubtedly accuse Jesus of class warfare. Isn’t interesting that when we use that phrase we invariably use it to describe criticisms of the wealthy, when throughout the Bible the real class warfare was the oppression and exploitation of the poor by the rich. Have times changed so much from the days of Scripture that all of these warnings about the dangers of the corrupting power of wealth are no longer relevant?

But lest anyone think that Jesus is dismissing all wealthy people to condemtnation, notice the exchange in 18:24-27.

Verse 27 should sound familiar. The same God for whom Gabriel said in Luke 1:37 nothing is impossible, the same God who could conceive a child in a virgin, can bring a wealthy man through the eye of the needle. And if you want to see a camel go through the eye of a needle, all you have to do is turn the page to Luke 19 and read the account of the salvation of Zacchaeus.

19:9 “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

Mention of Abraham brings me back to the last part of Mary’s song.

Luke 1:54-55

Just as Mary was the servant of God (v 48), so also was the nation of Israel. Think of passages like Isaiah 41:

⁸But you, Israel, my servant,
   Jacob, whom I have chosen,
   the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
⁹you whom I took from the ends of the earth,
   and called from its farthest corners,
saying to you, "You are my servant,
    I have chosen you and not cast you off";
¹⁰fear not, for I am with you;
   be not dismayed, for I am your God;
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
   I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.

Mary knew that the Messiah she would give birth to would be the one through whom the story of Israel found its completion, that just as God remembered His promises to the patriarchs and had mercy on Israel in Egyptian bondage, He would once more act with mercy on behalf of His people. And just as the famous Miriam of the OT sang with joy when the horse and rider were cast into the sea, the most famous Miriam – Mary – of the NT rejoices in hope of God’s deliverance of His people, a salvation so certain that many times in the Magnificat Mary speaks of it in the past tense –it is as good as done!

Conclusion

There is another way in which Luke describes the work of God to rescue the poor and judge the rich. It has to do with those who are spiritually destitute – tax gatherers and sinners – versus those who think they are spiritually affluent.

You can see this in the story of Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman in Luke 7, where after Simon scorned Jesus for allowing such a sinful woman to touch him, Jesus rebuked him with this comment: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”

You can also see it in the banquet stories Jesus told in Luke 14, where those who were invited to the feast rejected the invitation, so the master of the house orders his servant to invite the poor and crippled and blind and lame, to go out to the highways and hedges and compel other to enjoy his feast.

And most of all you see it in the stories Jesus told in Luke 15, the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son, all of which were prompted by the Pharisee’s complaint that “this man receives sinners and eats with them.”

And that story doesn’t end in Luke 15. Let me remind you of one line of the Magnificat. “And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.” God’s mercy is available from generation to generation, and just as surely as God could do great things for Mary, He can do great things for you today if you will entrust yourself to Him as she did.

Notes on Islam - Lesson 9 Salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:36:00 +0000

Similarities with the Bible

Life, death, judgment, heaven/hell (40:38-40).

Must prepare for judgment and eternity (2:284; 3:185)

Reward/punishment (99:7-8)

Degrees of reward and punishment (46:19)

-M’s wives (33:30-31)

-Jews and Christians (28:54)

-warriors (57:10)

-prevent others from obeying (11:19-20)

-murderers and adulterers (25:69)

Salvation in Islam

Must repent of sins before judgment.

Tawbah, “to return”. Around 40 times, as in 5:39; 9:104; 32:12

Cain (5:31); Moses (7:143); David (38:24); Solomon (38:35)

The End

“The Day of Resurrection” (yawm al-qiyama), 70 times (42:45, etc)

“The Day of Judgment” (yawm al-din), 13 times (1:4, etc)

“The Last Day” (al-yawm al-akhir), 25 times (5:69)

-Only God knows (33:63)

-Trumpet (10 times), 27:87

-Scales of justice – 21:47

-Right/left – 69:13-37

Hell

Al-nar, “fire,” (125 times), jahim “blazing flames” (26), jahannam (Gehenna?), 77 times

-7 gates (15:43-44)

-Humans are fuel (2:24; 21:98-100)

Boiling water – 6:70; 22:19

Ghassaq, vile drink – 14:16-17; 18:29

Dari, desert plant full of thorns – 88:6-7

Bitter tree, zaqqum, 37:62-67

Torture – 22:19b-22

Heaven

“The Garden,” al-janna, 80 times often in plural

Fruit (2:25), shade (4:57); water (55:68; 76:13-14)

Spouses – 4:57; 2:25; 3:15

Virgins – 55:56; 56:36-37

Distinction from the Bible

Most basic issue is that in Islam there is no explanation for how God forgives us. This may be due to the less personal nature of the relationship between God and humans in Islam as opposed to Christianity.

Race, Marriage and Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:25:00 +0000

   This week a small Free Will Baptist congregation in eastern Kentucky voted to bar an interracial couple from membership. The latest reports indicate that the church may overturn its initial decision, with pressure coming from the national Free Will Baptist association leadership.
   The story of this church’s vote hit close to home for me for several reasons. My “people” are
from that same part of Kentucky (and that’s how you say, “my relatives,” if you are from there). My religious background is very conservative, and my guess is that on many moral issues I would have much in common with the members of that church. On top of that I have seen prejudice directed from some of my relatives against members of our family involved in interracial relationships. So this story stings on many levels.
   It pains me to acknowledge that my home area of eastern Kentucky is particularly prejudiced, but that is undeniable. One simple line of evidence: Pike County always votes overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections. While President Reagan was wiping out Walter Mondale in almost every state in the union in 1984, Pike County voted for Mondale 57%-43%. And yet in 2008 John McCain defeated Barack Obama in Pike County 56%-42%. I don’t mean to suggest that resentment and distrust based on race is all one-sided, just that it remains a tragic reality.

   The Bible teaches God has made us all from one man (Acts 17:21), and that in Christ there is no difference of degree in racial or social status, just oneness (Galatians 3:28). The world is filled with hate, fear and distrust revolving around race and ethnicity. God calls us to be different from the world, and indeed to transform it. Instead of being a powerful witness to the transforming nature of God’s kingdom by demonstrating acceptance of an interracial couple, this church instead bore testimony to pressure to conform to this world.
   I am not suggesting that this particular congregation is the only church to give way to prejudice. Someone once said that the most segregated hour in America is 10 am on Sundays, and I think that cynical observation is still on target in many instances. To be frank I am uncomfortable with the reality that even though our congregation is in a pretty diverse area we have virtually no diversity in our membership. I have not seen any evidence of racism on the part of any of our members, but this does suggest that we need to do a better job of reaching out to those who are not from the same background as we are with the gospel.
   I do think that in my lifetime we have made enormous progress in our country on these matters, though as this story suggests, there is still room for improvement. When I was young the only interracial I knew anything about was on the TV show The Jeffersons! Now they are much more common. And I can remember hearing people dismiss interracial marriages as a bad idea because of how the children will look! I don’t hear that much any more – probably because some of the most beautiful people in the world are from a mixed background.
   And there was a time when it was common for Christians of different races to prefer to worship separately. I think that is (slowly) changing. One very popular preacher in the 40s and 50s, Foy Wallace, once wrote an article condemning blacks and whites meeting together to worship – including such horrible practices as shaking hands! I don’t know what kind of response his article got in 1941, but I think most Christians would angrily dismiss such an article today.
   But there is one more point that I think should be made in this discussion. In Ephesians 5, after the apostle Paul compared the husband-wife relationship to that of Christ and the church, he says, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32). The term “mystery” has special meaning for Paul. It describes God’s plan to “unite all things” in Christ (Eph. 1:10), uniting humanity with God (2:5-6), and Jews with Gentiles (2:11-3:13). This plan was a “mystery” – unrevealed – but now it has been revealed in Christ.
   Going back to Ephesians 5:32, Paul says that his discussion of marriage is really about the profound “mystery” of what God does in Christ and the church. In other words, marriage is a picture of God’s uniting power. Our marriages should bear testimony to the power God has to unite people together in Jesus Christ. And given the fact that in Ephesians 2:15 Paul says that God is making Jews and Gentiles “one new man,” how better to illustrate the power of God to bring people of different backgrounds together than to see this lived out in an interracial couple? This is why barring interracial couples from church is so ironic – an interracial marriage is an awesome display of God’s ability to make two become one in spite of their ethnic differences!
   All of us who are married need to think about the purpose of our marriage in these God-centered, gospel-proclaiming, Christ-imitating terms.

