http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=609
Jesus Christ--Unique Savior or Average Fraud? [Part II]
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the
February issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
JESUS—UNIQUE SAVIOR OF MANKIND
One important fact that cannot be ignored is that Jesus is the only
historical figure
Who fulfills the criteria necessary to justify, sanctify, and redeem
mankind. No human’s creative mind concocted the narrative of Jesus of
Nazareth. Human eyes saw Him, and human ears heard Him. He walked and
talked—lived and loved—on the streets of real cities and in the houses
of real people. His life is the only life of any “savior-god” that can
be (and has been) thoroughly documented. As Stephen Franklin remarked:
“[T]he specific character of Biblical religion and, thus, of
Christianity stems from the priority given to the historical-factual
dimension of the Bible’s basic teachings and doctrines” (1993,
17[1]:40).
Therefore, the story of Jesus Christ does not occupy a place amidst the
pages of Greek mythology or ancient religious legend. But oh, how the
skeptics wish that it did! As Freke and Gandy observed in
The Jesus Mysteries:
Early Literalist Christians mistakenly believed that the Jesus story
was different from other stories of Osiris-Dionysus because Jesus alone
had been a historical rather than a mythical figure. This has
left Christians feeling that their faith is in opposition to all others,
which it is not (1999, p. 13, emp. added).
Indeed, skeptics would delight in being able to place the story of
Jesus on the same playing field as the stories of other legendary
savior-gods, because then the parallel stories easily could be relegated
to myth, due to the fact that the stories cannot be verified
historically. Trench wrote of such skeptics:
Proving, as it is not hard to prove, those parallels to be groundless
and mythical, to rest on no true historic basis, they hope that the
great facts of the Christian’s belief will be concluded to be as weak,
will be involved in a common discredit (n.d., p. 135).
If infidels were able to create a straw man that could not stand up to
the test of historical verifiability (like, for example, pagan legends
and myths), and if they could place the story of Jesus in the same
category as their tenuous straw man, then both supposedly would fall
together. However, the story of Jesus of Nazareth refuses to fall. The
stories of other savior-gods are admitted to be—even by those who
invented them—nothing but fables (e.g., the Greeks realized that their
fictitious stories were merely untrue legends that were totally
unverifiable; see McCabe, 1993, p. 59). But the story of Jesus demands
its rightful place in the annals of human history. Osiris, Krishna,
Hercules, Dionysus, and the other mythological savior-gods stumble back
into the shadows of fiction when compared to the documented life of
Jesus of Nazareth. If the skeptic wishes to challenge the uniqueness of
Jesus by comparing Him with other alleged savior-gods, he first must
produce evidence that one of these savior-gods truly walked on the
Earth, commingled with humanity, and impacted people’s lives via both a
sinless existence and incomparable teachings. Humanity always has
desired a real-life savior-god; but can any of the alleged savior-gods
that have been invented boast of a historical existence any more
thoroughly documented than that of Christ?
In addition, Jesus has a monopoly on being perfectly flawless. He lived
life by the same moral rules that govern all humans, yet He never once
made a mistake. The writer of Hebrews recorded: “For we have not a high
priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but
one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin” (4:15; cf. also 1 Peter 2:21-22). Renowned religious historian
Philip Schaff wrote:
In vain do we look through the entire biography of Jesus for a single
stain or the slightest shadow of his moral character. There never lived a
more harmless being on earth. He injured nobody, he took advantage of
nobody. He never wrote an improper word. He never committed a wrong
action (1913, pp. 32-33).
Bernard Ramm commented in a similar vein when he stated of Christ:
There He stands, sinless. Whatever men may claim for being
great, this is one thing they cannot. They may be brilliant or strong,
fast or clever, creative or inspired, but not sinless. Sinless
perfection and perfect sinlessness is what we would expect of God
incarnate. The hypothesis and the facts concur (1953, p. 169, emp. in
orig.).
Examine the stories of other savior-gods. See if they subjected
themselves to the same rules as humans. See if they learned human nature
and suffered unjustly, all the while never sinning with either their
lips or their hearts. Try to find a savior like Christ who lived 30+
years on the Earth and yet never committed one shameful act. Norman
Geisler summarized the situation as follows: “All men are sinners; God
knows it and so do we. If a man lives an impeccable life and offers as
the truth about himself that he is God incarnate we must take his claim
seriously” (1976, p. 344). Jesus did “offer as the truth about himself
that he is God incarnate.” As John Stott noted:
The most striking feature of the teaching of Jesus is that He was
constantly talking about Himself.... This self-centeredness of the
teaching of Jesus immediately sets Him apart from the other great
religious teachers of the world. They were self-effacing. He was
self-advancing. They pointed men away from themselves, saying, “That is
the truth, so far as I perceive it; follow that.” Jesus said, “I am the
truth; follow me.” The founders of the ethnic religions never dared say
such a thing (1971, p. 23).
