54 Sermon Illustrations on History

Sermon on Psalm 136.

1. God is our super-hero.

2. He is the Creator.

3. He is in charge of history.

4. He can be in charge of us.

a. Expect great things from God.

b. Attempt great things for God.

*1128

George Bernard Shaw: "We learn from experience that men never learn anything from experience."

[see also HolwickID #16633]

The Jesus Seminar unmasked: Bible scholar Luke Timothy Johnson takes on the radical revisionists.

“Who do scholars say that I am?” asked a recent CT cover story on the flourishing industry of Jesus studies (Mar. 4, 1996). The answer seemed to be almost anything but the risen Christ worshiped by believers around the world. Yet, while the radical revisionists have claimed the lion’s share of media coverage, their conclusions are by no means representative of the whole spectrum of New Testament scholarship. Now, from within the scholarly guild, Luke Timothy Johnson has mounted a frontal assault that demolishes the pretensions of the Jesus Seminar and reaffirms the Christ of faith.

Johnson’s book “The Real Jesus” is one of the most exhilarating religious books published in this decade. His formidable task, which he performs with gusto, is to sort out the claims made by Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Burton Mack, and other much-publicized scholars so that Christians, and other fair-minded people, can take stock of what is actually being asserted.

A former Benedictine priest and currently a professor of New Testament at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta (in 1995, Doubleday published his commentary on the Epistle of James in the acclaimed Anchor Bible series), Johnson is a soft-spoken man, at first glance an unlikely candidate for polemics. He was motivated to write his book, he says, out of a genuine sense of outrage over the preposterous claims being made by the Jesus Seminar and its fellow-travelers -- above all, the claim, repeatedly reinforced by the media, that their peculiar form of scholarly reductionism somehow represents the “consensus view” of “most” New Testament scholars.

In fact, says Johnson, the conclusions reached by the Jesus Seminar represent the views of a tiny minority of mostly second-rate scholars working at mostly second-rate schools. None of the current Jesus Seminar scholars teaches at any of the major centers of New Testament scholarship in the United States -- such as Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, Union, Chicago, or Emory. While the Jesus Seminar publicists would often speak of 200 “participants,” Johnson says, in fact only about 40 people attended the meetings and wrote papers.

Of these, only a few, such as founders Crossan and Funk, have any sort of prestigious credentials as scholars. Some, such as Paul Verhoeven (director of the films Basic Instinct and, most recently, the NC-17-rated Showgirls), are not New Testament scholars at all and participated merely as interested observers.

The views of some 40 people cannot reasonably be said to represent the thinking of, say, the more than 6,900 members of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the thousands of others, in and out of graduate school and seminaries, who have had some contact with systematic biblical study.

Johnson does not merely challenge the credentials of Jesus Seminar members; indeed, he is at his best when he “deconstructs” the philosophical assumptions and methodological idiosyncrasies that underlie so much New Testament scholarship. Far from displaying a more scientific, more “critical” view of the New Testament, Johnson says, many of these scholars are touchingly naive in the way they approach historical sources and in their understanding of what history actually is or can achieve. The epistemological gullibility of these exegetes -- especially regarding the nature and limits of historical knowledge -- simply astonishes Johnson.

The problem that underlies much of contemporary New Testament scholarship, Johnson says, is a serious misunderstanding about what constitutes historical knowledge. Indeed, he argues, fundamentalists and skeptical historical- critical scholars share the same error: they believe that history -- understood as what can be known using modern techniques of historical reconstruction -- is the ultimate criterion of truth against which the Gospels must be judged. (It should be noted that Johnson’s use of the term “fundamentalist” is elastic, at some points referring to views that would be held by a majority of evangelicals. The same ambiguity attends his references to “conservative” scholars.)

The more literalistic fundamentalists believe the Gospels can be proven historically true; the modern skeptics believe they can be proven historically false; but both believe that “history” is the ultimate judge of the “truth” of the Gospels. This is a burden that history (as a discipline) simply cannot shoulder.

Johnson observes that this attitude itself displays a remarkably “pre- critical” understanding of history. Far from being a neutral record of “what really happened,” history is a creation of the human intellect, a creation based not merely on highly fragmentary evidence but also on the personal concerns and prejudices of the people writing the history.

Johnson demonstrates that, despite unending claims of “value-neutral,” scientific rigor, the scholarship that undergirds the Jesus Seminar and similar enterprises is based on wild speculation and minuscule evidence. For example, whereas in the past New Testament scholars thought they saw hints of common sources used by the New Testament writers -- most famously, a hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings, called Q, used by Mark, Matthew, and Luke -- some of today’s scholars now brazenly assert they can reconstruct, with precise detail, both these sources themselves and their stages of development. They now speak about Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4.

This, Johnson avers, is preposterous, and explains why so much of contemporary New Testament scholarship is viewed with derision by mainstream historians. The entire edifice is “a house of cards,” he says. “Pull out one element and the whole construction crumbles.”

In fact, Johnson argues, authentic Christian faith is not now, nor ever has been, based on historical reconstructions of who Jesus was. He reminds his readers that Christians do not have faith in this or that scholarly account of the historical Jesus, but in the living Christ raised from the dead. “Christian faith is directed to a living person,” he writes. “The ‘real Jesus’ for Christian faith is the resurrected Jesus, him ‘whom God has made both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36).”

According to Johnson, the Resurrection (the heart of the Christian faith) should be understood as a “‘nonhistorical’ event that has historical effects.” Being “nonhistorical” does not mean that the Resurrection did not happen, only that determining whether or not it happened is beyond the scope of the historian. One needs more than the facts of history to do that. History may provide many details consistent with a traditional understanding of Christ’s resurrection (the formation of the church and its early writings), but the discipline has reached its limits when it encounters “the passage of the human Jesus into the power of God.... The problem lies with history’s limited mode of knowing.” According to the church, one needs to meet Christ today to make sense of what happened in the tomb on Easter.

Still, evangelical scholars would want to close the gap Johnson leaves open between the Christ we encounter today and what is said of him in Scripture. While Johnson talks about a “resurrected,” “real,” and “living” Christ, he seems to allow the possibility of some discontinuity between the Bible’s witness and the “real” Jesus. At the same time, he does not rule out the church’s view of Jesus for informing our interpretation of the Gospels -- something the Jesus Seminar’s rules forbid.

Given the explosive nature of Johnson’s book, you would think that he would have been prepared for the media frenzy that followed its publication. But on the day that I catch up with him, he is a bit frazzled. The phone has been ringing nonstop in his suburban Atlanta home, with requests for radio interviews, public appearances, and so on.

“I find it all a bit unsettling,” Johnson says. Although he is the author of a widely respected textbook, “The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation” (Fortress, 1986), and numerous scholarly commentaries, Johnson is not accustomed to the bright glare of publicity.

“This is a book I never thought I would write, for two reasons,” he says, during a lengthy interview. “First of all, I’m not a person who is particularly interested in entering the public fray. And second, I’ve never been particularly interested in the ‘historical’ Jesus. I found it possible to be a Christian my whole life, to be a monk, to be a priest, and to never hear about the [problems surrounding the] historical Jesus.”

Now 52 years old, Johnson is a former Benedictine priest who studied New Testament at Yale University, left the priesthood, got married, and taught for 20 years at Yale Divinity School and Indiana State University.

He was born in Wisconsin, the youngest of six children, but both his parents died when he was very young. At the age of 11, he was shipped off to the Deep South with his oldest brother and ended up at a private Catholic high school, Saint Joseph’s Seminary in Covington, Louisiana, run by Benedictine monks. “They put a little card on you saying, ‘To God from the Church,’” Johnson chuckles.

He gradually fell in love with the Benedictine liturgy and with the life of a monk. When he graduated from Saint Joseph’s, at the age of 19, he became a Benedictine and remained one for nine years, eventually being ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood. He completed his studies in philosophy and theology at Saint Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana and picked up an M.A. in religious studies at nearby Indiana University.

In 1970, Johnson returned to his monastery and taught there for one year. This was at the height of the turmoil in the Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council. Johnson wanted to become a Scripture scholar and decided to concentrate on the New Testament because, he says, “there were fewer languages to master.” He applied to, and was accepted by, Yale University, where he studied under such famous scholars as Wayne Meeks.

While at Yale, Johnson decided to leave the priesthood. He met and married a woman ten years his senior, who already had six children (they have subsequently had a seventh together). “I found the transition from being a Benedictine monk to being the father of six children, and then seven, not to be that dramatic,” Johnson claims. “Benedictine life is all about building community or building family, and so I found it excellent training to be a father.”