The Gospel Truth: Lesson 5 Did the Gospels Borrow from Pagan Mythology?

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:53:00 +0000

Some unbelievers argue that various pagan religions had stories about virgin births, and dying and rising gods, centuries before the gospels were written, and that the gospel writers simply took those stories and made them about Jesus. This concept was first popularized by German scholars in the early 1900s, in what is usually called the “Old History of Religions School” (Religionsgeschichtliche) of thought.

By the mid 1900s these proposals fell out of favor with historians (for reasons we will discuss in a minute). But lately they have been “resurrected” and promoted by a new generation of skeptics.

For instance, one of the characters in The Da Vinci Code says this:

The pre-Christian God Mithras—called the Son of God and the Light of the World—was born on December 25, died, and was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity’s weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans (p. 232).

This revival of the old school of religion theories is having an impact. One young lady wrote to me: “The fact that pagans had dying and rising gods shows that the idea was certainly possible in that time period, and since we have throughout the bible the constant battle with the jews getting involved with paganism, it is not unlikely that they developed this idea from the pagans and mixed it in with their own theology.”

Immediate problems:

-The gospel writers were Jewish!

-The worship of Christ as God developed very early (Phil. 2:6-11).

Critical explanation – many Jews in the first century were susceptible to Greek (Hellenistic) influence, and borrowed from Hellenistic culture (language, architecture, philosophy, religion etc).

What the evidence shows:

1. Hellenization did influence cultures in superficial matters (language, architecture), but did not transform worldviews. Evidence of “Torah-true” religion in first century Galilee (even though it is alleged to be the region most open to Gentile influence:

a. Discovery of many ritual baths (miqvaot) and stone vessels.

b. Coins lacking human representation.

c. Lack of pork bones.

d. Second-shaft tombs for Jewish burial.

e. Absence of pagan temples.

2. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest Jews generally responded to Hellenism by becoming more – not less – conservative in their religious convictions.

a. Particularly true after the Maccabean revolt (168 BC).

b. “The most striking thing about the Jewish encounter with Hellenism, both in the Diaspora and in the land of Israel, was the persistence of Jewish separatism in matters of worship and cult” (Hellenism in the Land of Israel, p. 55).

c. The “arch-conservatives” in Acts were Diaspora Jews (Acts 6:9; 21:27).

3. The alleged parallels with pagan religion are not parallels at all.

a. Virgin birth parallels.

i. Mithras.

1. Critics claim Mithras was born of a virgin on December the 25th and that the New Testament simply copied those details and changed the name to Jesus.

2. Mithras was NOT born of a virgin. Mithras was born of a rock.

ii. Heracles.

1. Heracles (Hercules to the Romans) was the product of Zeus and a woman named Alcmene he thoughtwas hot, and so he came to her in the form of her husband and had relations with her.

2. Not a virgin birth!

b. Resurrection parallels.

i. Tammuz.

1. Babylonian god called Tammuz or Dumuzi. His wife, named Iannna, decided to take a trip to the underworld, for reasons that are unclear. She asked an attendant to send help if anything went wrong. Well, things did go wrong; she was given the look of death by a jealous sister and trapped in the underworld, needing to be rescued. Her attendant found help, and she was revived and returned to her palace, chased by demons, who demanded that someone be sent back in her place. When the demons came upon Dumuzi, Inanna’s husband, he was sitting in nice clothing and enjoying himself despite his wife’s demise in the underworld. Inanna was really ticked off by this, and decreed that the demons take him and gave him the “look of death.” However, Dumuzi’s sister, out of love for him, begged to be allowed to take his place. It was then decreed that Dumuzi would spend half the year in the underworld and his sister would take the other half.
And that’s where the gospel account came from!

2. The only connection between this story and the Bible is that Ezekiel says some of the Jews practiced this idolatry in the lead up to the destruction of Jerusalem inEzek. 8:14.

ii. Osiris.

1. In Egytpian mythology Osiris is married to Isis. Osiris is murdered by his brother Set. Set built a coffin according to Osiris’ measurements, then at a party said whoever could fit in the coffin could keep it. Osiris got in, Set nailed it shut and sent him down the Nile. Isis found the coffin, but before she could save Osiris Seth got his body and chopped it into 14 pieces and scattered them around Egypt. Isis searched for them, found 13 of them, and impregnanted herself using his corpse to give birth to Horus. Osiris then became lord of the underworld.

2. Impossible to imagine Jews would build gospels on so many practices abominable in the Law.

Such parallels are absurd. Frankly, if you work hard enough, you can find a paralle in almost anything (see “The Oxford Solar Myth” by R.L. Littledale).

There is, so far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection beliefs, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. - Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of the Resurrection, p. 221.

The Gospel Truth - Lesson 6 - The Preservation of the Gospels

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:42:00 +0000

So far we have shown that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote reliable histories of the life of Jesus. But some object that what they wrote has not been reliably preserved.

In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was he completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called “the unique God” there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us. -Bart Erhman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, p. 208

In this lesson we will take a look at the text of the New Testament.

We Do Not Have the Original Books of the NT

We do not have the original books the gospels writers wrote (the autographs). An early church father named Tertullian wrote in the year AD 180 that Paul’s original letters to some churches still existed, but that is no longer the case. We do not have the first copies of these books either.

Why? Time - the books were written on scrolls made out of papyrus, an early form of paper, most of which simply suffered from the ravages of time Persecution – at difference periods of history the books of the NT were burned.

We Do Have Thousands of Copies of the NT

There are three main types of texts that have been discovered:

A. Greek manuscripts.

1. 118 papyrus manuscripts of the NT.

2. There are also 317 copies written on animal hide, in all capital letters, called uncials.

3. 2,877 copies written in a kind of cursive style, called minuscules.

4. 2,433 copies of the Greek NT collected in what are called lectionaries, anthologies of various different verses put together for reading in public worship.

All together, currently there are 5,745 manuscript copies of the Greek NT.

Comparison with other ancient documents:

The Greek historian Heroditus lived and wrote about the year 450 BC. The earliest copies we have of his writings are dated 400 yrs from his lifetime, and there are only 75 copies.
The Roman historian Livy lived and wrote at the start of the first century (AD 17), and yet it isn’t until 400 yrs later that we have an existing copy of his work, and there are only 27 copies of it.
Tacitus and Suetonius were late first century / early second century historians, around the same time as the NT was written, and yet 650-700 years elapse between when they wrote the originals and the first copy we can find. There are only 3 copies of the work of Tacitus; Suetonius, over 200 copies.

