http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=578
Answering Christ’s Critics
[EDITORS’ NOTE: Unbelief & skepticism continue to expand their
impact on society. Recent attacks on the person of Christ have come from
The DaVinci Code as well as the so-called “gospel of Judas.”
According to www.thebeastmovie.com, on June 6, 2006 (i.e., 6/6/6) a
movie ridiculing the historicity of Christ (titled
The Beast)
is scheduled to be released in theatres worldwide. Likely many will
ponder over questions that these sources raise regarding whether Jesus
ever really lived, or if He did, whether He was a fraud. Others may
simply choose to believe whatever they read, hear, or see. Regardless,
Christians need to be prepared to give reasonable answers (cf. 1 Peter
3:15) when they are called upon to defend their faith in the Son of God.
Twice in the past decade Apologetics Press has dealt extensively in
Reason and Revelation with the historicity of Christ (see
Jackson, 1998, 18[1]:6-7;
Butt, 2000, 20[1]:1-6). This issue of
R&R
deals with questions critics of Christ often ask once they realize that
His existence 2,000 years ago is indisputable. We hope that you benefit
from learning how easily the allegations can be refuted.]
Once skeptics come to the realization that the evidence for the
historicity of Christ and the historical accuracy of the New Testament
cannot logically be explained away, the next step frequently taken by
critics of Christ is to attack the Bible’s own portrayal of Jesus. If
the enemies of Christ can discredit His claims of divinity by
demonstrating instances of deceitfulness and inappropriate behavior in
His life, then Jesus certainly could not be Who He and the Bible writers
claimed that He was—God in the flesh (John 1:1,14). However, if the
charges against Jesus’ life and character are proven to be fallacious or
unsubstantiated, then such accusations should be dismissed, and Jesus’
true identity must either be accepted or rejected based upon the fact
that the Bible’s portrayal of the life of Christ is consistent with His
claims of deity.
So what have critics alleged about the Son of God? In an essay that
appeared on evilbible.com, one enemy of Christ wrote: “Dear believer:
...I refuse to accept Jesus as my personal savior, for his behavior and
teachings often expose one who should be escaped and not worshipped”
(Schnook, n.d.). Atheist Dan Barker observed in an article titled “Why
Jesus?”: “It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real,
flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity—mothers
who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social
reformers who have fought injustice—than to worship a character of such
dubious qualities as Jesus” (1993). Another critic of Christ has stated:
“...Jesus taught few precepts that he himself did not violate!
According to the Bible, JESUS WAS A HYPOCRITE AND NOT REALLY PERFECT
AFTER ALL”! (Morgan, 1996, emp. in orig.). Allegedly, Jesus did and said
many questionable things throughout His ministry that should cause one
to flee from Him rather than follow Him. This article addresses several
of those criticisms and provides reasonable responses in defense of the
deity and unblemished disposition of Christ.
DID JESUS IGNORE THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT?
Like many critics of the life of Christ today, the first-century
Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond
reproach. Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, the Pharisees
came “testing” Him, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew
16:1). Later in the book of Matthew (19:3ff.), the writer recorded how
“the Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It was
their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle
Jesus in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping
question—one that, if answered in a way that the Pharisees had
anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the wrath of Herod Antipas (cf.
Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His fellow Jews (e.g., the
school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the Pharisees
sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is
it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and
hypocritical Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy
the Lord’s influence (as are many critics today), that on one occasion
they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went
through the grainfields on the Sabbath...were hungry, and began to pluck
heads of grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [
NOTE:
“Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they
observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The microscopic
scrutiny under which Jesus lived likely was even more relentless than
what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be
considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, “Jesus ignored
the restrictions as to what can’t be done on the Sabbath” (McKinsey,
2000, p. 265). He supposedly allowed His disciples to “work” on this
particular Sabbath, which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:2; cf.
Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).
Jesus responded to the criticism of His enemies by giving the truth of
the matter, and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As
was somewhat customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf.
Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3; 21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’
accusation with two questions. First, He asked: “Have you not read what
David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he
entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for
him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?”
(12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David
(recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from
king Saul, ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the
priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). Some have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus
was implying innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are
subservient to human needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p.