He finished his Ph.D. at Yale and taught, from 1976 to 1982, at the Yale Divinity School. Although he was part of the “famous Yale revolving door for junior faculty” -- meaning Yale rarely grants tenure -- Johnson enjoyed his time there. And as an ex-priest, he says, he was frozen out of his natural environment, Catholic seminaries. “I was in a situation where ex-priests were not welcome even in Catholic universities, and that continues today,” he says. He was a bit late in the “leaving game,” Johnson adds, and the great heyday of Catholic liberalism had passed. Breaking your vows was not as easily forgiven in the 1980s and ‘90s, under the current pope, as it had been in the freewheeling 1960s. “There was a tremendous conservative reaction, especially in seminaries,” he says.

As a result, when he realized he would not be offered tenure at Yale, Johnson went to Indiana University and taught there for ten years, from 1982 to 1992, in the Department of Religious Studies. He loved the “hard-boiled intellectual life” of a state university, but felt strangely “divided” there. “Being outside the context of the community of faith was not good for me, for my heart,” he says. But in 1992, he was asked to come to Emory University to be the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the Candler School of Theology, a Methodist seminary.

Johnson sees his greatest contribution as a teacher in helping believing Christian students understand that they don’t have to choose between what he sees as the narrow literalism of some brands of fundamentalism and the equally narrow skepticism of historical-critical scholarship. Both of these approaches, Johnson says, miss the point of what the New Testament is trying to accomplish -- which is to proclaim the risen Christ as a powerful reality in the lives of believers here and now.

Johnson values the contributions that historical-critical scholarship has made to the study of the New Testament, and he is certainly more in that camp, intellectually, than he is in the fundamentalist camp. Johnson says his objection to the members of the Jesus Seminar is not that they use the tools of “critical” scholarship, but only that they use them badly.

“I’m giving a lecture on this stuff at Ministers Week here” at Emory University, he explains. “And I use the analogy of my relationship with my wife. It’s as though I were to spend days and nights closed up in my study, analyzing the historical records of my first date with my wife, trying to figure out if she really was who she said she was. And all the while she’s outside my study crying or calling to me, trying to get my attention. That’s what so much of New Testament scholarship strikes me as being like.”

In the end, though, what really disturbs Johnson about the new “quests for the historical Jesus” is that they all want to focus on a Jesus other than the one portrayed in the Gospels -- a proto-feminist, social revolutionary, Cynic sage, or whatever -- because the Jesus found in the actual Gospels is so disturbing.

“I think what really causes me chagrin is that people parade this kind of piety about how concerned they are about what Jesus really did and how it shakes the foundation of faith,” he says. “No one wants to deal with the image of Jesus in the classical Christian tradition -- the image of Jesus that inspired, for example, Saint Francis of Assisi, the image of giving one’s life in suffering for others. “This is so much more countercultural and provocative and threatening than any image these skeptical New Questers have come up with. And certainly more challenging and threatening than that of normal, comfortable Christian piety. In other words, if we uncover and confront the Jesus in the Gospels, then we really have something kind of scary to deal with -- because that’s the image of Jesus that Christian discipleship is supposed to follow. And that’s frightening to many people.”

________

Robert J. Hutchinson is a freelance writer based in Orange County, California.

Copyright (c) 1996 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine April 29, 1996, Vol. 40, No. 5, Page 28

ctap2996mrj6T50286417

==========================

“The Real Jesus: The Mistaken Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels,” by Luke Timothy Johnson (Harper San Francisco, 182 pp.; $22, hardcover).

Imagine a world where the calendar marks months, but not years. There could be seasons -- spring, summer, harvest, and winter -- but no sense of past, present, or future, just an endless succession of days.

And that's exactly what the world was like until God spoke to Abraham, a Sumerian living 4,000 years ago in what is now Iraq. In his book, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels, historian Thomas Cahill writes that when God called Abraham out of Sumeria, He also called the whole world into time and history.

According to Cahill, many things we take for granted -- our concept of time, progress, history, and even our notion of what it means to be human -- we owe to the Jews and to the God of the Bible. "From Genesis onward," he writes, "the Bible presents us with a new way of thinking about and experiencing reality."

Before Abraham, the world had no concept of history as we think of it. Everything was just part of the great circle of the seasons, never changing or progressing. The idea of progress from past to future did not exist.

Cahill writes that "thumbnail sketches of each [king's] reign are arranged ... without the least regard for what may in fact have occurred in Sumerian history." Some kings were said to have ruled for hundreds of years. Others for thousands!

This concept of history also affected story-telling. Sumerian stories lacked the beginning-middle-ending structure that the modern world associates with narrative. Instead, they began and ended in the middle.

When Moses wrote Genesis, it was the first time anyone had written a history that included a true sense of time, and accurate dates. The Old Testament writings represent the first attempt to get facts, genealogies, and chronologies right -- in short, history as we know it today. And the more archeological discoveries there are, the more these facts prove to be accurate.

Similarly, the story of Abraham's journey, being called from Sumeria to the Promised Land, represented a pronounced break with the familiar, cyclical mindset. Abraham was called by God to leave his home and go to a strange place. God told him that He would raise from Abraham's seed a great nation. Cahill says the concept of a distant, unseen future, and a personal or national destiny, was unheard of prior to this time.

For Christians, the idea of history and time is especially important. God's promises to Abraham articulate our great Hope in the anticipation of "the fullness of time."

Now, this author's particular theology is muddled, to put it mildly. He denies many miracles and doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God. But the central tenet of his work is right on track, and it's especially useful for challenging skeptics.

Secularists constantly berate Christians for being "backward" or "unenlightened." But if they would read "The Gifts of the Jews," they would gain a much better understanding of the truth and importance of Scripture. They would see that much of what we take for granted today actually began when the God of the Bible spoke to a wandering Jew named Abraham.

Judeo-Christian revelation is not the negative influence secularists proclaim it to be. Rather, it is the taproot of our civilization.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Charles A. Beard, the historian, was once asked if he could summarize the lessons of history. Beard replied that he could do it with four simple observations:

1. Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad with power.

2. The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

3. The bee fertilizes the flower it robs.

4. When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.

Cited in More of...The Best of BITS & PIECES

"No historian can write without bias, and he who professes to do so is either deceiving or self-deceived. The very selection of facts out of the endless and infinitely multiple stream of daily happenings in itself involves judgment as to what is significant." Kenneth Scott LaTourette in the intro. to A HISTORY OF THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY.

Lincoln’s faith evolved through the trial of the Civil War. Unlike some war presidents, he neared victory with a growing sense of humility and an awareness that, however just he believed his own cause, the conflict had clarified some things but not all things. He knew slavery would end, but he knew little else.

Speaking of North and South in his Second Inaugural, he said: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”

Commenting on these passages a century later, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that Lincoln had successfully articulated a sad but real truth: that “while the drama of history is shot through with moral meaning, the meaning is never exact. Sin and punishment, virtue and reward are never precisely proportioned.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6925]

"Only the curious will learn and only the resolute will overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient."

-- Eugene S. Wilson, Cited in BITS & PIECES

"In a world that is constantly changing, there is no one subject or set of subjects that will serve you for the foreseeable future, let alone for the rest of your life. The most important skill to acquire now is learning how to learn."

-- John Naisbitt, Futurist

"The time for extracting a lesson from history is ever at hand for those who are wise."

-- Demosthenes (384-322 B.C.), orator and statesman, B&P 5/30/03

"History is merely a list of surprises...It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again."

-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., writer, B&P 5/30/03

"Overcoming the unexpected and discovering the unknown is what ignites our spirit. It is what life is all about."

-- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA administrator

"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."

-- Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British prime minister

"Learning does not consist only of knowing what we must or we can do, but also of knowing what we could do and perhaps should not do."

-- Umberto Eco, "The Name of the Rose", B&P 6/6/03

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12330]

100 years ago...

The average life expectancy in the United States was forty-seven.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the United States had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone. A three minute call from Denver to New York City cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the US and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was ten miles per hour.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the twenty-first most populous state in the Union.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower.

The average wage in the U.S. was twenty-two cents an hour. The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist $2500 per year, a veterinarian between $1500 and $4000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the United States took place at home.

Ninety percent of all U.S. physicians had no college education. Instead, they attended medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound. Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen. Coffee cost fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month and used borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason, either as travelers or immigrants.

The five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:

1. Pneumonia and influenza

2. Tuberculosis

3. Diarrhea

4. Heart disease

5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

Drive-by-shootings - in which teenage boys galloped down the street on horses and started randomly shooting at houses, carriages, or anything else that caught their fancy - were an ongoing problem in Denver and other cities in the West.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada was thirty. The remote desert community was inhabited by only a handful of ranchers and their families.