B. There are between 15 and 20 thousand of these ancient versions .

C. Over a million quotations by early Christian writers.

There Are Variations Among These Copies, But Only 1% Are "Significant"

Types of variants:

A. Unintentional

1. Alternate spelling. Sometimes John’s name is spelled with one N (the Greek letter nu), sometimes two. Just as in English we wouldn't say “a apple” but “an apple,” in Greek sometimes the letter N was added to the end of a word of the next began with a vowel. These kinds of spelling differences account for the vast a majority of NT variants.

Romans 5:1

“We (echomen) have peace with God”

“Let us (echõmen) have peace with God”

1 Thessalonians 2:7

“But we were gentle (epioi) among you”

“We were little children (nepioi) among you”

2. Many variants were just good old fashioned typos. A scribe might skip a word or line of text he was copying, or double a word or line. Or misread one letter. Let me show you some examples.

B. Intentional

1. To add clarity.

In the middle of the gospel of Mark there is a huge section of text (Mark 6:31-8:26) which does not mention Jesus by name. It refers to him with pronouns of course, but not as Jesus or Christ. So to add clarity, sometimes scribes would change those pronouns to “Jesus” (I think there are about 5 cases of this).

Or in Phil. 1:14 Paul says that the brethren are more encouraged to “preach the word.” Some texts add “of God,” probably an intentional addition for the sake of clarity.

2. To make statements more parallel.

In John 4 when Jesus asked the Samaritan woman to get her husband, the Bible says:

The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband.’”

In some of the manuscripts the word order in Jesus’ response is “No husband I have.”

3. To correct a perceived theological error.

We cannot discount the fact that some scribes may have felt like the text they were working with was incorrect, and altered it to be in alignment with what they perceived to be true. But this is why having so many manuscripts to choose from is so important - we can crosscheck them against each other and see where such potential corruptions exist. The classic example is the late addition of the statement about the Trinity reflected in the KJV of 1 John 5:7-8.

The practice of textual criticism seeks to recover the original text, using some basic rules:

1) Which reading is earlier? After all, the closer you get to the original source the better.

2) Which reading is shorter? Since changes sometimes consisted of additions to clarify a text, the feeling is that the shorter the reading the more likely it is to be original.

3) And, since the tendency would be to change the text to clarify it, historians ask which reading is harder? So in 1 Thess. 2:7 when Paul says either he was gentle to the Thessalonians or he was like a little child, on this basis you might prefer the reading “like little children,” since that one is harder to interpret (though not impossible).

Textual critics also prefer many manuscript to crosscheck, and manuscripts from a wide geographical area. The gospels meet all these criteria.

None of These Variations Affect Vital Faith or Practice

Just to drive home this point, let me show you three of the biggest significant variations in the NT manuscripts.

-Mark 16:9-20 The Longer Ending of Mark

-John 7:53-8:11 The Woman Caught in Adultery

-Acts 8:37 The Confession of the Eunuch

In none of these cases is there a major belief of Christianity at stake.

Bart Erhman’s examples:

-In Mark 1:41 when Jesus healed the leper was he “moved with pity” as most manuscripts say or “moved with anger”?

Erhman says that the original was unquestionably “anger,” but that this was changed to “pity” so Jesus wouldn’t look so human. And based on the principle that we should accept the more difficult reading, Erhman could be correct (as many scholars have suggested) that in this case Jesus was moved with anger. But that doesn’t mean this text was tampered with to make Jesus look less human. Two chapters later Mark 3:5 clearly says Jesus was angry,

-In Matt. 24:36 when Jesus talked about the day and hour of the end of heavens and earth He said, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” Erhman points out that some copies of this verse omitted “nor the Son”, and alleges that scribes eliminated “nor the Son” so Jesus’ divinity would not be questioned (if He is God how could there be something He doesn’t know).

And yet not one time in his six discussions of this text does Erhman mention that the parallel passage in Mark 13:22 clearly says “nor the Son”. So even if it was supposedly excised from Matthew, Mark unquestionably records that Jesus said “nor the Son.”

If someone like Bart Erhman shakes our faith, it is not his fault. It is our fault! It is our fault as preachers and teachers and elders for not doing a better job of explaining these issues, and it is our fault as Bible readers for ignoring all the notes and tools our Bibles gives us which explain these differences.

For More Information

If you would like to see pictures of thousands of manuscript fragments, check out this wonderful website:

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

http://www.csntm.org/

JFK and Oswald

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:22:00 +0000

Since today is the anniversary of JFK's assassination, I thought I would post a link to a neat video (really, the first in a series). Back in the mid 80's a production company decided to put Oswald "on trial" for the murder of JFK, using a real judge, a real jury, and real lawyers. The prosecutor was famed Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and the defense attorney was the famed cowboy lawyer, Gerry Spence. I don't believe either of these men ever lost a jury murder trial in their careers, so it was a battle of the heavyweights.

Someone digested the series into small youtube clips. Here is the first - but WARNING - once you start watching you may not be able to stop!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO-UrGDUUzA

The Gospel Truth - Lesson 4 - The Writing of the Gospels

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Lesson 4: The Writing of the Gospels

In the last lesson we looked at the writers of the gospels. In this lesson we will look at the writing of the gospels.

Inspired History

-The Bible teaches that the Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; John 14:26; 1 Cor. 2:13).

-God inspired men, rather than simply dictating (as in the claims of Islam or Mormonism). The process (how) of inspiration is not emphasized as much as the end product (what they wrote was God’s word).

-Luke 1:1-4 states that Luke investigated his work, and decided to write an orderly account. So it was very much like history – but not just history! Investigation of sources does not preclude the work of the Spirit, but simply shows how the Spirit guided him so that the end result of his gospel was that it was the word of God.

Eyewitness Evidence

Luke investigated because he was not an eyewitness, but did have access to accounts delivered by “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Lk. 1:2).

These eyewitnesses would have included:

-The apostles (Lk. 8:1; Acts 1:21-22).

-The women who accompanied Jesus (Lk. 8:2-3; 23:49, 55; 24:1).

-Jesus’ family (Lk. 8:19-21).

-Those who heard Jesus teach and saw His miracles (Lk. 8:34-39; 24:13-35).

Some critics claim the gospels were written too long after the time of Jesus to be based on reliable accounts. But even the standard critical dating of the gospels (Matthew – AD 80-85; Mark – AD 65-70; Luke – AD 80-85; John – AD 95) means the gospels were written in the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

Eyewitness Evidence “Delivered”

In Luke 1:2 the Bible uses a technical term, “delivered” (paradidomi), to describe the transmission of the testimony Luke records. It means “to pass on to another what one knows of oral or written tradition” (used by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3).

This could refer to written sources in part. Some have suggested that Luke used Mark (since much of the material in Mark is in Luke) and another source, “Q” (abbreviation for Quelle, the German word for “source”). “Q” is shorthand for material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark (such as material from the “sermon on the mount”). This is the most commonly held view among NT scholars, but it is not without critics, and I personally think it is an oversimplification. I do think the disciples of Jesus may have taken notes of things He said or did in preparation of the writing of the gospels.