There is another important point to be considered, however. Who better
to deny the fact that Jesus was perfect than those who spent the most
time with Him? There is a grain of truth to the adage that “familiarity
often breeds contempt.” Surely His closest friends would have observed
some small demerit. Yet when we read the comments of His closest
followers, we find that even they lauded Him as the only sinless man.
The apostle Peter, who was rebuked publicly by Jesus, nevertheless
called Him “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). One
chapter later in the same epistle, Peter said that Jesus “did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth” (2:22). Indeed, Christ even went
so far as to invite anyone who dared, to convict Him of sin when He
said: “Which of you convicteth me of sin” (John 8:46). No one alive in
His day could convict the Lord of sin; neither can anyone today.
However, when one begins to examine the lives of the other alleged
savior-gods, it soon becomes evident that these “heroes” committed
fornication with humans, allowed their sinful tempers to flare, and
raged with overt jealousy. Every supposed savior of mankind besides
Jesus had an Achilles heal. If any such “savior” existed (other than
Jesus) who did not have a vice or a sin, his life certainly cannot be
documented historically. And if any savior-god besides Jesus could be
documented historically, his life easily could be proven to be laden
with sin.
Christ Was Unique in His Teachings
Not only have the specific details of Christ’s life come under
allegations of plagiarism, but His teachings also have undergone intense
scrutiny. Some have complained, for example, that Jesus’ teachings were
little more than warmed over Old Testament concepts. In the feature
article he authored on Christ for the March 29, 1999 issue of
Newsweek
(the cover of which was titled “2000 Years of Jesus”), Kenneth Woodward
suggested: “As scholars have long realized, there was little in the
teachings of Jesus that cannot be found in the Hebrew Scriptures he
expounded” (135[13]:54). The non-Christian Jew and the skeptic
frequently view Jesus as an ancient teacher Who borrowed much of His
material from the Hebrew text that had been in existence hundreds of
years before He entered the global picture, since many of His sayings
can be traced back centuries to the Jewish psalmist David, the prophet
Isaiah, and a host of other ancient Hebrew writers. Others have
complained that Christ’s teachings had their origin in ancient pagan
lore. Freke and Gandy suggested:
...[W]e discovered that even Jesus’ teachings were not original, but
had been anticipated by the Pagan sages.... Pagan critics of
Christianity, such as the satirist Celsus, complained that this recent
religion was nothing more than a pale reflection of their own ancient
teachings (1999, pp. 6,5).
Thus, if it is to be argued successfully that Jesus truly is unique in
His teachings, the incontrovertible fact that He used a considerable
amount of ancient Hebrew literature must be explained, and certain
important dissimilarities must be made manifest (between either Old
Testament material or that from previous pagan sources). Otherwise, we
have merely another Jewish rabbi who knew both heathen sources and the
Scriptures well—just as a host of other Jewish rabbis did.
In order to explain why Jesus employed so much Hebrew literature, we
must understand His relationship with that literature. A statement from
Peter’s first epistle is quite helpful in this regard:
Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently,
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what
time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto (1 Peter 1:10-11, emp. added).
Peter’s point of emphasis was that Christ was not just an interested
reader of ancient Hebrew scripture; rather, He was its
Author.
He wrote the Jewish Old Testament through His Spirit that worked
through the prophets. When He quoted Isaiah or Jeremiah, He neither
copied their material nor plagiarized their truths. Quite the contrary,
in fact. He simply quoted the texts that He personally had inspired and
published through the ancient holy men. As the famous “church father”
Tertullian wrote in his
Apology, “There is nothing so old as the
truth” (chapter 47). To suggest that Christ’s teachings were not unique
because He quoted passages from the Old Testament would be like saying
that the author of a particular book could not quote from that book in
later lectures or publications, lest he be charged with plagiarism of
his own material.
There are those, of course, who will discount the above argument by
claiming that the New Testament has no authority to answer such
questions. Thus, they will continue to claim that Jesus “borrowed” His
ideas from the pages of Israel’s texts. If they wish to defend such a
viewpoint, then let them find in the Old Testament any description of
eternal punishment comparable to the one Jesus provided in Mark 9:42.