Plutonium, insulin, and antibiotics hadn't been discovered yet. Scotch tape, crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

One in ten U.S. adults couldn't read or write. Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Some medical authorities warned that professional seamstresses were apt to become sexually aroused by the steady rhythm, hour after hour, of the sewing machine's foot pedals. They recommended slipping bromide - which was thought to diminish sexual desire - into the woman's drinking water.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health."

Coca-Cola contained cocaine instead of caffeine.

Punch card data processing had recently been developed, and early predecessors of the modern computer were used for the first time by the government to help compile the 1900 census.

Eighteen percent of households in the United States had at least one full-time servant or domestic.

There were about 230 reported murders in the U.S. annually. [Holwick - and 105 blacks were lynched in 1901. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aap/timelin3.html]

===========================

Another version:

• Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason, either as travelers or immigrants.

• The five leading causes of death in the US were:

1. Pneumonia and influenza,

2. Tuberculosis,

3. Diarrhea,

4. Heart disease,

5. Stroke.

• The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska hadn’t been admitted to the Union yet.

• Drive-by shootings — in which teenage boys galloped down the street on horses and started randomly shooting at houses, carriages, or anything else that caught their fancy — were an ongoing problem in Denver and other cities in the West.

• The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was thirty. The remote desert community was inhabited by only a handful of ranchers and their families.

• Plutonium, insulin, and antibiotics hadn’t been discovered yet. Scotch tape, crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn’t been invented.

• There was no Mother’s Day or Father’s Day.

• One in ten US adults couldn’t read or write. Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

• Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”

• Coca-Cola contained cocaine instead of caffeine.

• Punch-card data processing had recently been developed, and early predecessors of the modern computer were used for the first time by the government to help compile the 1900 census.

• Eighteen percent of households in the United States had at least one full-time servant or domestic.

[see also #7622]

*

"History repeats itself, which is good because most people don't pay attention the first time anyway."

-- (unknown), cited in Even More of...The Best of BITS & PIECES

THE THREE-WORD MEMORY COURSE: Attention improves retention.

-- (unknown), cited in BITS & PIECES

*

History is not just the stuff of the past. It is not merely an idle fancy of the academic. History defines you and it defines me because history defines the present in which we reside. Where we have been orients where we're going, and both situate where we are. This is true both on a personal level and on a societal level. So it behooves us to pay attention to our history.

So what shapes our history today? What from the past makes us who we are, and points us to who we will be?

Different kinds of histories give different kinds of answers to this question. Economic histories, for instance, give economic answers. Take Karl Marx, one of the most influential figures of the 19th century. He charted the history of the world in terms of economic development. History, for him, was the story of development from simpler economic forms such as bartering to the complex industrial economies of his time.

Now one's view of humanity will influence how one tells the story of humanity. And such was the case with Marx. Humanity, for him, was exclusively a material thing, and since economics is a science of material things, economics became the dominant theme of history as he told it. Likewise economics became the lens through which he viewed his own time. This is where the connection between the past and the present appears. Past and present were of the same clothe to him, both were economically determined. If he were alive today, he would no doubt explain contemporary society in terms of globalization or some other economic factor.

As a Christian I cannot accept such a telling of history. Yes, economics is a viable means to understand aspects of the past and the present, but as a Christian my fundamental commitments are to a Christian view of history. Scriptures teach that human history is part of God's cosmic drama. And so to most deeply understand human history we must take our pointers from the crucial moments in God's drama. Our story begins with creation, is punctured by the fall, yet punctured again by the in-breaking of God into human history with His Kingdom, and climaxes in the full coming of that Kingdom. As Christians we now live as beachheads of God's Kingdom, and we look forward to the final triumph of Christ's rule.

Grasp this, and you will see that the dance of the Dow does not hold our future. Marx missed it; the future holds the fullness of the Kingdom. May we not miss it ourselves.

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

If you’ve passed anywhere near a magazine rack in recent weeks, you’ve probably seen magazine covers, tabloids, and banner headlines from several national periodicals grab your eye with provocative images of Jesus Christ and stories about the origins of the Christian faith.

One of the most conspicuous is this month’s issue of Life magazine with its cover story entitled, “2000 Years of Christianity.” It purports to tell the story of Christianity, but ultimately falls far short.

According to Life, the true miracle of Christianity is that a “bruised, battered and divided religion” somehow managed to survive to the eve of the third millennium.

Anyone wanting to know about how the Church survived persecution under the Roman empire will learn very little about that topic. He will find little about the martyrs whose blood became the seedbed of faith. And he will see even less about men like Justin Martyr and Augustine who formulated a cultural apologetic that silenced the early critics.

Nor will he be told how the Church’s teachings on women, children, and the elderly transformed the moral order.

Instead, he will be left with a vague impression that Christianity simply outlasted its pagan rivals. The reader might think that when Rome collapsed, Christianity merely picked up the pieces.

Throughout their exhausting narrative, Life’s writers make little or no reference to such seminal figures as Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, or other giants of the middle ages.

And the Protestant reformists fare no better. Time’s description of John Calvin, the towering figure of Protestant theology, reduces him to a caricature. Calvin, readers are told, “preached an austere Puritanism.”

Anyone wondering what difference Christianity has made to our world will be sadly disappointed. There’s no mention of Christianity’s contributions to law, music, or literature. There is no hint that it was, in fact, a Christian understanding of limited government that made our modern concept of liberal democracy possible. Or that Christianity’s understanding of the natural order made modern science possible.

Although the writers grudgingly concede that the world is a better place for the teachings of Jesus Christ, they hasten to add that we as Christians have failed to live by the teachings of the Savior.

This so-called “history” reflects not just a bias against those who practice the Christian faith, but an appalling ignorance.

We need to understand the sad truth that most of our non-Christian neighbors simply have no idea about Christianity’s contribution to culture.

They don’t understand that it was Christian values and Christian teaching about liberty, law, and virtue that made western civilization possible in the first place. Instead, they’ve been told that Christianity is merely one contender among many competing belief systems. And some have even accepted what critics have charged the claim that Christian beliefs are the cause of suffering and evil in the world today.

Well, the good news is the mass media apparently feels the need to explore religious heritage at this, the dawn of the new millennium. And this gives us a wonderful opportunity to teach our neighbors the reality of the life-changing differences Christianity makes.

And the really good news this season is that the evidence is proving that Christianity is not only good for society, but it is true. Over the next few days, I’ll be talking about new archeological evidence that demonstrates that the historical Jesus is the biblical Jesus.

One of the most popular movies of 1989 was DEAD POETS SOCIETY, about a group of classmates in a boys' school who formed a secret society to celebrate American poets. Well, Christians might do well to adapt their example and form a Dead PILGRIMS Society.

Why? Because today's kids are being fed a half-baked version of Thanksgiving lore, complete with glazed facts, mashed multiculturalism, and a generous helping of censorship.

Several children's books about the Pilgrims are on bookstore shelves. But in a cold November blast of secularism, much of the spiritual component has been blown away.

As a result, our children are consuming a dumbed-down version of Christian history. They're taught that the Pilgrims risked their lives traversing the ocean for economic gain, not religious freedom. And that first Thanksgiving feast? It's described as nothing more than a three-day binge with the Indians.

Take, for example, a book called THE FIRST THANKSGIVING by Jean Craighead George. As this book tells it, the Pilgrims left Europe “to seek their fortune in the New World.” That would have come as news to the Pilgrims themselves. Pilgrim leader William Bradford wrote in his diary that the voyage was motivated by “a great hope ... for advancing the kingdom of Christ.”

And when it comes to Thanksgiving itself, in this book the religious dimension finds no place at the table. The author states flat-out, “This was NOT a day of Pilgrim thanksgiving” — thanksgiving to God, that is. Instead, she writes, “This was pure celebration.”

Odd. That's not the way the Pilgrims themselves remembered it. Listen again to the account by William Bradford, who was actually there: “The Lord sent them such seasonable showers,” Bradford writes, that “through His blessing [there was] a fruitful and liberal harvest. ... For which mercy ... they set apart a day of thanksgiving.”

Why aren't we hearing THIS SIDE of the Thanksgiving story?

Some historians seem to view America's Christian heritage with about as much enthusiasm as they would a plateful of Hamburger Helper on the Thanksgiving table. And I can think of at least one reason: It has become a fun game for secularists to deride Christians as poor, ignorant, and easily led.

But far from being easily led, the Pilgrims themselves led the way to settle the New World.