The other kinds of sources Luke had access to were oral accounts of the sayings and actions of Jesus. Critical scholarship in the last century dismissed the reliability of oral tradition, but current scholarship has largely debunked this skepticism, for several good reasons:

1) Jewish culture was a predominantly oral culture in which large amounts of material could be reliable remembered and transmitted. Emphasis was on precise transmission of essential details while allowing flexibility in unessential details (compare the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand as an illiustration).

2) The apostles served as safeguards of the tradition passed down throughout the era of the writing of the gospels (see 1 Jn. 2:18-26).

3) The early Christians made a careful distinction between their own words and the words of Jesus (see 1 Cor. 7:10-12, 40).

4) Much of Jesus’ teaching was in a form easily remembered (shorter units, rhythmic and often poetic).

5) Many things Jesus said and did were observed and could be relayed by multiple eyewitnesses who could verify these transmission was accurate (as in 1 Cor. 15:6).

Classical historians tend to place more credibility on the gospel testimony than critical biblical scholars. “The experience of classicists seems to suggest that memory of oral teaching, especially if the teaching was heard repeatedly, could be retained with considerable integrity over and extended period of time” George Kennedy, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism” in The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. William O. Walker, Jr. p. 152).

Ancient History Vs Modern History

We have already talked about the differences between ancient and modern history, but a couple of points are worth repeating:

-Ancient writers freely expanded or abridged accounts (for an example see 2 Mac. 2:24-28).

-Ancient writers arranged material, including sayings, and did not always follow chronological order.

-Historians in the eastern Mediterranean tended to prefer eyewitness testimony over written sources.

Many of the details that sometimes disturb modern readers (was there one angel or two at the tomb) are products of our modern conception of what history looks like. Judged by the standards of the ancient world, “the gospels conform to the best practices of ancient historiography” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, p. 310).

Aside from this broad observation about ancient history, there are other reasons for the variations in the gospels. Jesus Himself undoubtedly used varying versions of the same sayings/teachings/sermons during the course of His ministry (Mt. 5:1; Lk. 6:17). And Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and as His words were translated into Greek, there would be diversity in translation.

Notes on Islam - Lesson 8 Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:30:00 +0000

Jesus is revered in Islam as a great prophet. Known as Isa in Arabic, Jesus is mentioned over 90 times in the Quran in 15 various surahs.

In this lesson we are going to look at what the Bible and the Quran have in common regarding Jesus, and then look at the substantial differences.

Points of Similarity

· Both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus was a prophet. Here are some basic statements from the Quran:

o Surah 3:84 Say [Muhammad], ‘We [Muslims] believe in God and in what has been sent down to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes. We believe in what has been given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We do not make a distinction between any of the [prophets]. It is to Him that we devote ourselves.

o Surah 5:46 We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed.

o Surah 57:27 We sent other messengers to follow in their footsteps. After those We sent Jesus, son of Mary: We gave him the Gospel and put compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers.

· Both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Here are some key passages in the Quran:

o Surah 3:45 The angels said, ‘Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God. 46 He will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood. He will be one of the righteous.’ 47 She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ [The angel] said, ‘This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is.

o Surah 66:12 and Mary, daughter of ‘Imran. She guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her from Our spirit. She accepted the truth of her Lord's words and Scriptures: she was truly devout.

The Quran goes further than the Bible in saying that Jesus defended Mary from scurrilous charges while he was an infant.

Surah 19:27 She went back to her people carrying the child, and they said, ‘Mary! You have done something terrible! 28 Sister of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man; your mother was not unchaste!’ 29 She pointed at him. They said, ‘How can we converse with an infant?’ 30[But] he said: ‘I am a servant of God. He has granted me the Scripture; made me a prophet.

· Both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus performed many miracles. Here are some references in the Quran:

o Surah 5:110 Then God will say, ‘Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you spoke to people in your infancy and as a grown man; how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel; how, by My leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird; how, by My leave, you healed the blind person and the leper; how, by My leave, you brought the dead back to life; how I restrained the Children of Israel from [harming] you when you brought them clear signs, and those of them who disbelieved said, “This is clearly nothing but sorcery.”

(Note: the reference to a bird shaped out of clay is not mentioned in any canonical gospel, but is mentioned in a non-canonical gospel called The Infancy Gospel of Thomas).

o Surah 2:87 We gave Moses the Scripture and We sent messengers after him in succession. We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.

· Both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus was the Messiah. For instance: Surah 5:75 says: The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food [like other mortals]. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.

In addition to these statements from the Quran, there are many Muslim traditions about Jesus that bear some similarity to the Bible. For instance, Muslims believe that Jesus will return. However, as you read the following hadith, you will see clear differences between Islam and Christianity:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts. (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (pbuh) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (pbuh). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognize him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizya. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him. (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310)

There are also many crucial differences between what the Bible and the Quran teach.

Teachings of the Quran About Jesus Which Contradict the Bible

· Jesus was only a prophet and was not divine. Here are some passages:

o Surah 5:72 Those who say, ‘God is the Messiah, son of Mary,’ have defied God. The Messiah himself said, ‘Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’ If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers.

o Surah 4:171 People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’—stop [this], that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.

· Jesus was not crucified and resurrected. There is ambiguity in the Quran over Jesus’ death. On the one hand, the Quran explicitly states that it only appeared that Jesus was crucified:

o Surah 4:157 and said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him—158 God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise.

This passage alleges that God made it appear that Jesus was crucified. A phoney gospel called the Gospel of Barnabas made a similar claim. On the other hand, other passages in the Quran speak of Jesus being taken up to God:

o Surah 5:117 I told them only what You commanded me to: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” I was a witness over them during my time among them. Ever since You took my soul, You alone have been the watcher over them: You are witness to all things.

o Surah 3:55 God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will purify you of the disbelievers. To the Day of Resurrection I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieved. Then you will all return to Me and I will judge between you regarding your differences.

Not all Muslims believe that Jesus only appeared to be crucified. Popular Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat has rescusitated the “swoon theory” and claimed that Jesus was crucified but only appeared to die on the cross, revived, and later preached in India (Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction).

· Jesus spoke of the coming of Muhammad. The Quran says that Jesus promised that Muhammad (Ahmad) would come after him:

o Surah 61:6 Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘Children of Israel, I am sent to you by God, confirming the Torah that came before me and bringing good news of a messenger to follow me whose name will be Ahmad.

Some Muslims claim that Jesus’ reference to the paraklete in John 14:16-17 is in fact a promise of the coming of Muhammad.

Some Muslim scholars suggest what Jesus actually said in Aramaic represents more closely the Greek word periklytos which means the ‘admired one.’ In Arabic the word ‘Muhammad’ means the ‘praiseworthy, admired one.’ In other words, periklytos is “Muhammad” in Greek. http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/198/

A Possible Point of Reasoning

Interestingly, the Quran contains a description of Jesus also found in John 1, “the Word.” Notice again the first part of Surah 4:171: “People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him.”

Perhaps this could be a point of conversation, particularly since most Muslims believe God’s word (the Quran) is uncreated and eternal.

The Gospel Truth: Lesson 3 - Who Wrote the Gospels

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:27:00 +0000

None of the four gospels contains a formal statement of authorship. Many critics latch on to this point and suggest that the gospels were written much later than the first century, and reflect the growth of unreliable traditions about Jesus.

This viewpoint will not stand up to close scrutiny. It is true that there is no “by-line” on the gospels. Such a practice was uncommon. But this is not the same as arguing they were anonymous. There would be no need to formally fix a name until there were several documents of the same kind together.