Where in the Old Testament Scriptures do we find that it is more
difficult for a rich person to enter heaven than for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle? Where in the Old Testament is the idea of
loving one’s neighbor developed to the extent that Christ described in
the parable of the Good Samaritan? Jesus of Nazareth did not merely
regurgitate Old Testament passages, adding jots and tittles as He went
along. Instead, He came to fulfill the Old Law, and to instigate a New
Law with distinctive concepts and commands—a point the writer of Hebrews
made quite clear when he stated: “In that he saith, ‘a new covenant,’
he hath made the first old. But that which waxeth aged is nigh unto
vanishing away” (8:13).
Even though it can be proven that Jesus did not plagiarize the Old
Testament, the battle for the uniqueness of His teachings does not end
there. Traces of concepts that predate Christ’s earthly existence also
can be found in His teachings. Earlier, we quoted from Augustine, who
noted that Plato’s followers claimed Christ had copied their
philosophical hero (except, they opined, that Christ was not nearly as
eloquent). Further, rabbi Hillel, who lived approximately fifty years
before Jesus, taught: “What thou wouldest not have done to thee, do not
that to others” (see Bales, n.d., p. 7). Confucius (and a host of other
ancient writers) taught things that Jesus also taught. From China to
Egypt, a steady stream of pagans uttered things that Christ, centuries
later, likewise would say. How, then, can the teachings of Christ be
considered unique if they had been surfacing in different cultures and
civilizations for hundreds of years before His visit to Earth? Perhaps
this would be a good place to ask: What is the alternative? As Bales
noted:
If Christ had been completely original, He would have had to
omit every truth which had been revealed in the Old Testament, or which
had been discerned by the reason of man. If He had done this, His
teaching would have been inadequate, for it would have omitted many
moral and spiritual truths (n.d., p. 21, emp. added).
Jesus came not to reiterate ancient truths, but rather to synthesize
those truths into a complete unit. He embodied every spiritual truth the
world had ever seen or ever would see. As Bales commented: “Christ
embodies all the moral good which is found in other religions, and He
omits their errors” (p. 7). In his letter to the Christians in Colossae,
Paul described Christ as the one “in whom are
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
hidden” (2:3, emp. added). Christ’s teachings are like gold; tiny
amounts can be found in almost every area of the world—from ocean water
to the human body. However, in order for that gold to be usable, it must
be collected into a mass large enough to refine. Christ is the
“refining pot” of all knowledge and wisdom, wherein the dross of error
is purged from the precious metal of divine truth. While tiny specks of
His teachings emerge from practically every religion, they can be
refined only when collected as a whole in the essence of Jesus the
Nazarene. Stephen Franklin put it like this:
By providing echoes of Christian themes in every culture and in every religion, he [God—KB/BT]
has given the entire human race some “handle” that allows them at least
a preliminary understanding of the gospel when it is preached (1993, p.
51).
Furthermore, consider both the power and the authority evident in
Christ’s teachings. Even His enemies were unable to refute what He
taught. When the Jewish Sanhedrin decided to take action against Him and
dispatched its security force to seize Him, those officers returned
empty handed and admitted: “No man
ever spoke like this Man!” (John 7:46, NKJV,
emp. added). When He was only twelve years old and His parents
accidentally left Him behind in Jerusalem, they returned to find Him in a
discussion of religious matters with the learned scribes, “and all that
heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke
2:47).
The Jews had long yearned for a Messiah (“Christ”) Who would save and
deliver them. The Samaritan woman Christ met at the well spoke of this
very fact, to which He replied: “I that speak unto thee am he” (John
4:26). When Jesus was on trial before the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas the high
priest asked: “Are you the Christ?” His reply was firm: “It is as you
said” (Matthew 26:63-64). He spoke with authority regarding the
pre-human
past, because He was there (John 1:1ff.). In the
present,
“there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things
are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do”
(Hebrews 4:13). And He knows the
future, as is evident from even
a cursory reading of His prophecies about the building of His church
(Matthew 16:18), the sending of the Holy Spirit to the apostles (John
14:26), and His many descriptions of His ultimate return and the Day of
Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46, et al.). All of this, and more, explains why
Paul referred to Him as “King of King, and Lord of Lords” (1 Timothy
6:15). No one ever possessed, or spoke with, the kind of authority with
which Christ was endowed, which is why He taught: “All authority hath
been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Fraudulent
saviors never claimed such, nor had their own enemies confirm such.