666), and thus He was defending His disciples “lawless” actions with the
same reasoning. Actually, however, just the opposite is true. Jesus
explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not lawful”—12:4), and
that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless” (12:7).
Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law
when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is
an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of
self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The disciples were not permitted by Jesus
to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was
inconvenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in
their accusations. Like many of Jesus’ enemies today, “The Pharisees
were out to ‘get’ Jesus; and any charge was better than none” (Coffman,
1984, p. 165). The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the pharisaical
interpretation of the law (which was more sacred to some Pharisees than
the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman
forcefully stated: “In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of
threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of
trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had
chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the
fields!” (p. 165, emp. added).
Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to cause the Pharisees to
recognize their insincerity, and to exonerate His disciples. David, a
man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by
eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other
hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while
walking through a field—an act that the law permitted—yet the Pharisees
condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they
could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all
sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question—silence—was that of
hypocrites who had been exposed.
Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the
law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath,
and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to
acknowledge that even the law itself condoned some work on the Sabbath
day. Although the Pharisees acted as if all work was banned on this day,
it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.
They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical
sacrifices (Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in
addition to the daily sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning,
and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the
sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and
performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).
One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby
boys when the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath (Leviticus 12:3; John
7:22-23). The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane” priestly works
was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional. [
NOTE:
Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration
of the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was
true according to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual
works performed on the Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth
is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for
worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and
commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Just as the priests who served God
in the temple on the Sabbath were totally within the law, so likewise
were Jesus’ disciples as they served the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew
12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the temple (12:6; cf.
Coffman, p. 167). Jesus did not ignore nor encourage defiance of God’s
command to keep the Sabbath.
DID JESUS BREAK THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT?
Consider the mother who asks her son to do something for a neighbor,
and the son responds to his mother by saying, “Woman, what does that
have to do with me?” Responding to a mother’s (or any woman’s) request
in twenty-first-century America with the refrain, “Woman...,” sounds
impolite and offensive. Furthermore, a Christian, who is commanded to
honor his father and mother (Ephesians 6:2), would be out of line in
most situations when using such an expression while talking directly to
his mother.
In light of the ill-mannered use of the word “woman” in certain
contexts today, some question how Jesus could have spoken to His mother
2,000 years ago using this term without breaking the commandment to
“[h]onor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12; cf. Matthew 15:4;
Matthew 5:17-20). When Jesus, His disciples, and His mother were at the
wedding in Cana of Galilee where there was a depletion of wine, Mary
said to Jesus, “They have no wine” (John 2:3). Jesus then responded to
His mother, saying, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?
My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). Notice what one skeptic has
written regarding what Jesus said in this verse.
In Matt. 15:4 he [Jesus—EL] told people to
“Honor thy father and thy mother”; yet, he was one of the first to
ignore his own maxim by saying to his mother in John 2:4, “Woman, what
have I to do with thee?” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 44).
Imagine someone talking to his own mother in such a disrespectful
manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as ‘woman.’ Talk
about an insolent offspring! (1995, p. 134).
Jesus needs to practice some parental respect... (McKinsey, 2000, p. 251).
Apparently Jesus’ love escaped him (McKinsey, n.d., “Jesus...”).
Why was Jesus disrespectful of his mother? In John 2:4, Jesus uses the
same words with his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus. Surely
the son of God knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didn’t
he, (and she was the mother of God—Ed.) not to mention the fact that the
son of God would never be rude? (McKinsey, n.d., “Problems...,”
parenthetical comment in orig.).
As one can see, Mr. McKinsey is adamant that Jesus erred. He uses such
words to describe Jesus as disrespectful, insolent, unloving, and rude.
Is he correct?
As with most of Christ’s critics, Mr. McKinsey is guilty of judging
Jesus’ words by what is common in twenty-first-century English
vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in their proper
first-century setting. It was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the
first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman (
gunai)....”
This “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address”
(Vincent, 1997), “with no idea of censure” (Robertson, 1932, 5:34). The
New International Version correctly captures the meaning of this word in
John 2:4: “
Dear woman, why do you involve me?” (emp.
added). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician
woman’s great faith (Matthew 15:28), when affectionately addressing Mary
Magdalene after His resurrection (John 20:15), and when speaking to His
disconsolate mother one last time from the cross (John 19:26). Paul
used this same word when addressing Christian women (1 Corinthians
7:16). As Adam Clarke noted: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is
intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness,
and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers”
(1996).