The other factor to consider is that because the gospels were written so closely to the time of Jesus, the actual eyewitnesses of Jesus and the apostles could authenticate the origin of the gospels.

Here are the basic historical facts:

1. There is zero evidence attributing the four gospels to anyone other than their traditional authors.

2. The early Christians unanimously accepted the traditional authorship of the four gospels.

3. It is highly implausible that the early church would have invented such unlikely characters as Matthew, Mark and Luke as authors of the gospels.

Papias (AD 60-130)

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, wrote a five-volume work entitled Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord. Only scattered fragments of his work survived, but they are quoted in various authors in early church history.

Here is what he said regarding Mark:

And the Elder used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them.”

Regarding Matthew: “So Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language and each person interpreted them as best he could.”

(this is quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16, taken from The Apostolic Fathers, ed. by Holmes).

Eusebius mentions Papias again in Ecclesiastical History 2.15.2

Clement in the sixth of the Hypotyposes [Outlines] cites the story, and the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias joins him in testifying that Peter mentions Mark in the first epistle, which they say he composed in Rome herself, and that he indicates this, calling the city more figuratively Babylon by these: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark."

Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus was a bishop in Roman Gaul (modern France), writing around AD 180. In a book refuting various heresies, he said the following about the gospels:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3.1.1 Roberts & Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325)

The Muratorian Fragment (AD 170)

This fragment, discovered by Antonio Muratori and published in 1740, listed books of the New Testament in response to an early heretic named Marcion.

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, of the disciples.

What we know about the authors of the gospels based on the internal evidence complies with this strong historical testimony.

A. Matthew

Notice the frequent reference to money—more frequent than the other gospel writers in fact. He uses unique monetary terms (drachma in 17:24; stater in 17:25; talent in 18:24, 25). Matthew contains the only two parables on talents (chs. 18, 25); and he uses tax-collector-type terminology (“debts” in 6:12 where the Lukan parallel has “sins”); “bankers” (25:27), etc. Especially when one compares the synoptic parallels, Matthew’s use of monetary terms seems significant.

B. Mark

John Mark was an associate of the apostles (Acts 12:12; 13:5, 13; 2 Tim 4:11; and especially 1 Peter 5:13). Many commentators have pointed out the similarity in the structure of Mark’s gospel and Peter’s summary of the gospel in Acts 10:36-43.

C. Luke

Luke was a companion of Paul’s as the “we” passages in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16) suggest. He is also mentioned in his letters (Col. 4:14, Phm 24; 2 Tim 4:11). Paul apparently quotes from Luke 10:17 in 1 Tim 5:18.

D. John

The author of the fourth gospel calls himself the “beloved disciple” (13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20). He belongs to a group of seven in 21:2 (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others)—and here, he must be one of the last four unnamed disciples. Nowhere in this gospel does John the disciple appear by name (even though he is named twenty times in the synoptics). This strongly infers either that the author of this work was absolutely unaware of John the disciple—a possibility which seems quite remote—or he was John the disciple.

Notes on Islam - Lesson 7 God in the Quran and the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:51:00 +0000

A Passion for God

As we discussed in a previous lesson, the central confession of Islam is “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God” (the Shahadah). Islam is one of the world’s three monotheistic faiths, along with Judaism and Christianity. The doctrine of the oneness of God, tawhid, is the fundmantal dogma of Islam. “Say, ‘He is God the One, God the eternal. He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to Him’” (Surah 112:1-4).

The Quran places great emphasis on the names of God. “The Most Excellent Names belong to God” (Surah 7:180; see also 17:110; 20:8). In fact, Islam celebrates ninety-nine names of God as found in the Quran and the Hadith. Here’s an example of some of the name in Surah 59:22-24:

He is God: there is no god other than Him. It is He who knows what is hidden as well as what is in the open, He is the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy. He is God: there is no god other than Him, the Controller, the Holy One, Source of Peace, Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Almighty, the Compeller, the Truly Great; God is far above anything they consider to be His partner. He is God: the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper. The best names belong to Him. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him: He is the Almighty, the Wise.

Muslims divide these names into the Names of Perfection, the Names of Majesty, and the Names of Beauty (Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islam: Religion, History and Civilization p. 61).

A Note About the Name “Allah”

As we discussed in a previous lesson, Allah is the Arabic word for “God”. It is a contraction of two Arabic words, ilah, “god,” and al, “the.” Thus, “The God.” It is etymologically related to the word for God in other languages, such as Syrian (Alaha) Aramaic (Elah), and Hebrew (Elohim).

If an Arab Jew or Christian reads the Torah or Gospel in Arabic, their Scripture will use Allah where English Bibles use “God.” So the terminology is the same. But are the concepts of God identical in Islam and Christianity?

Points of Similarity

The Quran and the Bible agree on many points concerning the nature of God.

Both believe there is one God (Deut. 6:4; Surah 2:163; 6:19; 16:51; 21:108; 37:4; 41:6 etc).
Both believe God is the creator of the world (Gen. 1:1; Surah 2:255; 7:54; 10:3; 32:4; 41:9-12).
Both believe God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; Surah 57:3).
Both believe God compassionate and forgiving (Ex. 34:6-8; Surah 16:18).
Both believe God is the King and Judge (Is. 33:22; Surah 1:2-4).
Both believe God is transcendent (Ex. 9:14; Is. 46:9; Surah 42:11) and immanent (Ps. 145:18; Surah 50:16).

There is no question that Islam has much in common regarding the nature of God with Judaism and Christianity. The Quran claims a common faith in the God found in Scripture.

God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful. Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people and He has sent down the distinction [between right and wrong]. (Surah 3:2-4)

[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same]; we are devoted to Him.’ (Surah 29:46)

But of course the Quran also teaches that the truth has been corrupted in Judaism and Christianity, which is why the view of God found in the Quran is different than that in the Bible.

Points of Distinction

There are fundamental differences between what the Quran and the Bible teach about God.

Trinitarianism

The Bible teaches that there is one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 Cor. 8:6; Matt. 28:19).

The Quran, by contrast, specifically repudiates the doctrine of the Trinity.

Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask His forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food [like other mortals]. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are. Say, ‘How can you worship something other than God, that has no power to do you harm or good? God alone is the All Hearing and All Knowing.’ (Surah 5:73-76)

Interestingly, this surah contends that the doctrine of the trinity holds that God, Jesus and Mary are divine:

When God says, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, “Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God”?’ he will say, ‘May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say— if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen. (Surah 5:116)

Since the nature of Jesus is really the key point of contention, the Quran is explicit in its denial of the deity of Jesus.

The Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God,’ and the Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of God’: they said this with their own mouths, repeating what earlier disbelievers had said. May God confound them! How far astray they have been led! They take their rabbis and their monks as lords, as well as Christ, the son of Mary. But they were commanded to serve only one God: there is no god but Him; He is far above whatever they set up as His partners! (Surah 9:30-31)

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’—stop [this], that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. (Surah 4:171)

The Fatherhood of God

The other vital difference between God as revealed in the Quran and the Bible has to do with the concept of fatherhood. While Islam embraces ninety-nine names of God, “Father” is not one of them. Because Islam places such a high value on God’s otherness, it repudiates the notion that He is a father.

The Creator of the heavens and earth! How could He have children when He has no spouse, when He created all things, and has full knowledge of all things? (Surah 6:101; also 72:3).