These people sailed across dangerous oceans without the benefit of a government grant. They built their own housing in freezing weather without the assistance of a public works program. And when they fell sick, they didn't look to a government health program to take care of them. Even in the face of death, they nurtured a thankful spirit to God.

It's difficult to poke fun at hardy souls like these, men and women of strong character and stronger faith — which may explain why secular historians prefer to pretend they never existed.

Christians need to read the books our own children are getting and look for accurate versions of the Pilgrim story. And if we can't find them, we may have to start writing our own books.

If it takes a Dead Pilgrims Society to preserve our Christian past, show me where to sign up.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 021128, “Generic Gratefulness.” (Archived commentary; free registration required.)

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 031104, “'God's Instrument'.”

• George Allen, “Before the Pilgrims,” Washington Post, 23 November 2003, B08.

• Eric Metaxas, Squanto and the Miracle of Thanksgiving (Thomas Nelson, 1999). Call 1-877-322-5527 to order.

__________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

UNESCO (United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization) estimates there are over 25,000 groups today who lay claim to being the Christian Church, or at least the direct descendants of the Church described in the New Testament.

But for the first thousand years of her history, the Church was essentially one. Five historic Patriarchal centers (called the “Pentarchy”) - Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople - formed a cohesive whole and were in full communion with each other. There were occasional heretical or schismatic groups going their own way, but the Church was unified until the 11th century when, in AD 1054, the Roman Patriarch pulled away from the other four, pursuing his long-developing claim of universal headship of the Church.

Today, nearly a thousand years later, the other four Patriarchates remain intact, in full communion, maintaining that Orthodox apostolic faith of the inspired New Testament record. The Orthodox Church and her history is described herein, from Pentecost to the present day.

33 - Pentecost (AD 29 is thought to be more accurate.)

49 - Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) establishes precedent for addressing Church disputes in Council. James presides as bishop.

69 - Bishop Ignatius consecrated in Antioch in heart of New Testament era - St. Peter had been the first bishop there. Other early bishops include James, Polycarp, and Clement.

95 - Book of Revelation written, probably the last of the New Testament books.

150 - St. Justin Martyr describes the liturgical worship of the Church, centered in the Eucharist. Liturgical worship is rooted in both the Old and New Testament.

313 - The Edict of Milan marks an end to the period of Roman persecution of Christianity.

325 - The Council of Nicea settles the major heretical challenge to the Christian faith when the heretic Arius asserts Christ was created by the Father. St. Athanasius defends the eternality of the Son of God. The Arians continue their assault on true Christianity for years. Nicea is the first of Seven Ecumenical (Churchwide) Councils.

451 - Council of Chalcedon affirms apostolic doctrine of two natures in Christ.

589 - In a synod in Toledo, Spain, the filioque, asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son is added to the Nicene Creed. This error is later adopted by Rome.

787 - The era of Ecumenical Councils ends at Nicea, with the Seventh Council bringing the centuries old use of icons back into the Church.

988 - Conversion of Russia begins.

1054 - The Great Schism occurs. Two major issues include Rome's claim to a universal papal supremacy and her addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The Photian schism (880) further complicated the debate.

1066 - Norman conquest of Britain. Orthodox hierarchs are replaced with those loyal to Rome.

1095 - The Crusades begun by the Roman Church. The Sack of Constantinople by Rome (1204) adds to the estrangement between East and West.

1333 - St. Gregory Palamas defends the Orthodox practice of hesychast spirituality and the use of the Jesus prayer.

1453 - Turks overrun Constantinople; Byzantine Empire ends.

1517 - Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg, starting the Protestant Reformation.

1529 - Church of England begins pulling away from Rome.

1794 - Missionaries arrive on Kodiak Island in Alaska; Orthodoxy introduced to North America.

1854 - Rome establishes the Immaculate Conception dogma.

1870 - Papal Infallibility becomes Roman dogma.

1988 - 1000 years of Orthodoxy in Russia.

*

ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR JESUS FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

=====================================================

EVIDENCE FROM TACITUS

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that “apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like,” there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him “great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life.”{2} He concludes his letter by asking, “Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?”{3} The answer to this question is, “Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their

abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from

whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during

the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a

most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again

broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but

even in Rome....{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

EVIDENCE FROM PLINY THE YOUNGER

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before

it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to

Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not

to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or

adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they

should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their

custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food -- but

food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

EVIDENCE FROM JOSEPHUS

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord's brother.”{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that “few scholars have questioned” that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one

ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats....

He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be

crucified, those who had ... come to love him did not give up

their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ...

restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not

disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as “the so-called” Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as “the so-called Christ,” a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” are one and the same!

EVIDENCE FROM THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days

before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, “He is going

forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed

Israel to apostasy.”{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named “Yeshu.” So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, “Yeshu” (or “Yeshua”) is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was “hanged”, and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons “by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

EVIDENCE FROM LUCIAN

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day -- the distinguished

personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on

that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original

lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they

are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the

crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, “who introduced their novel rites.” And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He “was crucified on that account.”

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative “life of Jesus!”

________

NOTES

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.

5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.

7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

8. Pliny, Epistles X. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Pliny, Letters, translated by William Melmoth, revised by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

11. M. Harris, “References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors,” in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?”, in Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.

12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.

14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, 212.

17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, 212.

18. Ibid.

19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' “Testimonium Flavianum” survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, “as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church” (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.

24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.

25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.

26. Luke 23:2, 5.

27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, translated by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

© 2001 Probe Ministries International

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MICHAEL GLEGHORN is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Before coming on staff with Probe he taught history and theology at Christway Academy in Duncanville, Texas. In addition to his work with Probe he is involved with ministry to international students at the University of Texas at Dallas. Michael is married to his beautiful wife Hannah. He can be reached via e-mail at mgleghorn@probe.org.

WHAT IS PROBE?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, our extensive Web site at www.probe.org, and the ProbeCenter at the University of Texas at Austin.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

PROBE MINISTRIES

1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100

Richardson, TX 75081

(972) 480-0240 FAX(972) 644-9664

info@probe.org

www.probe.org

This data file/document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as “freeware,” without charge. All reproductions of this data file and/or document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright © 2004 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice. This data file/document may not be used without the permission of Probe Ministries for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.

*

At the heart of the furor over Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad are the different values and ideals of two civilizations: one shaped by Christianity, the other by Islam.

Of course, it's seldom put that way, especially in the elite media. Instead, the values being defended are called “Western,” as if a compass point produced the freedoms we today enjoy in the Western world.

Fortunately, there's a new book that sets the record straight.

The book is called THE VICTORY OF REASON: HOW CHRISTIANITY LED TO FREEDOM, CAPITALISM, AND WESTERN SUCCESS by Rodney Stark, who is not a Christian believer. In fact, Stark set out to refute German sociologist Max Weber's famous thesis that attributed the rise of capitalism to the Reformation.

Instead of refuting it, however, he wound up doing just the opposite, writing about how Christianity's emphasis on reason led to the rise of Europe. By “reason,” Stark means “logical thought” that doesn't “jump to conclusions.” According to Stark, the “the early church fathers were very clear” about following in the “tradition” of Plato and Aristotle. And this emphasis on reason reached its zenith in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

The belief that reason “was the supreme gift from God” encouraged inquiry not only into matters of faith but the natural world, as well. Whereas other religions viewed creation as a “mystery” beyond explanation, Christianity expected to find “immutable laws at work.”

St. Augustine, who is often caricatured as the enemy of science and progress, wrote about the “wonderful ... advances human industry has made.” These “advances” were the products of the '“unspeakable boon' that God has conferred upon his creation, a 'rational nature.'“

That's why, you see, “it was during the so-called Dark Ages,” and not the Renaissance, “that European technology and science overtook and surpassed the rest of the world.” Contrary to what you were taught, the worst “conflicts” between Christianity and science took place AFTER the “Age of Faith.”

Equally misunderstood is the relationship between Christianity and Western freedom. It was Christianity, Stark writes, that taught the West that “the state must respect private property and not intrude on the freedom of its citizens to pursue virtue.”

Our ideas about democracy and equality stem as well from the central teaching of Christianity. The link between the belief that we are all equal “in the eyes of God and in the world to come” and “all men are created equal” should be obvious.

It should be, but it isn't, at least not to many commentators and academics. In their minds, the West succeeded DESPITE its Christian past. Myths about the “Dark Ages” and other religious dystopias attempt to put as much distance between us and our Christian past as possible.