As to why Jesus used the term “woman” (
gunai) instead of “mother” (
meetros)
when speaking to Mary (which even in first-century Hebrew and Greek
cultures was an unusual way to address one’s mother), Leon Morris noted
that Jesus most likely was indicating
that there is a new relationship between them as he enters his public
ministry.... Evidently Mary thought of the intimate relations of the
home at Nazareth as persisting. But Jesus in his public ministry was not
only or primarily the son of Mary, but “the Son of Man” who was to
bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51). A new
relationship was established (1995, p. 159).
R.C.H. Lenski added: “[W]hile Mary will forever remain his [Jesus’—
EL]
mother, in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, he is
their Lord and Savior as well as of all men. The common earthly
relation is swallowed up in the divine” (1961b, p. 189). It is logical
to conclude that Jesus was simply “informing” His mother in a loving
manner that as He began performing miracles for the purpose of proving
His deity and the divine origin of His message, His relationship to her
was about to change.
Finally, the point also must be stressed that honoring fathers and
mothers does not mean that a son or daughter never can correct his or
her parents. Correction and honor are no more opposites than correction
and love. One of the greatest ways parents disclose their love to their
children is by correcting them when they make mistakes (Hebrews 12:6-9;
Revelation 3:19). Similarly, one of the ways in which a mature son might
honor his parents is by taking them aside when they have erred, and
lovingly pointing out their mistake or oversight in a certain matter.
Think how much more honorable this action would be than to take no
action and allow them to continue in a path of error without informing
them of such. We must keep in mind that even though Mary was a great
woman “who found favor with God” (Luke 1:30), she was not perfect (cf.
Romans 3:10,23). She was not God, nor the “mother of God” (viz., she did
not originate Jesus or bring Him into existence). But, she was the one
chosen to carry the Son of God in her womb. Who better to correct any
misunderstanding she may have had than this Son?
DID JESUS VIOLATE THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT BY ENCOURAGING THIEVERY?
Numerous passages of Scripture teach—either explicitly or
implicitly—about the sinfulness of thievery. One of the Ten Commandments
that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In
the book of Leviticus, one can read where “the Lord spoke to Moses,
saying, ‘Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and
say to them... You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one
another.... You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him’ ”
(19:1-2,11,13). If a thief was found breaking into a house at night and
was struck so that he died, the old law stated that there would be “no
guilt for his bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Under the new covenant, the
apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, saying, “Let him who stole
steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what
is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (4:28).
And to the Christians at Corinth, Paul wrote that thieves “will not
inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus, God obviously
considers stealing to be a transgression of His law.
Critics of the deity of Christ, however, assert that Jesus once
commanded His disciples to steal a donkey and a colt prior to entering
Jerusalem during the final week of His life. According to Matthew’s
gospel account, Jesus instructed His disciples, saying, “Go into the
village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a
colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says
anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and
immediately he will send them” (Matthew 21:1-3). Luke added: “So those
who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them.
But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, ‘Why
are you loosing the colt?’ And they said, ‘The Lord has need of him.’
Then they brought him to Jesus” (Luke 19:32-35). Regarding this story,
McKinsey asked: “Are we to believe this isn’t theft? Imagine seeing a
stranger driving your car away while claiming the lord needed it” (1985,
p. 1). Allegedly, “Jesus told people to take a colt...without the
owners’ permission.” And that, says McKinsey, is “commonly known as
stealing” (2000, p. 236). Another infidel by the name of Dan Barker
commented on this event in the life of Jesus in his book,
Losing Faith in Faith,
saying, “I was taught as a child that when you take something without
asking for it, that is stealing” (1992, p. 166). But did Jesus really
encourage His disciples to steal a donkey and a colt? Can His actions be
explained logically in light of the numerous statements throughout
Scripture that clearly condemn thievery?