Perhaps this is one reason why, in the feature article from
Time magazine’s December 6, 1999 cover story (“Jesus at 2000”), author Reynolds Price wrote:
It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the
single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millennia but in all
human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.... [A] serious argument can
be made that no one else’s life has proved remotely as powerful and
enduring as that of Jesus. It’s an astonishing conclusion in light of
the fact that Jesus was a man who lived a short life in a rural
backwater of the Roman Empire [and] who died in agony as a convicted
criminal... (154[23]:86).
Mythical saviors never had such an assessment made of their lives.
Christ Was Unique in His Fulfillment of Prophecy
Surely, one of the most undeniable traits of Christ’s uniqueness was His fulfillment of prophecy. In his book,
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict,
Josh McDowell discussed the fact that “the Old Testament contains over
three hundred references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus”
(1999, p. 168). Hugo McCord observed: “Testimony about Jesus was the
chief purpose of prophecy. To him all the prophets gave witness (Acts
10:43)” [1979, p. 332]. Every prophecy in the Old Testament had to have
been written at least 250 years before Christ appeared on the earthly
scene. Why?
[The] Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures—was initiated in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.). It is sure that if you have a Greek translation initiated in 250 B.C., then you had to have the Hebrew text from which it was written (McDowell, p. 168).
Indeed, the Old Testament—which had been written hundreds of years
before Christ actually lived—foretold the minutest details of His life.
The Prophesied One would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15; Galatians
4:4) who was a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22), from the family of
Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Luke 3:34), of the tribe of Judah (Genesis
49:10; Hebrews 7:14), of the royal line of David (2 Samuel 7:12; Luke
1:32), in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), in order to bruise the head of Satan
(Genesis 3:15; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 2:12).
The prophets had foretold His Galilean ministry (Isaiah 9:1-2), as well
as the fact that a precursor would proclaim His arrival (Isaiah 40:3;
Matthew 3:1-3). He would appear during the time of the Roman Empire
(Daniel 2:44; Luke 2:1), while Judah still possessed her own king
(Genesis 49:10; Matthew 2:22). He would be murdered about 490 years
after the command to restore Jerusalem at the end of the Babylonian
captivity (457 B.C.), i.e., A.D.
30 (Daniel 9:24ff.). He was to be both human and divine; though born,
He was eternal (Micah 5:2; John 1:1,14); though a man, He was Jehovah’s
“fellow” (Zechariah 13:7; John 10:30; Philippians 2:6). He was to be
kind and sympathetic in His dealings with mankind (Isaiah 42:1-4;
Matthew 12:15-21).
He would submit willingly to His heavenly Father (Psalm 40:8; Isaiah
53:11; John 8:29; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). He would be
abandoned and know grief (Isaiah 53:3), and be betrayed by a friend
(Psalm 41:9) for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12). He was so
betrayed (John 13:18; Matthew 26:15). He would be spit upon and beaten
(Isaiah 50:6; 53:5), and in death both His hands and His feet would be
pierced (Psalm 22:16). This is precisely what occurred (Matthew 27:30;
Luke 24:39). The Scriptures foretold that He would be numbered among
criminals (Isaiah 53:12), which He was (Matthew 27:38). He would be
mocked, not only with scornful words (Psalm 22:7-8), but with bitter
wine (Psalm 69:21). And so He was (Matthew 27:48). Although He would die
and be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57), His
bones would not be broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33) and His flesh would
not see corruption, because He was to be raised from the dead (Psalm
16:10; Acts 2:22ff.) and then ascend into heaven (Psalm 110:1-3; 45:6;
Acts 1:9-10).
The previous paragraphs present an overview of just a fraction of the
numerous predictions fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Time and again biblical
prophecies are presented, and fulfilled, with exacting detail. Jeremiah
wrote: “When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the
prophet be known, that Jehovah hath truly sent him” (28:9). Thomas Horne
was correct when he said:
The book which contains these predictions is stamped with the seal of
heaven: a rich vein of evidence runs through the volume of the Old
Testament; the Bible is true; infidelity is confounded forever; and we
may address its patrons in the language of Saint Paul, “Behold, ye
despisers, and wonder and perish!” (1970, 1:291).