But, as Stark notes, many non-Westerners know better: For them, Western civilization and Christianity are “inseparably linked.” He notes that Christianity “is becoming globalized far more rapidly than is democracy, capitalism, or modernity,” which leads him to a breathtaking conclusion: “It is quite plausible that Christianity remains an essential element in the globalization of modernity.”

This book will you give you some very good ammunition to answer those critics who come up with the same tired, old arguments about the fact that Christianity held back the progress of civilization. Nonsense. The evidence is exactly the opposite.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

I was sitting in my piano teacher’s lamp-lit living room, waiting for my sister to finish her lesson in the next room. Dr. Douglas, the piano teacher’s white-haired husband, came into the room and told my mother and me that he had something to show us. He asked me to hold out my hand, and into it he dropped several rough pebbles from a plastic vial about the size of a film canister. He quietly informed me, “You’re holding in your hand a piece of the Berlin Wall.”

I had never before realized that you could hold a piece of history in your hand. In my young mind, the Berlin Wall was a symbolic thing. It stood for the divide between the free world and the communist one. I didn’t expect that someone could bring a piece of that wall (which in previous months had been hacked to pieces by celebratory Germans) across the ocean any more than someone could steal a golden egg from a giant and bring it down Jack’s beanstalk. I realized that evening that the Berlin wall was no mere symbol; it had been a thick concrete barrier, designed to make people prisoners of their own country.

Though as a child, the world and its geo-political conflicts were not significantly more real to me than a fairy story, it now seems all too real, and at times, too close to home. Clashes of ideology have physical outworkings; every day someone loses his life because of violence that is religiously motivated. The truism that IDEAS MATTER is demonstrated every day in news footage and fatality counts.

And just as ideology ends with material consequences, material events shape ideology. Belief systems begin with real people and real events in real places, and Christianity is no exception to this. It is easy to mistake the cross for a symbol or a philosophical concept instead of a roughshod implement of execution. But Jesus did not die in the realm of theology; he died on a hill that was named “The Skull.” He earned his living as a carpenter, driving nails into wood, and he died with nails driven mercilessly through his body.

The writers of the New Testament strive to make it clear that they are not simply peddling an idea; something has happened in real time that has changed history, and they were the witnesses. The apostle John writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us” (1 John 1:1-2).

Just as by letting me hold in my hand a fragment of the Berlin Wall Dr. Douglas showed me that communism was more than a political philosophy, Jesus’s followers wanted to make clear that he hadn’t been resurrected merely in their minds and hearts. He had been physically present with them; he had even eaten breakfast with them on the beach.

Each of us lives at the juncture of spirituality and physicality. Jesus is alive in both realms, and the two cannot be separated. His claims have implications for the life that you are living in real time, whether you are a carpenter or a sage. The distance of history does not negate the reality of Jesus’s life and death any more than the distance of geography negates the fact that we live in a world of unrest. The question begs to be asked, “What will you do with Jesus?”

________

Copyright © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

In an interview with MARS HILL REVIEW producer Ken Myers, historian John Lukacs spoke of what surprised him most when he first arrived in America to teach at the university. He noticed in the students he taught a total lack of curiosity -- and he claims it has only gotten worse. Anything we learn, says Lukacs, is compelled by the curiosity which first caused us to pursue it, to follow a topic where it leads, and in so doing, find out how very little we know.(1) This principle is highlighted in the French 16th century term for an intellectual historian. Such a scholar was called a “curieux,” notes Lukacs. That is, one who is curious.

I wonder if intellectual curiosity has been replaced by a fascination with the current scandal, gossip, or mystery plastered about the media. Television ratings remind us that there is always something fantastic about a new revelation, a long-lost document, or controversial new evidence. We are quickly pulled in by the promise of a scandal. We are easily taken with a good mystery. And we are compelled to be up on the latest public frenzy. But such fascination shows not an attitude of curiosity towards knowledge, but an attitude of passivity that is always waiting to be shown the next new thing.

It is not surprising then to watch the latest media revelation become a public fascination. In a documentary called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” director James Cameron claims there is new evidence that a tomb in Jerusalem holds the remains of Jesus, his wife, and their son. “It doesn’t get bigger than this,” Cameron said at a press release. “We’ve done our homework; we’ve made the case; and now it’s time for the debate to begin.” Whether the foundations of Christianity will be devastated, as some of the headlines have promised, is highly unlikely. But the heads of the masses were indeed turned, if only for a moment. Before the premiere of the documentary, the film’s companion book jumped to the top five best selling books online.

When it comes to faith, the novelty of “evidence” that promises to hold our curiosity seems to capture the minds of many. But it is almost always a fleeting fascination based on fantastic speculation, intellectual biases, and poor scholarship. In this sense, Cameron has not produced anything new at all. New Testament professor Ben Witherington articulates the state of our culture as it pertains to the latest “findings” that promise to undermine Christianity: “We are a Jesus-haunted culture that is so historically illiterate that anything can now pass for knowledge of Jesus.”(2) The Christian position is that the claims of Christ will continue to be buried in new doubt and evidence, but that Christ will continue to rise above the tombs that claim to hold him. Whether or not you believe this, do you not want to be an honest investigator, a curious pursuer of history, knowledge, and truth?

The shadows of mystery and suspense are indeed captivating, and the latest findings offer a ready labyrinth to explore. But here we are not meant to reside. The mysteries of Christ and the decisive events of history are best explored not with a love of the newest speculation but with a mind and heart for truth. Christ has come into the world; we need not look to the latest scandal to find ourselves standing in awe.

________

1. MARS HILL AUDIO JOURNAL, Issue 75.

2. Ben Witherington, “Tomb of the (Still) Unknown Ancients,” OPINION JOURNAL, March 2, 2007.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

WHAT MATTERS IN HISTORY is not always the things that happen but also the things that obstinately refuse to happen. It was in 1882 that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche made his celebrated and dire pronouncement: “God is dead.” He was speaking for many intellectuals, who believed the progress of science would cause a decline in religious faith-with Christianity the principal loser.

As the year 1900 approached, many leading secular thinkers, including George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, argued that the dawning 20th century would mark the close of history’s religious phase. As late as 1957, Julian Huxley, the, first director-general of UNESCO, wrote in anticipatory triumph, “Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a rule: but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.”

BUT HERE WE ARE, at the threshold of a new millennium, and Christianity is alive and well in the minds and hearts of countless believers. And all the evidence suggests that Christianity will still be flourishing another thousand years from now, for it continues to strike new roots and regain lost territories.

In West Africa, Christians whose ancestors were pagans two centuries ago have built one of the large churches in the world, roughly the size of St. Peter’s in Rome. In Russia, the building that for 67 years housed the Museum of Religion and Atheism is now a church of the Orthodox Christian faith, crowded with worshipers. In the United States, nearly half the population attend a place of worship — the vast majority of them Christian churches — with regularity. Catholicism is spreading in South Africa, Protestant Evangelicalism in Latin America. Christianity is even growing again in China, despite 50 years of efforts by the Communist government to subvert it.

The millennium, then, is nothing less than a jubilee full of remarkable mysteries. And the first mystery is this: Two thousand years ago, a child was born in an obscure village in a backward part of the Roman Empire. The child grew up to be a religious reformer who preached for three years and then was put to death as a nuisance by the Roman colonial authorities. It is, in short, a story of ignoble failure ending in a horrific and shameful death.

Today the world of six billion people counts its years and conducts its annual cycle of events in memory of this crucified failure. The Catholic Church, for the first time, has more than a billion members, and other Christian churches collectively have almost as many followers. It is impossible to travel any where in the world without finding a church or a chapel, a symbol or a piece of art commemorating Jesus’ work.

In a way posthumous the mystery of Jesus’ success and the endurance of his words help to explain other mysteries. For his message is this: power is ephemeral, and worldly success dust and ashes. It is a curious fact that in all ages and all societies, large numbers of people are attracted to the gentle, not the strong, to the sufferers and not the successful. Jesus touched on this tender spot in humanity-the kindness and compassion within doing so founded what is arguably the most influential of all religions.

If JESUS were to return on the eve of the third millennium, he would find things both strange and familiar. Strange would be the sheer magnificence of the many ecclesiastical institutions he brought into being — St. Peter’s, for example, or St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. Familiar to Jesus would be the remarkably accurate echoes of his own words. If he were to listen to an ordinary sermon preached during Sunday service at, say, a Catholic church in an Italian village, or a Southern Baptist chapel in Texas, he would hear the same injunctions he addressed to the common people of Judea nearly 2000 years ago.