Before responding to these criticisms, consider the following: If a
husband were to e-mail his wife and ask her to walk to a neighbor’s
house and pick up the neighbor’s truck so that he could use it to haul
an old furnace to the junkyard, would someone who read his e-mail
(perhaps finding a hard copy of it crumpled up in the trash) be
justified in concluding that this gentleman asked his wife to steal the
truck? Certainly not. Since the e-mail had no other information in it
than a request for the wife concerning a neighbor’s truck, a person
reading the note would have to have access to additional information in
order to come to the conclusion that this man and his wife were guilty
of theft. The reader may be ignorant of the fact that the husband had
prearranged such a pick-up with his neighbor the previous day. Or,
perhaps the neighbor had told the husband at some earlier time that he
could use his truck whenever he needed it.
What Mr. McKinsey and other skeptics never seem to take into
consideration in their interpretation of Scripture is that the Bible
does not record every single detail of every event it mentions (cf. John
21:25). The Bible was not intended to be an exhaustive chronological
timeline citing every aspect about the lives of all of the men and women
mentioned within it. The New Testament book of Acts covers a period of
about thirty years, but it actually is only about some of the acts of
some of the early Christians. There were many more things that Paul,
Peter, Silas, Luke, and other first-century Christians did that are not
recorded therein. For example, Paul spent three years in Arabia and
Damascus after his conversion (Galatians 1:16-18), yet Luke did not
mention this detail, nor the many things Paul accomplished during these
three years.
The case of Jesus telling His disciples to go locate the donkey and
colt does not prove thievery, any more than Jesus’ disciples inquiring
about and occupying an “upper room” makes them trespassers (cf. Mark
14:13-15). When sending His two disciples to get the requested animals,
Jesus told them exactly where to go and what to say, as if He already
knew the circumstances under which the donkey and colt were available.
Jesus may very well have prearranged for the use of the donkeys. Neither
Mr. McKinsey nor any other skeptic can prove otherwise. Similar to how a
man is not obligated to go home from work every night and rehearse to
his wife everything he did each hour at work, the Bible is not obligated
to fill in every detail of every event, including the one regarding the
attainment of two animals. No contradiction or charge of wrong is
legitimate if unrelated circumstantial details may be postulated that
account for explicit information that is given.
Furthermore, the innocence of Jesus and His disciples is reinforced by
the fact that the disciples were able to leave with the beasts. Had the
disciples really been stealing the animals, one would think that the
owners would not have allowed such to happen. Also, nothing is said in
the text about what happened to the animals after Jesus rode them into
Jerusalem. For all we know, Jesus’ disciples could have immediately
taken them back to their owners.
Skeptics who accuse the Lord of thievery have no solid ground upon
which to stand. Unless it can be proven that Jesus’ disciples took the
animals by force (and without prior permission), justice demands that
the accusations of guilt must be withdrawn.
WAS JESUS TRUSTWORTHY?
When Christ spoke to a group of hostile Jews in Jerusalem regarding God
the Father, and His own equality with Him (John 5:17-30; cf. 10:30), He
defended His deity by pointing to several witnesses, including John the
Baptizer, the Father in heaven, and the Scriptures (5:33-47). One
statement that has confused some Bible readers concerning Jesus’ defense
of His deity is found in John 5:31. Jesus began this part of His
discourse by saying, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not
true” (emp. added). According to many Bible critics, this declaration
blatantly contradicts the following statement He made on another
occasion when speaking to the Pharisees. He said: “Even if I bear
witness of Myself, My witness is true” (John 8:14, emp. added). How
could He say that His witness was both true, and not true, without
having lied?
Imagine for a moment an innocent man on trial for murder. He is judged
to be guilty by the jury, even after proclaiming his innocence. (Someone
had framed the defendant for the murder, and all the evidence the jury
heard pointed to the defendant as the offender.) When leaving the court
house, if the man who was wrongly convicted is asked by a reporter, “Are
you guilty?,” and he responds by saying, “If the court says I’m guilty,
I’m guilty,” has the man lied? Even though the statements, “I am
guilty,” and “I am not guilty,” are totally different, they may not be
contradictory, depending on the time and sense in which they are spoken.
After the trial, the wrongly accused defendant simply repeated the
jury’s verdict. He said, “I am guilty,” and meant, “The court has found
me guilty.”