The disbelievers say, ‘The Lord of Mercy has offspring.’ How terrible is this thing you assert: it almost causes the heavens to be torn apart, the earth to split asunder, the mountains to crumble to pieces, that they attribute offspring to the Lord of Mercy. It does not befit the Lord of Mercy [to have offspring] (Surah 19:88-92)

Say [Prophet], ‘If the Lord of Mercy [truly] had offspring I would be the first to worship [them], but—exalted be the Lord of the heavens and earth, the Lord of the Throne—He is far above their false descriptions.’ Leave them to wade in deeper and play about, until they face the Day they have been promised. (Surah 43:81-83)

The Bible, to the contrary, affirms the fatherhood of God. “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation” (Ps. 68:5; see also 89:26; Is. 9:6). And through Jesus, we can cry out to God in the most intimate of terms, “Abba, Father” (Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

The Same God?

Some Christians automatically dismiss the idea that we worship the same God as Muslims on the basis that Islam is not Trinitarian. By the same token, Jews don’t worship the same God, either, something Paul and the apostles never allege. On the other hand, the denial of God’s fatherhood and the trinity means that the Muslim concept of God is much different. Just as Paul could use the same word, theos, to then teach the Athenians about the true nature of the God they knew, we can also do the same with Muslims. They do believe in one God, but they do not have the full and accurate view of the one God.

Notes on Islam - Lesson 5: Sunni, Shia, and Sufi

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:10:00 +0000

In the last lesson we studied the origin of the Sunni – Shia split. In this lesson we will discuss the differences between the two major sects of Islam, plus the mystical tradition known as Sufiism.

I. The Sunni

A. The term sunni comes from the word sunnah, which literally means “the trodden path.”

1. Sunni see themselves as traditionalists, following in the footsteps of Muhammad. They believe other sects of Islam have introduced bida, departures from traditional Islam.

2. The majority of the world’s Muslims (85%) are Sunni, although there are many differences among Sunni.

B. Sources of authority.

1. In addition to the Quran, Sunni Muslims also look to the sunnah, stories of Muhammad’s life and teaching, recording in the hadith.

a) The reliability of these stories is based on the isnad, the “chain of transmission.”

b) Two collections most respected were compiled by Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 875).

2. Sunnis also rely on ijma (the consensus, or agreement, of legal and religious scholars). Sunni Islam emphasizes the collective wisdom of the community.

3. Sunni Muslims have thus referred to themselves as ahl al-sunnah wa al-jamaah (people of the sunnah and the community).

C. Developments in Sunnism.

1. Sunni scholars developed a legal code based on the various sources of Muslim authority, called Shariah. There are four basic schools of Sunni law:

a) Shafii, southeast Asia.

b) Maliki, west Africa.

c) Hanafi, central Asia and Indian subcontinent.

d) Hanbali, ultra conservative as in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

2. Many Sunni scholars have argued that the Quran does not specify a particular form of government, and have argued for a separation of religious power and political power.

3. Radicalization.

a. In 1744 an Arab Shaykh named Muhammad ibn Saud joined forces with a preacher named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and committed to purifying Islam from corruption, a movement later known as Wahhabism.

b. Other radical movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928) advocated violent opposition to European colonialism. Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

II. The Shia

A. The Shia rejected the Rashidun and believed that Ali was the first legitimate heir to Muhammad.

1. The Sunnis accepted leaders from the sahabah (companions) of the Prophet, the Shiah restrict it to the members of the ahl al-bayt (“the people of the house”, Muahammad’s family).

2. The Shia get their name from Shia Ali, the “party of Ali.”

3. Shia represent 15% of the world’s Muslims, and Iran is the largest Shiite country.

B. The lineage of Shiite leadership.

1. Instead of accepting the caliphate of the Rashidun as legitimate, Shiites believe Ali was the first legitimate leader, imam, followed by his sons, Hasan and Husayn. Sunnis use imam to refer to religious workers like a prayer leader, but Shia use it to specifically describe the lineage from Muhammad.

2. The 7^th Imam was Ismail, who died relatively young. Some Shia, called Seveners, believe that Ismail did not die but went into occulation, or hiding, protected by God.

3. Other believed the twelfth imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared as a child in 874, was the Hidden Imam. They are called “Twelvers.”

4. Shiites believe the The Hidden Imam will return as the Mahdi (“divinely guided one”) and slay the antichrist with Jesus and establish a reign of justice.

C. Developments in Shiism.

1. The Shia developed their own collections of Hadith and interpretations of Shariah.

2. Typically, the Shia have been minorities, ruled by Sunni majorities, and see themselves as oppressed, awaiting liberation.

3. Radicalization:

a. The Revolution in Iran (1979) swept into power the Ayatollah Khomeini, a cleric who declared rule by the ulama, the religious clerics.

b. Hizb Allah declared a jihad against the Western and Israeli presence in Lebanon in 1985.

III. The Sufis

A. The mystical movement in Islam.

1. The name “Sufi” is derived from the Arabic word suf (wool), in honor of the coarse woolen garments worn by the first Sufis, resembling the garb of Christian monks and mystics in other faiths.

2. Like other mystical movements in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, the Sufi path seeks to discipline the mind and body in order to experience directly the presence of God.

3. The most characteristic emphasis of the Sufi teachers is on the need to love God. One of their favorite passages is Surah 5:54: “He loves them, and they love Him.”

B. The development of Sufism.

1. Sufism began as a reform movement in response to the growing materialism and wealth of Muslim society that accompanied the expansion and growing power of the Islamic empire.

2. The Sufi schools are called “orders.”

3. Sufis can be Sunni or Shia, and see themselves as the invisible, life-giving force of the Muslim community.

4. Their tendency to adopt and adapt to local non-Islamic customs and practices in new places and their strong devotional and emotional practices helped them to become a popular mass movement and a threat to the more orthodox religious establishment.

The Gospels, History and Inspiration

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:18:00 +0000

A few years ago a friend of mine and I were discussing a sermon we had recently heard, during which the speaker mentioned the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. My friend asked me what historical evidence he was talking about, and I replied that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were excellent places to start! His reaction astonished me
- he said that those were gospels, not history. Ironically, my friend took the very same view of the gospels (for much different reasons) that the most critical skeptics take - the gospels should not be considered "history."

This is quite contrary to the very claims of the gospels. Luke clearly says he did research in order to write an orderly account of the life and teachings of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4). What else would you call that but history? As Christians we believe the gospels are not just history - they are Spirit-inspired accounts of the life of Jesus. But they are history.

We can never allow our desire to respect and honor Scripture to lead us to draw conclusions about the Scripture that directly contradict the Scripture.

A Tunic, A Sponge and a Spear

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 00:46:00 +0000

Tomorrow morning to introduce my new sermon series I am going to read this little piece of fiction I wrote tonight.

Yitzhak’s mind wandered as he dug his way through the rocky square assigned to his team. Archaeology had fascinated him since he was a child, and the chance – however slight – that the next stroke of the pick might uncover a hidden treasure that would change the face of history still excited him. But in the baking sun of the Judean desert, even the most idealistic archaeologist could have trouble focusing on the tedious, repetitious work of digging.

It was important to be engaged, though, because a careless flick of the shovel or pick might destroy an artifact of extraordinary significance, so Yitzhak paused for a drink of water from his canteen, then with renewed concentration, went back to work.

In an instant he felt – and heard – his pick strike something solid. Pausing to catch his breath, Yitzhak quickly but carefully brushed away the dirt and sand to reveal a box inscribed in Latin, Legio X Frentensis, The Tenth Legion was a proud legion, deployed primarily in first century Jerusalem. Just beneath the inscription he saw the unmistakable emblem of the Tenth Legion, the bull.