He would also note that his words have not lost their pertinence. We may use the Internet and watch the world on TV, but we are the same in essentials as the fishermen, olive grove workers and shepherds who sat at Jesus’ feet on the Mount. One theme in Jesus’ teaching re mains of peculiar relevance today and, moreover, explains why Christianity need not fear the challenges of the third millennium. This central theme is that God, not man, is the final authority. God has rights. Human beings have duties; we deny God his rights at our peril.

WE HAVE LIVED through a terrible century of war and destruction precisely because powerful men did usurp God’s prerogatives. I call the 20th century the Century of Physics, inaugurated by Einstein’s special and general theories. During this period, physics became the dominant science, producing nuclear energy and space travel. The century also brought forth social engineering, the practice of shoving large numbers of human beings around as though they were earth or concrete. Social engineering was a key feature in the Nazi and Communist totalitarian regimes, where it combined with moral relativism — the belief that right and wrong can be changed for the convenience of human societies — and the denial of God’s rights. To Hitler, the higher law of the party took precedence over the Ten Commandments. Lenin praised the Revolutionary conscience as a surer guide for mankind than the conscience implanted by religion.

THAT CENTURY is ending, and physics is no longer the fashionable science. Its place has been taken by biology, an epoch introduced by the Watson Crick discovery of the double helix in 1953 and the birth of the modern science of genetics. In the past half-century we have uncovered many of the secrets of life. Now we enter the 21st century, the Century of Biology, which threatens large-scale experiments in genetic engineering — not just in crops and animals but in humans as well. Some scientists believe our newly acquired knowledge of genes offers us the opportunity to transform evolution in more “progressive” directions by making people healthier, more intelligent and longer-lived. Hence the third millennium may begin with cloned humans, “designer babies” and other alarming demonstrations that man now has the power to play God with lives. Against this scientific background it is comforting to remember that Christianity, with its central message of submission to a higher being remains so strong and vocal. The words of Jesus created a body of faith and morality that enabled humankind to defeat social engineering, and today it provides defenses against the threat of genetic engineering.

TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, a man came into the world to preach a doctrine of gentleness, love and meekness of spirit. It took hold; it flourished. It is still with us. Those 20 centuries have shown us that the doctrine cannot entirely banish the darker side of humanity. It cannot end war, cruelty, greed and the miseries of the poor. But it mitigates all these things, and it offers a continuing vision of our better, purer selves, and of the better, purer world we could create. Whatever fresh evils arise in our midst, Christ’s message contains the means to overcome them.

In the two millennia of Christian era, we have conquered scourges of humankind — famines, smallpox. But we not conquered death. Perhaps the greatest merit of Christianity is that it provides us with a key to this final mystery. It offers an antidote the fear that death arouses in us, a firm promise of another world beyond, and the means to enter it. That is the lasting legacy left by the man born 2000 years ago, a legacy that has not diminished in all those years, and which carries us with faith and hope into the third millennium, unafraid of anything it will bring.

Historians sometimes use a mental tool called a counterfactual, best understood by the simple question “What if?” A counterfactual can clarify actual events in history when applied to subsequent events.

For example, we discover that an unseasonal fog set in on the Hudson River, allowing General George Washington to escape the massive British Navy and Army at Brooklyn Heights and thus preventing the death of the birth of our nation. Counterfactuals shed light on the often forgotten elements of history and reveal in greater clarity God’s divine providence. I am amazed how history often hinges on seemingly insignificant events that prove to turn the tide. God often shows up in the fog and provides a way of escape in perilous times.

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Christian opponents of candidate Thomas Jefferson warned he “abhors the Christian system” and if elected, might send troops to seize Christians’ Bibles.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln’s election was thought by some Southern Baptist leaders to threaten fundamental American liberties. A century later, the presidential campaign elicited the Chicago Sun-Times headline “Southern Baptists Tell Why They Are Attacking Kennedy.”

These and other interjections into presidential politics by followers of Jesus have led a Baylor University church historian to note that Christians’ at times heated rhetoric surrounding the Clinton-Trump presidential campaign may not be unprecedented.

“Christians have routinely forecast the ominous consequences of the election of certain candidates throughout American history,” Thomas Kidd, distinguished professor of history at Baylor and a blogger for The Gospel Coalition, told Baptist Press in written comments. “The election of those candidates has almost never led to anything as dire as what people predicted.”

Through the years, Christians’ political rhetoric has been reasonable at times and unreasonable at times. Their predictions about the consequences of electing particular candidates have at times been accurate and at times inaccurate.

Yet a common theme through two centuries of presidential elections has been passionate opining by Christians of all denominational stripes -- especially before the 1954 Johnson Amendment prohibited 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations like churches from endorsing or opposing candidates.

Jefferson & Lincoln

In 1800, Baptists widely supported Jefferson because they saw him “as the great champion of religious liberty,” Kidd and fellow Baylor historian Barry Hankins wrote in their book “Baptists in America.” But other Christians predicted, Kidd told BP, that Jefferson “would inaugurate anti-Christian terror like that seen in radical phases of the French Revolution.”

As Jefferson campaigned, one pastor called him “a confirmed infidel” known for “vilifying the divine word, and preaching insurrection against God,” according to historian Robert MacDonald’s book “Confounding Father.” For his alleged lack of church attendance and skepticism regarding some biblical accounts, other ministers denounced Jefferson as a “howling atheist” and among the “fraternity of infidels.”

Lincoln’s candidacy drew particular concern from Southerners, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s second president John Broadus. In 1893, Broadus recalled in his “Memoir of James Petigru Boyce” that at the time of Lincoln’s election, the candidate’s stated intention of restricting slavery “to the states in which it already existed” was “regarded as a menace, not only to the institution of slavery, but to state rights and the fundamental principles of American liberty.”

Leading up to the 1860 election, North Carolina’s Biblical Recorder newsjournal rightly predicted, “A stormy time likely awaits the country.”

Al Smith

In 1928, the candidacy of Democratic presidential nominee Al Smith, who was defeated by Herbert Hoover, drew strong opposition from fundamentalist leaders, in part because of Smith’s Roman Catholic faith.

J. Frank Norris, also known for his harsh criticism of Southern Baptists, traveled fulltime during the summer and fall of 1928 campaigning against Smith, according to Hankins’ book “Jesus and Gin.” Seizing on anti-Catholic fears, Norris claimed Catholics would slaughter Protestants in the U.S. if they amassed enough political power.

Evangelist Billy Sunday said he was not opposed to Smith as a Catholic but denounced his opposition to prohibition, declaring in a sermon that “crooks, cork screwers, bootleggers [and] whiskey politicians ... shall not pass -- even to the White House,” according to Hankins.

New York fundamentalist leader John Roach Stratton criticized the Democratic Party for nominating a presidential candidate whose position on prohibition ran contrary to the official party platform.

In nominating Smith, the Democratic Party made “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell,” Stratton said according to Hankins.

JFK & LBJ

When Kennedy, another Catholic, became the Democratic nominee in 1960, many Southern Baptists voiced their objection.

Then-Southern Baptist Convention President Ramsay Pollard of Bellevue Baptist Church near Memphis said he could not “stand by and keep my mouth shut when a man under control of the Catholic Church runs for the presidency of the United States,” according to Daniel Williams’ book “God’s Own Party.”

Pastor W.A. Criswell of First Baptist Church in Dallas warned in a July 3, 1960, sermon that Kennedy’s election could begin a slippery slope to Roman Catholic control of America.

“The Roman Church wins most of its victories with the weapon of time,” Criswell said according to a transcript of the sermon at WACriswell.com. “Kennedy, in today, with strong [stated] emphasis ... on separation of church and state, and the door is open for another Catholic leader who gives the Pope, his ambassador, the church schools state support; and finally, recognition of one church above America.”

Among the concerns of some Southern Baptists was that Roman Catholic doctrine seemed to oppose full religious liberty and Kennedy might act in accordance with his church’s teaching, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Such concerns were voiced in sermons, Baptist state papers and informal discussions, the paper’s Robert S. Bird reported Sept. 25, 1960.

Leading up to the election, the SBC adopted a resolution that did not name Kennedy but seemed aimed at his candidacy.

The resolution expressed concern about any candidate for public office whose church “maintains a position in open conflict with our established and constituted American pattern of life as specifically related to religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the freedom of conscience in matters related to marriage and the family, the perpetuation of public schools and the prohibition against use of public monies for sectarian purposes.”

A month before the election, the Dallas Baptist Association adopted a resolution that echoed much of the same language, BP reported at the time.