On Tuesday, prior to Christ’s crucifixion the following Friday, Jesus
engaged in a discussion with the Pharisees, who made no secret of their
hatred for Him. When Matthew recorded the scene in his Gospel, he first
commented on an earlier skirmish the Lord had with the Sadducees: “But
the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence,
gathered themselves together” (22:34). Jesus—with penetrating logic and
an incomparable knowledge of Old Testament Scripture—had routed the
Sadducees completely. No doubt the Pharisees thought they could do
better. Yet they were about to endure the same embarrassing treatment.
In the midst of His discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus asked: “What
think ye of the Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42). They were
unable to answer the questions satisfactorily because their hypocrisy
prevented them from comprehending both Jesus’ nature and His mission.
The questions the Lord asked on that day, however, are ones that every
rational, sane person must answer eventually.
Both questions were intended to
raise the matter of Christ’s
deity. The answers—had the Pharisees’ spiritual myopia not prevented
them from responding correctly—were intended to
confirm it.
Today, these questions still raise the issue of Christ’s identity. Who
is Jesus? Is He, as He claimed to be, the Son of God? Was He, as many
who knew Him claimed, God incarnate? Is He, as the word “deity” implies,
of divine nature and rank?
The series of events that would lead to Jesus’ becoming the world’s
best-known historical figure began in first-century Palestine. There are
four primary indicators of this fact. First, when Daniel was asked by
king Nebuchadnezzar to interpret his wildly imaginative dream, the
prophet revealed that God would establish the Messianic kingdom during
the time of the Roman Empire (viz., the fourth kingdom represented in
the king’s dream; see Daniel 2:24-45). Roman domination of Palestine
began in 63 B.C., and continued until A.D. 476.
Second, the Messiah was to appear before “the scepter” departed from
Judah (Genesis 49:10). Bible students recognize that this prophecy has
reference to the Messiah (“Shiloh” of Old Testament fame) arriving
before the Jews lost their national sovereignty and judicial power (the
“scepter” of Genesis 49). Thus, Christ had to have come prior to the
Jews’ losing their power to execute capital punishment (John 18:31).
When Rome deposed Archelaus in A.D. 6, Coponius
was installed as Judea’s first procurator. Interestingly,
“the...procurator held the power of jurisdiction with regard to capital
punishment” (Solomon, 1972, 13:117). Hence, Christ was predicted to come
sometime prior to A.D. 6 (see also McDowell, 1999, pp. 195-202).
Third, Daniel predicted that the Messiah would bring an end to “sacrifice and offering” before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70; cf. Daniel 9:24-27 and Matthew 24:15). When the Lord died, the Mosaical Law was “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).
Fourth, the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea (Micah 5:2).
It is a matter of record that Jesus was born in Bethlehem while
Palestine was under Roman rule, before Judah lost her judicial power,
and before the destruction of Jerusalem (see also Matthew 2:3-6; Luke
2:2-6).
The Old and New Testaments paint a portrait of Christ that offers
valuable evidence for the person desiring to answer the questions, “What
think ye of the Christ?,” and “Whose son is he?” In Isaiah 7:14, for
example, the prophet declared that a virgin would conceive, bear a son,
and name him “Immanuel,” which means “God with us” (a prophecy that was
fulfilled in the birth of Christ; Matthew 1:22-23). Later, Isaiah
referred to this son as “Mighty God” (9:6). In fact, in the year that
king Uzziah died, Isaiah said he saw “the Lord” sitting upon a throne
(see Isaiah 6:1ff.). Overpowered by the scene, God’s servant exclaimed:
“Woe is me,...for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts” (6:5).
In the New Testament, John wrote: “These things said Isaiah, because he
saw His [Christ’s] glory; and he spake of him” (John 12:41).
Isaiah urged God’s people to sanctify “Jehovah of hosts” (8:12-14), a
command later applied to Jesus by Peter (1 Peter 3:14-15). Furthermore,
Isaiah’s “Jehovah” was to become a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offense (8:14), a description that New Testament writers applied to
Christ (cf. Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:8). Isaiah foretold that John the
Baptizer would prepare the way for the coming of
Jehovah (40:3). It is well known that John was the forerunner of
Christ
(cf. Matthew 3:3, John 1:23). Isaiah pictured Christ not only as a
silent “lamb” (53:7), but as a man Who “a bruised reed will he not
break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench” (42:3; cf. Matthew
12:20). Various biblical scholars have suggested that this imagery was
intended to portray a leader Who,
wherever he finds men wounded and bruised by the harshness of life’s
experience, or wherever he finds wounded and bruised consciences,
whether among the Gentiles or in Israel, there he is most tender and
delicate in the gentle handling of these souls (Leupold, 1971, 2:62; see
also Oswalt, 1998, p. 111-112; McGarvey, 1875, p. 106).