When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not
true,” He was not confessing to being a liar. Rather, Jesus was reacting
to a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the
testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case (Robertson,
1997). “Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else”
(Morris, 1995, p. 287). The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not
rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits;
by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established”
(Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. Matthew 18:15-17). The Pharisees understood this
law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness
of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). In John 5:31, “Jesus
points to the impossibility of anyone’s being accepted on the basis of
his own word.... He is asserting that if of himself he were to bear
witness to himself, that would make it untrue” in a court of law
(Morris, p. 287). If Jesus had no evidence in a trial regarding His
deity other than His own testimony about Himself, His testimony would be
inconclusive and inadmissible. Jesus understood that His audience had a
right to expect more evidence than just His word. Similar to the above
illustration where an innocent man accepts the guilty verdict of the
jury as final, Jesus said, “My witness is not true,” and meant that, in
accordance with the law, His own testimony apart from other witnesses
would be considered invalid (or insufficient to establish truth).
But why is it that Jesus said to the Pharisees at a later time that His
“witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this
instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Even if
in a court of law two witnesses are required for a fact to be
established (a law Jesus enunciated in verse 17), that law does not take
away the fact that Jesus was telling the truth, just as it did not take
away the fact that the wrongly accused man mentioned previously was
telling the truth during his trial. Jesus declared His testimony to be
true for the simple reason that His testimony revealed the true facts
regarding Himself (Lenski, 1961b, p. 599). He then followed this
pronouncement of truth with the fact that there was another witness—the
Father in heaven Who sent Him to Earth (8:16-18). Thus, in actuality,
His testimony was true in two senses: (1) it was true because it was
indeed factual; and (2) it was valid because it was corroborated by a
second unimpeachable witness—the Father.
God the Father (John 8:18; 5:37-38), along with John the Baptizer (John
5:33), the miraculous signs of Jesus (5:36), the Scriptures (5:39), and
specifically the writings of Moses (5:46), all authenticated the true
statements Jesus made regarding His deity. Sadly, many of His listeners
rejected the evidence then, just as people reject it today.
WAS JESUS IGNORANT OF ELIJAH’S ASCENSION?
When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus regarding the need to be “born again”
(John 3:1-8), He also sought to impress upon the mind of this ruler of
the Jews that His words were from above. Jesus spoke of spiritual things
that no man knew (Matthew 13:35; cf. 7:28-29; Luke 2:47). One of the
reasons Jesus gave for being able to expound on such spiritual truths is
found in John 3:13. Here, the apostle John recorded that Jesus said to
Nicodemus, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from
heaven, that is, the Son of Man” (John 3:13). According to the skeptic,
this statement by Jesus is severely flawed. Since the Old Testament
reveals that Elijah escaped physical death and “went up by a whirlwind
into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11; cf. Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5), allegedly
Jesus could not truthfully tell Nicodemus, “No one has ascended to
heaven.” Is the skeptic right?
For Jesus’ statement to contradict what the Old Testament says about
Elijah, one first must presuppose that Jesus was referring to the exact
same place to which Elijah ascended. Can the skeptic be certain that the
“heaven” to which Jesus referred, is the same one into which the body
of Elijah ascended? The words “heaven” or “heavens” appear in our
English Bibles about 700 times. And yet, in many of the passages where
“heaven(s)” is found, the inspired writers were not discussing the
spiritual heaven with which we most often associate the word. For
example, in Genesis 1 and 2 the Hebrew word for heaven appears 15 times
in 14 verses. Yet in every instance, the word is referring to something
besides the spiritual heaven where God dwells. The word “heaven(s)”
(Hebrew
shamayim, Greek
ouranoi) is used by Bible
writers in three different ways. It is used to refer to the atmospheric
heavens in which the airplanes fly, the birds soar, and the clouds
gather (Genesis 1:20; Jeremiah 4:25; Matthew 6:26,
ASV).
“Heaven(s)” also is used in the Bible when referring to the firmament
where we find the Sun, Moon, and stars—the sidereal heavens, or outer
space (Genesis 1:14-15; Psalm 19:4,6; Isaiah 13:10). The third “heaven”
frequently mentioned in Scripture is the spiritual heaven in which
Jehovah dwells (Psalm 2:4; Hebrews 9:24), and where, one day, the
faithful will live forevermore (Revelation 21:18-23; John 14:1-3). The
context of John 3 clearly indicates that Jesus is referring to the
spiritual heavens wherein God dwells (cf. John 3:27). The passage in 2
Kings 2:11, however, is not as clear. The writer of 2 Kings easily could
have meant that the body of Elijah miraculously ascended up high into
the air, never to be seen by anyone on Earth again. Nowhere does the
text indicate that he left Earth at that moment to dwell in God’s
presence. He definitely went somewhere, but we have no evidence that he
was transferred to the actual throne room of God Almighty.