Former President Harry Truman, himself a Southern Baptist, entered the fray and critiqued Baptists for opposing Kennedy. Under the Oct. 14, 1960, headline “Truman Blasts Baptists; Baptists Return Fire,” a BP story whose author was unnamed quoted Truman as saying those who voted for Kennedy’s opponent Richard Nixon “ought to go to hell.”

When President Lyndon Johnson ran against Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964, the Baptist Standard newsjournal of Texas solicited comments from each candidate on whether federal aid should be given to parochial schools. Johnson’s statement appeared to oppose such aid while Goldwater’s seemed to leave open the possibility.

The Standard printed both statements in its Sept. 9 issue along with an editorial arguing federal support for parochial schools was “the number one domestic issue in the November election.” Without specifically endorsing Johnson, editor E.S. James said offering aid to parochial schools “could well be the American Armageddon beyond which there will be no place to fall back.”

Clinton vs. Trump

Half a century later, at least some evangelical leaders have begun to articulate a different message regarding elections. Ethics & Religious Liberty President Russell Moore warned in an Oct. 24 lecture against “the sort of apocalyptic language that presents every presidential election as an Armageddon, from whence one cannot recover.”

“Religious conservatives will need a robust religion and a sense of what is in fact to be conserved,” Moore said according to Christianity Today. “This will mean abandoning the idea of a moral majority or a silent majority within the nation and building instead collaborative majorities, often issue by issue. It will mean institutions which have the vision and the financial resources to play a long game of cultural renewal and persuasion, not driven merely by the populist passions of the moment.”

Kidd offered counsel for voters in 2016 in light of the historical record.

“Obviously, Christians will bring serious moral concerns into the voting booth with them, wanting to choose candidates with integrity, and candidates who support the right to life, religious liberty and other important issues,” Kidd said. “But we should also remember that no candidate or political party will do the church’s work for it, and that the Lord remains sovereign regardless of who wins.”

Israeli archeologist Eilat Mazar has reported an exciting discovery — evidence that newly unearthed fortifications in Jerusalem were built 3,000 years ago. Based on the age of pottery shards that she found at the site, Mazar believes that the fortifications were built by Solomon, just as described in the Old Testament.

Of course that’s interesting news for Jews and Christians, but there’s a lot more to this than you might expect. As the Associated Press reported, “If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.”

That’s a direct contradiction to the views of some scholars who believe, as the AP puts it, “that David’s [and Solomon’s] monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.”

No wonder that Mazar calls the wall “the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel.” And if she’s right, we will have another link in the long chain of evidence that demonstrates the historical veracity of the Bible.

As I’ve said before on BreakPoint, discoveries like these are worth getting excited over — even though we need to be careful not to get TOO carried away by them. Every archeological, historical, or even scientific find that we make that supports the Scriptures is welcome news. They remind us that the Bible is a record of real people, places, and events — that as Dorothy L. Sayers put it, Jesus Christ was “born into history,” not into mythology.

At a time when the veracity of the Bible is under attack from all sides, such reminders are always refreshing and encouraging.

Yet at the same time, the primary source of our beliefs must remain the Bible itself. I made this point several years ago when archaeologists discovered an ossuary — that is, a box for bones — marked “James...brother of Jesus.” Even today there is controversy over the ossuary’s authenticity.

But even if the discovery of an ossuary or a city wall corroborates what the Bible says, that does not make the biblical facts more factual — it simply confirms them. And as historian Paul Johnson says, the confirming evidence for scriptural accuracy is mounting — so much so that the skeptics, not the Christians, must fear the further course of scientific discovery.

But always remember — the Bible stands on its own credible witness, regardless of whether secondary sources confirm or seemingly contradict it.

If we get too caught up in each discovery that seems to support the Bible, we run the risk of building our faith on a less-than-solid foundation. And we run the risk of being disappointed and disillusioned should a certain artifact be somehow discredited.

Better to build our faith on the solid rock of God’s Word — even as the evidence continues to mount, this time from a pile of ancient rubble pointing to the Word’s veracity.

Several years ago, Paul Johnson gave a remarkable speech at Dallas Seminary called “A Historian Looks at Jesus.” It’s one of the best pieces on the accuracy of Scripture I’ve encountered. I encourage you to read it as well — and you can do that now because we have it for you at our website, BreakPoint.org.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bible’s divine inspiration. Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.

Ezekiel’s prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame. In verse 2 of the first chapter, the prophet noted that his visions and prophecies began “in the fifth year of King Johoiachin’s captivity.” The date for this captivity is virtually unanimously accepted as 597 B.C. during the second deportation of citizens from Judea to Babylon, which is documented in detail in 2 Kings 24:10-20. Furthermore, not only is the deportation recorded in the biblical account, but the ancient Chaldean records document it as well (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 194). Since Ezekiel’s visions began five years after the deportation, then a firm date of 592 B.C. can be established for the beginning of his prophecy. The prophet supplies other specific dates such as the seventh year (20:1), the ninth year (24:1), the eleventh year (26:1), and the latest date given as the twenty-seventh year (29:17) [Note: for an outline see Archer, 1974, pp. 368-369].

Due to the firmly established dating system that Ezekiel chose to use for his prophecy, the date of the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, found in chapter 26, can be accurately established as the eleventh year after 597, which would be 586 B.C.

THE CITY OF TYRE

According to history, the Phoenician city of Tyre, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, stood as one of the most ancient and prosperous cities in history. Herodotus, known as the father of modern history, lived and wrote between about 490 B.C. and 425 B.C. (Herodotus, 1972, p. i). During a visit to the temple of Heracles in Tyre, Herodotus inquired about the age of the temple, to which the inhabits replied that the temple was as old as “Tyre itself, and that Tyre had already stood for two thousand three hundred years” (Herodotus, 2:44). From Herodotus, then, it can be supposed that the city goes back to 2,700 B.C.

Due to its advantageous geographical position and good ports, Tyre became one of the wealthiest trading cities in history. Fleming noted that it “was the most important of all Phoenician cities” (1966, p. ix). During the reigns of King David and King Solomon (circa 1000 B.C.), Hiram, king of Tyre, played a major role in the acquisition of building materials for important structures such as the Israelite kings’ houses and the first temple. In numerous biblical passages, the text states that Hiram sent cedar trees, carpenters, masons, and builders to Israel (2 Samuel 5:11) because of the Tyrians’ renowned skill in timber cutting (1 Kings 5:1-18). In addition, the Tyrians were equally well known for their remarkable ability to navigate the seas during Solomon’s era. Second Chronicles documents that Hiram sent ships and “servants who knew the sea” to work with Solomon’s men in acquiring gold from foreign lands (2 Chronicles 8:18).

The city of Tyre had a rather interesting and beneficial geographical arrangement. About half a mile off the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea stood a small rocky island on which the original city of Tyre was most likely founded. Some time after the founding of this island city, the mainland city of Tyre was founded, which was called Old Tyre by the Greeks (Fleming, p. 4). Josephus cites a Phoenician historian named Dius, as reporting that the Phoenician king Hiram, who was closely connected to kings David and Solomon, built a causeway from the original island to a smaller island, connecting the two (Against Apion, 1.17).

In addition to its beneficial geographic position, the city had great confidence in its many excellent defensive advantages. Fleming noted: “As early as 1400 B.C. Tyre was not only a great city but was considered impregnable” (p. 8). The ancient historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (most likely writing in approximately A.D. 50), listed several of these defensive traits that had remained intact as late as the siege by Alexander in 332 B.C. The force of the water and the wind that prevailed on the side of the city closest to the land was said to have produced a “corrosive force of waves” that would hinder the construction of any type of bridge or causeway from the mainland (4.2.8). Furthermore, the water nearest to the walls of the city was “especially deep” and would force any would-be attackers to position any type of siege mechanisms in the unstable foundation of a ship, and the wall “dropped sheer into the sea,” which prevented the use of ladders or approach by foot (4.2.9).

During the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was well established and renowned for its building, manufacturing, and trade. Ezekiel said of Tyre: “Your builders have perfected your beauty” (27:4), and then he proceeded to list several different kinds of wood and imported materials used by the Tyrians (27:3-11). The prophet stated: “When your wares went out by sea, you satisfied many people; you enriched the kings of the earth with your many luxury goods and your merchandise” (27:33).