Other Old Testament writers illuminated Christ in their writings as
well. The psalmist suggested He would be known as zealous for
righteousness (Psalm 69:9), that He would be hated without cause (Psalm
22), and that He would triumph over death (Psalm 16:8-11). Daniel
referred to His coming kingdom as one that would “stand forever” (2:44).
The prophets’ portrait of Christ was intended not only to foreshadow
His coming, but to make Him all the more visible to people in New
Testament times as well (see Bromling, 1991).
The prophets had said that He would be raised from the dead so that He
could sit upon the throne of David (Isaiah 9:7). This occurred, as Peter
attested in his sermon on Pentecost following the resurrection (Acts
2:30). He would rule, not Judah, but the most powerful kingdom ever
known. As King, Christ was to rule (from heaven) the kingdom that “shall
never be destroyed” and “shall break in pieces and consume all these
[earthly] kingdoms, and...shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). The New
Testament establishes the legitimacy of His kingdom (Colossians 1:13; 1
Corinthians 15:24-25). The subjects of this royal realm were to be from
every nation on Earth (Isaiah 2:2), and were prophesied to enjoy a life
of peace and harmony that ignores any and all human distinctions,
prejudices, or biases (cf. Isaiah 2:4 and Galatians 3:28). This King
would be arrayed, not in the regal purple of a carnal king, but in the
reverential garments of a holy priest (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6). Like
Melchizedek, the Messiah was to be both Priest and King (Genesis 14:18),
guaranteeing that His subjects could approach God without the
interference of a clergy class. Instead, as the New Testament affirms,
Christians offer their petitions directly to God through their King—Who
mediates on their behalf (cf. Matthew 6:9; John 14:13-14; 1 Timothy 2:5;
Hebrews 10:12,19-22). It would be impossible for the New Testament
writers to provide any clearer answers than they did to the questions
that Christ asked the Pharisees. Furthermore, no similar “savior” from
mythology ever had his entire life prophesied, or personally fulfilled
predictive prophecy (in whole or in part), like Jesus.
WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT?
In his fascinating book,
What If Christ Had Never Been Born?, D.
James Kennedy discussed at length both the uniqueness of Jesus Christ
and His singular impact on the Earth’s inhabitants. In assessing that
impact, Dr. Kennedy wrote:
...Jesus Christ has had an enormous impact—more than anybody else—on
history. Had He never come, the hole would be a canyon about the size of
a continent. Christ’s influence on the world is immeasurable....
Whatever Jesus touched or whatever He did transformed that aspect of
human life. Many people will read about the innumerable small incidents
in the life of Christ while never dreaming that those casually mentioned
“little” things were to transform the history of mankind (1994, p. 4).
Philip Schaff discussed Christ’s influence when he wrote in his book,
The Person of Christ: The Miracle of History:
This Jesus of Nazareth, without money or arms, conquered more millions
than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and
learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all
philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, He
spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and
produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without
writing a single line, He set more pens in motion, and furnished themes
for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art,
and songs of praise, than the whole army of great men of ancient and
modern times (1913, p. 33).
It has been said that Christ changed the course of the River of History
and lifted the centuries off their hinges—a stirring verbal tribute
that is quite apropos, considering the evidence. When unbelievers write
books to challenge His deity, even they (albeit inadvertently)
acknowledge not only His existence, but His uniqueness, when they place
the copyright date in the frontispiece of their tomes, admitting that
the volume was published in, say, A.D. 2001. That “A.D.” stands for
Anno Domini—in
the year of the Lord. No one dates time from Osiris, Dionysus, Hillel,
or Confucius. But the entire inhabited world recognizes the designations
of “B.C.” (before Christ) and “A.D.”
In
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell listed
seven things that people could (and should!) expect from the Savior of
the world: (1) an utterly unique entrance into human history (prophecy
and virgin birth); (2) the ability to live a sinless life—none of the
Jewish heroes was presented as perfect, nor were the mythological heroes
presented as viceless; (3) control over all the forces of nature—“Who
then is this that even the wind and the sea obey him” (Mark 4:41); (4)
the capability to speak the greatest words ever uttered by human lips;
(5) a lasting and universal influence on humanity; (6) the power to
satisfy the spiritual hunger of mankind (see Matthew 5:6, John 7:37,
4:14, 6:35, 10:10); and (7) the ability to defeat both death and sin.