Yitzhak needed help to retrieve the box, and called for his patners, Eli and Haddasah, to help him dig it the rest of the way out. There was no lock, just a leather thong wrapped around the box and tied off in a characteristic knot used by the legionaires.

They immediately loaded the box in their jeep and headed back to the main camp to investigate its contents. Loosening the leather tie, and gently lifted the lid, brushing away the centuries of dust. Inside, they saw what looked to be nothing more than the uniform of a Roman soldier – a wool tunic, a scarf that protected the neck from chafing against the armor, a helmet, a sword belt, and a caliga, the soldier’s boots.

But in addition to these mundane items, there were three unusual artifacts in the box. There was the tip of the spear used by Roman soldiers, called the pilum. This was standard equipment, but it was odd to see the pyramid-shaped iron head by itsef. Laying beside it was a clump of fibrous material which Yitzhak recognized as a crude form of sponge. Neatly folded up beneath all of the items was another tunic, much different than the standard issue for a solider. Although time and insects had taken their toll on it, Yitzhak could see that it was woven with great care, made from one piece of material, typical of the sort of inner garment warn by ancient Jews and modern Arab Bedouin.

Yitzhak was so intrigued by the odd assortment of items that he nearly overlooked the scroll that had rolled to the near side of the box. It was parchment made of animal skin, called velum, and he could just make out writing in Latin.

I, Marcus Cipius Pompeianus, served the Legio X Fretensis, of the Province of Syria, in Jerusalem. In the 17^th year of Tiberius Caesar, I was on duty in the city of Jerusalem during the holy week of the Jews, who came into the city to celebrate their ancient tradition called Passover. One of their own, a rabbi was Nazareth, had run afoul of the people and especially their leaders, and was sentenced to die. My unit had duty that day on The Place of the Skull, and prepared the man for crucifixion, along with two other brigands.

It seemed like just another execution for us, and we passed the time waiting for death to occur like we usually did – we gambled for the clothing of the victims. The lots fell my way, and I won the homespun tunic of the rabbi. But then strange things began to happen. Right in the middle of the day the sun disappeared. For three hours it was as dark as the night. I have killed many men, but there was something about the rabbi that was different. Maybe it was the way he prayed for the vicious mob mocking him, or called out for a young man to care for his mother. I am not a man easily moved, but when the rabbi complained of thirst, I dipped my sponge into a jar of wine and extended it to him on a branch from a piece of brush.

The Jewish officials wanted the men to be dead before sundown, so we took our mallets to smash their shins and finish the job. But the Nazarene was already dead. Normally the poor wretches take many hours to die, but the rabbi appeared to have been brutally scourged before we ever went to work on him, and just did not last long. Still, I wanted to make sure he was dead, so I took my spear and stabbed him in the side. The blood and water that gushed out gave grisly confirmation that he was dead.

Then more unusual portents happened. The earth began to rumble and shake. My commander, a centurion not given to emotion, shouted out that this man must have been the son of god!

I was glad when a Jewish ruler came and asked permission for the body to bury it. I wanted to be done with that day. But that day is not done with me. Nightmares rob me of sleep. Guilt taunts me during the day. So I have decided to abandon my duty, burying everything connected with horrible day. If Fortune leads someone to find this, you now know that Marcus Cipius Pompeianus deserted his Legion not because he was a coward, but because he was a prisoner of his own conscience.

Yitzhak could not believe what he was reading, and seeing. But he knew what the next exhibit at his museum would be.

The Gospel Truth - Lesson 1: The Gospels as History

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:47:00 +0000

The gospels claim to be history, the written description of events that actually happened (Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31). But what are we to make of these claims?

The Style of the Gospels

The consensus among scholars of the New Testament is that the gospels belong in the category of bioi, “lives,” ancient biographies.

Luke is special because his gospel is the first volume of a 2-volume work. Luke-Acts together are best described in terms of ancient historiography.

Those who wrote history in the ancient world laid out the qualities of good historiograpy (taken from Boyd and Eddy, The Jesus Legend, p. 334):

1. Choose a noble subject.

2. Choose a subject that would be useful to the intended audience.

3. Be impartial and independent in research and composition.

4. Construct good narrative with an engaging beginning and ending.

5. Engage in adequate preparatory research.

6. Use good judgment in selection of materials.

7. Accurately and appropriately order material.

8. Make the narrative lively and interesting.

9. Exercise moderation in topographical details.

10. Compose speeches appropriate to the speaker and situation.

On this basis it is clear why the vast majority of scholars accept the gospels for what they claim to be, history.

History in the Ancient World

Ancient writers were just as concerned to get it right as are modern writers. Here are some excerpts from ancient historians on how to write history:

Polybius (200-118 BC), Histories
Book 12.4C3-5
3 and we see that generally the task of investigation has been entirely scamped by him, and this is the most important part of history. 4 For since many events occur at the same time in different places, and one man cannot be in several places at one time, nor is it possible for a single man to have seen with his own eyes every place in the world and all the peculiar features of different places, the only thing left for an historian is 5 to inquire from as many people as possible, to believe those worthy of belief and to be an adequate critic of the reports that reach him.

Book 34.4.1-3
4 And if there is anything that does not correspond with reality, we must set it down to change or error or poetic license, a combination of history, disposition, and myth. 2 Now the end aimed at by history is truth...3 and the end aimed at by disposition is vividness.

Lucian (AD 120-180), The Way to Write History

Section 39 The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened.

Section 47 Facts are not to be collected at haphazard, but with careful, laborious, repeated investigation; when possible, a man should have been present and seen for himself; failing that, he should prefer the disinterested account, selecting the informants least likely to diminish or magnify from partiality. And here comes the occasion for exercising the judgment in weighing probabilities.

This does not mean that ancient history is identical to modern history in all respects. Here are some important differences:

-Ancient historians did not always follow chronological order. Sometimes they ordered material topically (Suetonius was noted for this), or began in the middle of the life of a subject (such as Plutarch’s Caesar).

-Ancient historians summarized and paraphrased while modern historians focus on direct quotation. This is primarily due to the difference between an oral vs written culture.

-Ancient historians often taught lessons stemming from their subject matter, while modern historians often do not.

Some have argued that the gospels cannot be accepted as historical to modern minds because its writers were biased. “The writers are emotionally involved: they believe fervently in the story they are telling, which means they are not impartial observers” (Robert Funk, quoted in Boyd and Eddy, p. 397).

Response:

1. All historical writing is done from a certain perspective. The mere act of selecting which details to include is an interpretive act.

2. Those who deny the gospels describe what actually happened also have biases, primarily philosophical naturalism. “There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world” (Funk, quoted in Boyd and Eddy p. 372). One member of the Jesus Seminar has called upon his colleagues to “be honest with one another about biases and presuppositions (as has often not been the case)” (p. 374).

3. Since all history is written from a perspective, to make this observation “tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information…It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as possible” (N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 89).

Can We Know Anything?

There are some historians who claim that all history – not just ancient history – is suspect. This is a reflection of postmodernism, which denies there is any truth to be known, and often assumes that historical claims are simply power plays, assertions by the “winners”. “History now appears to be just one more fondationless, positioned expression in a world of foundationless, positioned expressions” (Keith Jenkins, quoted in Boyd and Eddy, p. 16).