The Bible indicates that when God’s faithful servants leave this Earth,
their spirits are taken to dwell in a place referred to as paradise (or
“the bosom of Abraham”—Luke 16:19-31). Recall when Jesus was fastened
to the cross, and told the penitent thief, “Today, you will be with Me
in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The word paradise is of Persian derivation,
and means a “garden” or “park.” Where was it that Jesus and the thief
went? Neither of them went to heaven to be with God the Father on that
very day for, in John 20:17 after His resurrection, Jesus reassured Mary
that He had not yet ascended to the Father. So where did Jesus and the
thief go after dying on the cross? Peter gave the answer to that
question in his sermon in Acts 2 when he quoted Psalm 16. Acts 2:27
states that God would not abandon Christ’s soul in hades, nor allow
Christ to undergo decay. So while Christ’s body was placed in a tomb for
three days, Christ’s spirit went to hades. [
NOTE:
The word hades occurs ten times in the New Testament, and always refers
to the unseen realm of the dead—the receptacle of disembodied spirits
where all people who die await the Lord’s return and judgment. One part
of hades, where Jesus and the thief went, is known as paradise.] Peter
argued that David, who penned Psalm 16, was not referring to himself,
since David’s body was still in the tomb (Acts 2:29), and his spirit was
still in the hadean realm (Acts 2:34). Acts 2 indicates that a faithful
servant of God does not go directly to be with God the Father when he
dies; rather, he goes to a holding place in hades known as paradise—the
same place where Abraham went after he died (Luke 16:22ff.), and the
same place where the spirit of Elijah went after he was caught up from
the Earth. In short, the Bible does not teach that Elijah left Earth to
begin immediately dwelling in the presence of the Father (where Jesus
was before His incarnation—John 1:1). Thus, technically he did not
ascend to the “place” whence Jesus came.
For the sake of argument, consider for a moment that the skeptic is
right, and that Elijah’s spirit did not go to paradise, but was taken to
dwell in the very presence of God. Could Jesus still have made the
statement He did, and yet not be inaccurate? We believe so. Notice again
the response to Nicodemus’ question, “How can these things be?” Jesus
said: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how
will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to
heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man” (John
3:12-13, emp. added). It may be that Jesus meant nothing more than that
no one has ever gone up to heaven “by his own act” or “on his own terms”
(see Bullinger, 1898, pp. 281-282). Elijah and Enoch had been taken by
God, which is different than freely ascending up into heaven by one’s
own ability. Furthermore, Jesus’ words, “No one has ascended to heaven,”
also could have meant that no one has ever gone up into heaven to then
return and speak firsthand about what he saw, and to spread the same
saving message that Jesus preached. Jesus was emphasizing to Nicodemus
how no one on Earth at that time was revealing such spiritual truths as
Christ was, because no one ever had ascended to heaven only to return
and talk about what he had seen and learned. Such seems to have been the
main point Jesus was making in John 3:13. No one on Earth had seen what
Jesus had seen, and thus none could teach what He taught.
Truly, the skeptic’s accusation that Jesus either lied or was mistaken
regarding His comment to Nicodemus about no one having ascended to
heaven is unsubstantiated. Perhaps the word heaven used in 2 Kings 2:11
was not meant to convey the idea of the spiritual heavens in which God
dwells. Or, considering the Bible’s teaching on departed spirits of the
righteous being in a holding place known as paradise, and not in the
actual presence of Almighty God, Jesus could have meant that no person
has ever ascended to the throne room of God from which He came.
Furthermore, it also is interesting to note that Nicodemus, being “a man
of the Pharisees” (John 3:1), and thus one who would have been very
well acquainted with the details of the Old Testament, did not respond
to Jesus by saying, “Wait a minute, Rabbi. What about Elijah and Enoch?
Isn’t it written in the law and prophets that they ascended to heaven?”
Surely, had Jesus contradicted something in the law and the prophets, it
would have been brought to His attention, especially by a Pharisee.