The simple fact is, Jehovah left no stone unturned in preparing the
world for the coming of the One Who would save mankind. Through a
variety of avenues, He alerted the inhabitants of planet Earth regarding
the singular nature of the One Who was yet to come, as well as the
importance of believing in and obeying Him. Humanity’s sins can be
forgiven only by a sinless Savior. A mythological sacrifice can forgive
only mythological sins, but Jesus truly is the Lamb of God “that taketh
away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). As Norman Geisler put it:
It is one thing to claim deity and quite another to have the
credentials to support that claim. Christ did both. He offered three
unique and miraculous facts as evidence of his claim: the fulfillment of
prophecy, a uniquely miraculous life, and the resurrection from the
dead. All of these are historically provable and unique to Jesus of
Nazareth. We argue, therefore, that Jesus alone claims to be and proves
to be God (1976, p. 339).
CONCLUSION
Who, then, is Jesus Christ? Is He a unique Savior, or an average fraud?
The choices actually are quite limited—a fact reiterated by Josh
McDowell when he titled one of the chapters in his
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
“Significance of Deity: The Trilemma—Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?” His
purpose was to point out that, considering the grandiose nature of
Christ’s claims, He had to be one of the three. As McDowell began his
discussion, he presented for the reader’s consideration a quotation from
the famous British apologist of Cambridge University, C.S. Lewis, who
wrote:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing
we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things
Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a
lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he
would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man
was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You
can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon;
or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not
come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human
teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to (1952,
pp. 40-41).
Lewis’ point needs to be explored. Consider, for example, the cover story of the March 27, 2000 issue of
Newsweek,
“Visions of Jesus.” In that issue, staff writer Kenneth Woodward penned
the feature article, “The Other Jesus,” in which he defended the idea
that the Jesus of the Gospels may not be the “real” Jesus. In fact,
Woodward said, “the lack of extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of
Jesus has led more than one critic to conclude that he is a Christian
fiction created by the early church” (2000, 135[13]:53). But, Woodward
admitted, “the Christ of the Gospels is certainly the best-known Jesus
in the world. For Christians, he is utterly unique—the only Son of God”
(p. 52).
One month later, in its April 17, 2000 issue,
Newsweek’s editors
ran in the “Letters” section a sampling of responses from readers. One
letter was from a young lady by the name of Jennifer Rawlings of
Gaithersburg, Maryland, who wrote:
I am a 17-year-old student, and I was disappointed by your cover story “Visions of Jesus.” It seems that Newsweek
attempted to find a middle ground in presenting a view of Jesus as a
character who could appeal to all people. But that is impossible. Either
Jesus was in fact the son of God, as he claimed, or he was a lunatic.
No one who claims to be the Son of God is simply a “good teacher”! Other
great religions will never accept Jesus to be who he said he was. If
they do, then they are not Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist. They are
Christian (2000, 135[16]:17).
Apparently one does not have to be a distinguished Cambridge University
professor (like C.S. Lewis) to understand what 17-year-old Miss
Rawlings so eloquently stated in her simple-but-accurate reply to
Newsweek’s “scholarly”
approach. Jesus not only existed as a historical character, but also
claimed to be God incarnate (John 5:17-18; 8:42; 10:30; 12:45;
14:7,10-11; 17:21-23; 19:7). He therefore cannot be viewed merely as a
“good teacher” since, if His claim were false, He would have been either
a liar or a lunatic. In Mark 10, the account is recorded concerning a
rich young ruler who, in speaking to Christ, addressed Him as “good
teacher.” Upon hearing this reference, Jesus asked: “Why callest thou me
good? None is good, save one, even God” (Mark 10:18). So, is Christ
God?
Was Christ a Liar?
Was Christ a liar? A charlatan? A “messianic manipulator”? In his book,
The Passover Plot,
Hugh J. Schonfield claimed that He was all three. Schonfield suggested
that Jesus manipulated His life in such a way as to counterfeit the
events portrayed in the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. At
times, this necessitated “contriving those events...contending with
friends and foes to ensure that the predictions would be fulfilled”
(1965, p. 7). Schonfield charged that Jesus planned to fake His own
death on the cross, but had not counted on a spear being thrust through
His side. Thus, rather than recovering from His stupor, Jesus died
unexpectedly. On Saturday evening, His body was moved to a secret place
so that His tomb would be empty on the next day, thus leaving the
impression of His resurrection and, simultaneously, His deity (pp.