The obvious response to the absolute skepticism is that it is self-refuting. In other words, does the writer quoted above believe his work is a “foundationless, positioned expression,” or does he believe it has actual, truthful meaning?

Some Great Ideas for Wall Street Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:37:00 +0000

In a recent column in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibi offered some concrete proposals for reforming Wall Street that I think are worth merit. Incidentally, it seems to me lately that many Christians have become knee-jerk defenders of anything remotely labeled capitalism. There is no question the Bible supports personal property rights (Acts 5:3-4), and promotes the individual work ethic (Ephesians 4:28). But there is also no question that the Bible condemns stealing (Ephesians 4:28), as well as the abuse of the poor by the wealthy (James 5:1-6), and affirms the role of the civil government in punishing evildoers (Romans 13:3-7). With that in mind, here are my favorite reforms Taibi mentions:

Break up the "too big to fail" companies that are in reality monopolies, and mandate the separation of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.
Institute a one percent tax on all trades of stocks, bonds and derivatives to pay back all bailout money and pay down the deficit.
Prohibit companies that received public money for bailouts to then lobby Congress (until they have paid back their debt).
Eliminate the carried-interest tax break so that hedge fund gamblers pay the tax rate on earnings appropriate to their bracket as opposed to the flat 15% they normally pay.

Jesus vs Muhammad - The Cross vs the Sword

noreply@blogger.com (Shane) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:37:00 +0000

Over the last few weeks as I have been studying for my class on Islam I have thought a lot about the similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity, and between Christ and Muhammad. Today I want to talk about one of the most vital differences, what each man taught with regard to violence. But to put this fundamental difference in sharper contrast, I want to begin by noticing some similarities between them.

I. Similarities Between Jesus and Muhammad

A. Both claimed to be special messengers of God.

1. Jesus taught that God sent Him, and that “whoever receives me receives him who sent me” (Luke 9:48), and that “the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

2. Muhammad also claimed to be sent from God, and Muslims consider him the final messenger from God. The basic confession of faith in Islam is “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”

B. Both preached a message of repentance.

1. Matthew summarized the message of Jesus like this in 4:17, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

2. Muhammad also preached a message of repentance, urging the Arab tribespeople to turn away from their ancestral paganism and return to the religion of Abraham and the worship of one true God.

C. Both were violently rejected.

1. In the case of Jesus, the Jewish establishment did not like His vision of what the Messiah was to be, and were jealous of His growing popularity. Even his hometown turned against Him for pointing out that Israel had a history of rejection of God’s will (Luke 4).

2. Muhammad’s hometown of Mecca also rejected his message of one God, since the central shrine of Arab paganism stood in Mecca itself. Eventually the most powerful tribe in Mecca, called the Quraysh, forced Muhammad to leave, and in 622 he migrated to a city later called Medina, a move called the Hijra in Arabic.

II. Differences in Responding to Violence

A. In the case of Muhammad

1. One of the few Islamic terms all Americans know is jihad, which we normally think of as “holy war.” In Arabic it means “struggle,” and it primarily refers to the inner spiritual struggle to submit to the will of God. That is the “greater jihad.” But Muhammad also endorsed the “lesser jihad,” military combat.

2. War broke out between Muhammad’s new faith and the Meccans, and after a series of battles Muhammad captured Mecca virtually unopposed.

3. Many of the verses in the Quran which talk about warfare, sometimes called the “Sword verses,” come from this period.

a) Generally speaking Muhammad ordered his people to follow rules of warfare similar to those found in Deuteronomy 20.

b) But when those who claimed alliance with the community of believers broke their word and threatened his people, Muhammad ordered his followers to fight.

c) A good example is the ninth chapter of Quran (chapters are called surahs): ⁵When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful. ⁶If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection, grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God, then take him to a place safe for him, for they are people with no knowledge. ⁷How could there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for such idolaters? But as for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him. ¹²But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief - oaths mean nothing to them -so that they may stop. ¹³How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers. 29 Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.”

4. In short, Muhammad taught his followers to respond to violence with violence.

B. In the case of Jesus

1. Rejoice - Matthew 5:11-12

2. Non-resistance - Matthew 5:38-41

3. Love and pray - Matthew 5:43-48

4. Flee but don’t fear - Matthew 10:16-26

5. Practiced what He preached! Luke 22:47-51; John 18:36

III. Do WE Practice What Jesus Preached - or What Muhammad Preached?

A. The choice between the cross and the sword.

1. Through the centuries many misguided professed Christians practiced what Muhammad preached, or worse, such as the Crusaders.

2. It is easy to criticize such hypocrisy in history. But the challenge is how do I respond when others mistreat me?

a) Just this weekend I was driving and someone cut me off. My initial impulse was to get around them and cut them off!

b) Have you ever been slandered by someone? Did you try to get even?

c) Has someone ever spoken harshly to you, berated you, assume something about you? Did you look for the chance to return the favor?

3. Bernhard Goetz vs Julio Diaz

4. Is it unrealistic to follow the way of Jesus? The reality is that as Jesus warned Peter in the Garden, “those who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Seals – Bin Laden – Taliban killed Seals.

5. In a sinful world violence begets violence, but Jesus presented a much different way for His people to respond to violence – not with the sword. He could have called 12 legions of angels, but instead He went to the cross and prayed for His enemies.

B. A Disclaimer and an Admonition

1. Disclaimer - God has instituted civil government to “bear the sword” - Romans 13:3-4.

a) In Acts Paul used the civil government for protection.

b) But this didn’t mean that if opponents tried to stone him he picked up rocks and threw them back! He preached, he suffered, he used civil government when prudent, but he never retaliated evil for evil or violence with violence.

2. Admonition - Overcome evil with good! - Romans 12:14-21.

a) This is not “pacifism.” It is active, aggressive love. Not weakness, but the strength to refrain from natural inclination.

b) And the objective is not surrender or defeat, but victory – victory defined as God defines it, overcoming evil!

Conclusion

This has been a tough lesson for me to think through and preach. Tough because every instinct I have for fairness and justice is outraged by the notion that someone might do something evil to me and rather than giving them the same or worse right back I am supposed to love them. And besides the unfairness of it, what if they don’t have consciences so tender that their head will burn once I dump all the coals of kindness on them. Isn’t possible they might just keep on being hateful?

Two quick points. First, love is not about fairness. And it certainly doesn’t coming with any guarantees that it will be reciprocated. Love is not about justice, but mercy. Mercy is what I need from God. I don’t want fairness. And thank God He did not simply offer to be fair! The cross is the diametrical opposite of fairness. Instead of sinners receiving the penalty they owed, the sinless Son of God received a punishment He never deserved to atone for sinners, for us, for me. And He did so knowing that not everyone would respond with love, that some would keep on hating. That is the very nature of love itself. To give what is underserved to the underserving.

Here is the second point. The Bible does not teach that God will just tolerate hate and evil forever. He has told us to overcome it with good, but He also knows that some people will not change. And that is when He commands us to leave room for His wrath, that vengeance is His and He will repay. He is not going to let anyone get away with anything! They will come to know how terrifying it is to fall into the hands of the living God.

At the end of 1 Peter 2 the apostle gave instructions to slaves, many of whom were ill-treated by brutal masters. And to encourage them to remain faithful in the face of such injustice, he reminded them of the example of the suffering servant.

1 Peter 2 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

Until the great day of reckoning, we must love, and trust, just like our example.