Yet, the apostle John never recorded such a statement.
Admittedly, at first glance, it might appear as if the statements,
“Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11) and “No man
has ascended to heaven” (John 3:13), are incongruous. However, when a
person considers all of the possible solutions to the allegation that
Jesus was ignorant of Elijah and Enoch’s ascensions, he must admit that
such a conclusion is unjustified.
WAS JESUS A HYPOCRITE?
A man who instructs a person to refrain from doing something he deems
inappropriate, but then proceeds to do the very thing he forbade the
other person to do, is considered a hypocrite. A preacher who teaches
about the sinfulness of drunkenness (cf. Galatians 5:21), but then is
seen a short while later stumbling down the street, intoxicated with
alcohol, could be accused of being guilty of hypocrisy. Some have
accused Jesus of such insincere teaching. Allegedly, in the very sermon
in which He condemned the Pharisees for their unrighteousness (Matthew
5:20), Jesus revealed His own sinfulness by way of condemning those who
used a word He sometimes uttered. Based upon His forbiddance of the use
of the word “fool” in Matthew 5:22, and His use of this word elsewhere,
skeptics have asserted that Jesus (Who the Bible claims “committed no
sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”—1 Peter 2:22; cf. 2 Corinthians
5:21) was guilty of hypocrisy (see Morgan, 1996; Wells, 2001). In
Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus stated:
You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not
murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” But I
say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall
be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!”
shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall
be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:21-22, emp. added).
Whereas in this passage Jesus warned against the use of the word
“fool,” in other passages Jesus openly used this term to describe
various people. Near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus likened
the person who heard His teachings, but did not follow them, to “a
foolish man who built his house on the sand” (Matthew 7:26, emp. added).
When teaching about the need to be prepared for His second coming,
Jesus compared those who were not ready for His return to five foolish
virgins (Matthew 25:1-12). Then, while Jesus was condemning the
Pharisees for their inconsistency in matters of religion, He stated:
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is
nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to
perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the
temple that sanctifies the gold?” (Matthew 23:16-17; cf. 23:18-19, emp.
added). The question that some ask in response to these alleged
hypocritical statements is, “How could Jesus condemn the use of the word
‘fool’ in Matthew 5:22, but then proceed to use this word Himself on
other occasions?”
First, for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22 to contradict His actions
recorded in other passages, the skeptic must prove that the term “fool,”
as used in 5:22, is the same word used elsewhere. The Greek word
“Raca,” used earlier in Matthew 5:22, is a transliteration of the
Aramaic term whose precise meaning is disputed. [Most likely, it means
“an empty one who acts as a numskull” (Lenski, 1961a, p. 219; cf. also
Robertson, 1930, 1:44).] The exact meaning of the term “fool” (Greek
more) in this context also is debated. “Most scholars take it, as the
ancient Syrian versions did, to mean you fool” (Bauer, et al., 1957, p.
533, emp. in orig.). Although some assume that more is the vocative of
the Greek moros, in all likelihood,
just as “Raca” is a non-Greek word, so is the word more that
Jesus used here. If so, then it is a word which to a Jewish ear meant
“rebel (against God)” or “apostate”; it was the word which Moses in
exasperation used to the disaffected Israelites in the wilderness of
Zin... (Numbers 20:10). For these rash words, uttered under intense
provocation, Moses was excluded from the Promised Land (Kaiser, et al.,
1996, p. 359).
Thus, it is quite possible that
more (translated “[Y]ou fool” in Matthew 5:22) is not the normal Greek
moros (fool) that Jesus applied to the Pharisees on other occasions (Matthew 23:17,19), but represents the Hebrew
moreh
(cf. Numbers 20:10). [For this reason, translators of the American
Standard Version added a marginal note to this word in Matthew 5:22:
“Or,
Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation.”] Obviously,
if two different words are under consideration, Jesus logically could
not be considered a hypocrite.
Second, it must be remembered that Jesus’ comments in Matthew 5:22 were
made within a context where He was condemning unrighteous anger
(5:21-26). Whereas the Pharisees condemned murder, but overlooked the
evil emotions and attitudes that sometimes led to the shedding of
innocent blood, Jesus condemned both the actions and the thoughts.