161ff.).
In considering the possibility that Christ was little more than an accomplished liar, biblical historian Philip Schaff asked:
How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an
impostor—that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man—have invented, and
consistently maintained from beginning to end, the purest and noblest
character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and
reality? How could he have conceived and successfully carried out a plan
of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and
sacrificed his own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices
of his people and ages? (1913, pp. 94-95).
Furthermore, what sane man would
die for what he
knows to
be a lie? As McDowell summarized the matter: “Someone who lived as
Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not
have been a liar” (1999, p. 160).
Was Christ a Lunatic?
Was Jesus merely a psychotic lunatic Who sincerely (albeit mistakenly)
viewed Himself as God incarnate? Such a view rarely has been entertained
by anyone cognizant of Christ’s life and teachings. Schaff inquired:
Is such an intellect—clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air,
sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous,
always ready and always self-possessed—liable to a radical and most
serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous
imagination! (1913, pp. 97-98).
Would a raving lunatic teach that we should do unto others as we would
have them do unto us? Would a lunatic teach that we should pray for our
enemies? Would a lunatic teach that we should “turn the other cheek,”
and then set an example of exactly how to do that—even unto death? Would
a lunatic present an ethical/moral code like the one in the Sermon on
the Mount? No. Lunacy of the sort ascribed to Christ by His detractors
does not produce such genius. Schaff continued:
Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all
respects so clear and so sound, is equally out of the question. How
could He be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance of
His mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and persecutions,
as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the wisest answer to
tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately predicted His death on
the cross, His resurrection on the third day, the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit, the founding of His Church, the destruction of
Jerusalem—predictions which have been literally fulfilled? A character
so original, so completely, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so
human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud
nor a fiction (1910, p. 109).
Was Christ Deity?
If Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic, then the question He asked
the Pharisees still remains: “What think ye of the Christ?” Is Jesus, in
fact, Who He claimed to be? Was He God incarnate? The evidence
presented here suggests that the answer to both questions is “Yes.”
Could anyone, taking into account
all the evidence, really suggest—and expect to be taken seriously—that He was merely an “average fraud”? We think not.
REFERENCES
Bales, James D. (no date),
The Originality of Christ (Searcy, AR: Privately published by author).
Bromling, Brad T. (1991), “The Prophets’ Portrait of Christ,”
Reason & Revelation, 11:45-47, December.
Franklin, Stephen T. (1993), “Theological Foundations for the Uniqueness of Christ as Hope and Judge,”
Evangelical Review of Theology, 17[1]:29-53, January.
Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy (1999),
The Jesus Mysteries (New York: Harmony Books).
Geisler (1976),
Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Horne, Thomas H. (1970 edition),
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Kennedy, D. James and Jerry Newcombe (1994),
What If Christ Had Never Been Born? (Nashville, TN: Nelson).
Leupold, H.C. (1971),
Exposition of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), one-volume edition.
Lewis, C.S. (1952),
Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillan).
McCabe, Joseph (1993),
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, reprint of 1926 edition).
McCord, Hugo (1979), “Internal Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration,”
The Holy Scriptures, ed. Wendell Winkler (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).
McDowell, Josh (1999),
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Nelson).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875),
The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Oswalt, John N. (1998)
The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66 [New International Commentary on the Old Testament] (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Price, Reynolds (1999), “Jesus of Nazareth—Then and Now,”
Time, 154[23]:84-94, December 6.
Ramm, Bernard (1953),
Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Rawlings, Jennifer, (2000), “Letter to the Editor,”
Newsweek, 135[16]:17, April 17.
Schaff, Philip (1910),
History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Schaff, Philip (1913),
The Person of Christ: The Miracle of History (New York: American Tract Society).
Schonfield, Hugh J. (1965),
The Passover Plot (New York: Bantam).
Solomon, David (1972), “Procurator,”
Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Cecil Roth (Jerusalem: Keter).
Stott, John (1971),
Basic Christianity (Downers Groves, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Trench, R.C. (no date),
Christ the Desire of All Nations; or the Unconscious Prophecies of Heathendom (Searcy, AR: Bales Publications).
Woodward, Kenneth L. (1999), “2000 Years of Jesus,”
Newsweek, 133[13]:52-63, March 29.
Woodward, Kenneth L. (2000), “The Other Jesus,”
Newsweek, 135[13]:50-60, March 27.