Instead of dealing with only “peripheral” problems, Jesus went to the
heart of the matter. As someone Who “knew what was in man” (John 2:25),
Jesus was more than qualified to pronounce judgment upon the
hypocritical Pharisees (cf. John 12:48). Like the unrighteousness that
characterized the Pharisees’ charitable deeds (Matthew 6:1-4), prayers
(6:5-15), fasting (6:16-18), and judgments (7:1-5), Jesus also condemned
their unrighteous anger. [
NOTE: Jesus did not
condemn all anger (cf. Ephesians 4:26; John 2:13-17), only unrighteous
anger.] It was in this context that Jesus warned against the use of the
word “fool.” Jesus was not prohibiting a person from calling people
“fools” if it was done in an appropriate manner (cf. Psalm 14:1), but He
was forbidding it when done in the spirit of malicious contempt. He
“warned against using the word fool as a form of abuse” that indicated
“hatred in one’s heart toward others” (“Fool,” 1986; cf. Matthew
5:43-48). As in many other situations, it seems that the attitude,
rather than actual words, is the focus of the prohibition.
While this verse, when taken in its context, is seen to be consistent
with Jesus’ words and actions recorded elsewhere in the gospel accounts,
His prohibition regarding the manner of a word’s usage should not be
overlooked in the apologist’s effort to defend the deity of Christ (or
any other Bible doctrine). We may call an atheist a “fool” for not
acknowledging God’s existence (Psalm 14:1), but to do so in a hateful,
malicious manner is sinful. Remember, the Christian is called to “give a
defense to everyone” in a spirit of “meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).
CONCLUSION
Although critics of Christ were numerous during the time in which He
lived and shortly thereafter, many peoples and nations since that time
have either considered Him, at worst, a “sublime person” (cf. Renan,
n.d.) and great moral teacher, or, at best, the Son of God. But times
have changed. Unfortunately, the world in which we live (even nations
founded upon Christian principles, i.e., the United States of America)
is becoming less and less tolerant of the personality and teachings of
Christ.
With increasing frequency, Jesus’ enemies are casting caustic
criticisms at our Lord and His church. Books, journals, Web sites,
movies, etc. are being produced at record speed that attempt to
undermine the very foundation of Christianity—the fact that Jesus is
“the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). With this in
mind, Christians must prepare themselves for the defense of Christ’s
historicity, deity, and spiritual purity. Nothing is more essential to
the Christian’s faith than Christ. What then could be more important for
Christians to do than to defend Who He really was—the Son of God?
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (1992),
Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (1993), “Why Jesus?,” Freedom From Religion Foundation, [On-line],
URL: http://ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php.
Bauer, Walter, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich (1957),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898),
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butt, Kyle (2000), “
The Historical Christ—Fact or Fiction?,”
Reason & Revelation, 20[1]:1-6, January.
Clarke, Adam (1996),
Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Coffman, Burton (1984),
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX:
ACU Press).
Dummelow, J.R. (1937),
One Volume Commentary (New York,NY: MacMillan).
“Fool,” (1986),
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Jackson, Wayne (1998), “
The Historicity of Jesus Christ,”
Reason & Revelation, 18[1]:6-7, January.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch (1996),
Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961a),
The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961b),
The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.),
The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875),
Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “Jesus, Imperfect Beacon,”
Biblical Errancy [On-line],
URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11.html#issref113.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “Problems with the Credentials and Character of Jesus,”
Biblical Errancy [On-line],
URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1985), “Commentary,”
Biblical Errancy, January.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995),
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000),
Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morgan, Donald (1996), “Jesus Was a Hypocrite,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.buffaloatheists.com/articles/group1/jesus%20was%20a%20hipocrite.htm.
Morris, Leon (1995),
The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Renan, Ernest (no date),
The Life of Jesus, [On-line],
URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/ernest_renan/life_of_jesus.html.
Robertson, A.T. (1930),
Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Robertson, A.T. (1932),
Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Robertson, A.T. (1997),
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schnook, Charlotte (no date), “The Bible is Fit for Worship?” [On-line],
URL: http://www.evilbible.com/is_bible_fit_for_worship.htm.
Vincent, Marvin R. (1997),
Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Wells, Steve (2001),
Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line],
URL:http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.
Zerr, E.M. (1952),
Bible Commentary (Raytown, MO: Reprint Publications).