But Tyre’s profitable trading had done little positive for its spiritual condition. In fact, as is often the case, the riches accrued by the city had caused widespread dereliction and spiritual decay. Concerning the city, Ezekiel noted: “By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned.... Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of splendor.... You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities” (28:16-18). Among the sins listed by Ezekiel, one specific attitude maintained by Tyre was designated by the prophet as the ultimate reason for the city’s demise. Ezekiel noted: “[B]ecause Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! She is broken who was the gateway of the peoples; now she is turned over to me; I shall be filled; she is laid waste.’ Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre’” (26:2-3). Apparently, in an attitude of commercial jealousy and greed, the city of Tyre exulted in Jerusalem’s misfortunes and expected to turn them into its own profit. Among Tyre’s list of despicable activities, the city’s slave trade ranked as one of the most profitable. The prophet Joel noted that Tyre had taken the people from Judah and Jerusalem and sold them to the Greeks so that the Tyrians could “remove them far from their borders” (Joel 3:6). These dastardly dealings with the inhabitants of Judah would not go unpunished.

In Ezekiel 26, the prophet mentioned several events that were to occur in Tyre as punishment for the city’s arrogance and merciless actions. The following is a lengthy, but necessary, quote from that chapter:

Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,” says the Lord God; “it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”

For thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,” says the Lord God....

For thus says the Lord God: “When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you may never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living. I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,” says the Lord God (26:1-14,19-21).

Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt.

In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.

It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.

After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.

Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field).

Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts. After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52). Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone” (p. 66). Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid.

ALEXANDER AND TYRE

The historical account of Alexander the Great’s dealings with Tyre adds another important piece to Ezekiel’s prophecy. By 333 B.C., Ezekiel’s prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and its building material cast into the midst of the waters had yet to materialize. But that situation was soon to be altered. Ancient historian Diodorus Siculus, who lived from approximately 80-20 B.C., wrote extensively of the young Greek conqueror’s dealing with Tyre. It is from his original work that much of the following information on Tyre’s destruction derives (see Siculus, 1963, 17.40-46).

In his dealings with Tyre, Alexander asserted that he wished to make a personal sacrifice in the temple of Heracles on the island city of Tyre. Apparently, because the Tyrians considered their island refuge virtually impregnable, with war machines covering the walls, and rapidly moving water acting as an effective barrier from land attack, they refused his request. Upon receiving their refusal, Alexander immediately set to work on a plan to besiege and conquer the city. He set upon the task of building a land bridge or cause way (Siculus calls it a “mole”) from the mainland city of Tyre to the island city. Siculus stated: “Immediately he demolished what was called Old Tyre and set many tens of thousands of men to work carrying stones to construct a mole” (17.40). Curtius Rufus noted: “Large quantities of rock were available, furnished by old Tyre” (4.2.18). This unprecedented action took the Tyrians by complete surprise. Fleming noted: “In former times the city had shown herself well nigh impregnable. That Alexander’s method of attack was not anticipated is not strange, for there was no precedent for it in the annals of warfare” (p. 56). And yet, even though this action was unprecedented militarily, it was exactly what one might expect from the description of the destruction of Tyre given by Ezekiel hundreds of years prior to Alexander’s actions. The mainland city was demolished and all her stones, timber, and soil were thrown into the midst of the sea.

In spite of the fact that the Tyrians were taken by surprise, they were not disheartened, because they did not believe that Alexander’s efforts would prevail. They continued to maintain supremacy on the sea, and harassed his workers from all sides from boats that were equipped with catapults, slingers, and archers. These tactics were effective in killing many of Alexander’s men. But Alexander was not to be outdone. He gathered his own fleet of ships from nearby cities and was successful in neutralizing the Tyrian vessels’ effectiveness.

With the arrival of Alexander’s sea fleet, the work on the land bridge moved much more rapidly. Yet, when the construction of the bridge was nearing completion, a storm damaged a large section of the mole. Refusing to quit, Alexander rebuilt the damaged structure and continued to move forward. In desperation, the Tyrians sent underwater divers to impede construction by attaching hooks to the rocks and trees of the causeway, causing much damage (Rufus, 4.3.10). Yet, these efforts by the Tyrians could not stop Alexander’s army and eventually the bridge spanned the distance from the mainland city to the island. Huge siege machines bombarded the walls of Tyre. Siculus’ description of the fight is one of the most vivid accounts of a battle in ancient history (17.43-46).

Eventually the Tyrians were defeated, their walls penetrated, and Alexander’s forces entered the city and devastated it. Most of the men of Tyre were killed in continued fighting. Siculus recorded that approximately 2,000 of the men in Tyre who were of military age were crucified, and about 13,000 “non-combatants” were sold into slavery (17.46) [Others estimate the number even higher.] In describing the devastation of the city by Alexander, Fleming wrote: “There was general slaughter in the streets and square. The Macedonians were enraged by the stubborn resistance of the city and especially by the recent murder of some of their countrymen; they therefore showed no mercy. A large part of the city was burned” (p. 63).

The secular, historical record detailing Alexander’s destruction of Tyre coincides precisely with Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning what would happen to its building materials. As Ezekiel had predicted, the stones, timber, and soil of the mainland city were thrown into the midst of the sea in an unprecedented military maneuver. For Ezekiel to have accurately “guessed” this situation would be to stretch the law of probability beyond the limits of absurdity. His acutely accurate representation of the facts remain as outstanding and amazing proof of the divine inspiration behind his message.

ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPHECY OF TYRE

One of the most disputed aspects concerning Ezekiel’s prophecy is the statement that the city of Tyre would “never be rebuilt” (26:14), and “be no more forever” (28:19). The skeptic points to modern day Tyre and suggests that these statements have failed to materialize. Till stated: “In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine” (n.d).

Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons. In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907).

From this twelfth-century A.D. text, then, we learn that by that period of time the city known as ancient Tyre lay completely buried beneath the sea and a new city, most likely on some part of the island, had been erected. George Davis, in his book Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible, included a picture of Syrian fishermen under which the following caption appeared: “Syrian fishermen hauling in their nets on the probable site of ancient Tyre, which perished as predicted by the prophet” (1931, p. 11). In his monumental work on the city of Tyre, Katzenstein mentioned several ancient sources that discussed the position of “Old Tyre.” He wrote: “Later this town was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline brought about by the dike and the alluvial deposits that changed Tyre into a peninsula” (1973, p. 15).

It very likely is the case that the specific site of ancient Tyre has been buried by sand and water over the course of the last 2,500 years and is lost to modern knowledge. That the prophet was speaking about the mainland city in reference to many aspects of his prophecy has much to commend it. It was to that mainland city that King Nebuchadnezzar directed most of his attention and destructive measures described in Ezekiel 26:8-11. Furthermore, it was the mainland city that Alexander destroyed completely and cast into the sea to build his causeway to the island city. In addition, Benjamin Tudela’s quote corresponds precisely to the statement that the prophet made in the latter part of chapter 26: “For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’” (26:19). In addition, Katzenstein noted that the scholar H.L. Ginsberg has suggested that the name “Great Tyre” was given to the mainland city, while the island city was designated as “Little Tyre” (p. 20). He further noted 2 Samuel 24:7, which mentions “the stronghold of Tyre,” and commented that this “may refer to “Old Tyre,” or the mainland city (p. 20).

Besides the idea that the bulk of the prophecy dealt with the mainland city, other possible solutions exist that would sufficiently meet the criteria that Tyre would “never be rebuilt” and would “be no more forever.” While it is true that a city does currently exist on the island, that city is not a “rebuilt” Tyre and has no real connection to the city condemned by Ezekiel other than its location. If the history of Tyre is traced more completely, it becomes evident that even the island city of Tyre suffered complete destruction. Fleming noted that in approximately A.D. 193. “Tyre was plundered and burned after a fearful slaughter of her citizens” (1966, p. 73). Around the year 1085, the Egyptians “succeeded in reducing Tyre, which for many years had been practically independent” (p. 85). Again, in about 1098, the Vizier of Egypt “entered the city and massacred a large number of people” (p. 88). In addition, the city was besieged in A.D. 1111 (p. 90), and again in April of 1124 (p. 95). Around the year 1155, the Egyptians entered Tyre, “made a raid with fire and sword...and carried off many prisoners and much plunder” (p. 101).

In addition to the military campaigns against the city, at least two major earthquakes pummeled the city, one of which “ruined the wall surrounding the city” (p. 115). And ultimately, in A.D. 1291, the Sultan Halil massacred the inhabitants of Tyre and subjected the city to utter ruin. “Houses, factories, temples, everything in the city was consigned to the sword, flame and ruin” (p. 122). After this major defeat in 1291, Fleming cites several travel logs in which visitors to the city mention that citizens of the area in 1697 were “only a few poor wretches...subsisting chiefly upon fishing” (p. 124). In 1837, another earthquake pounded the remains of the city so that the streets were filled with debris from fallen houses to such a degree that they were impassable (p. 128).

Taking these events into consideration, it is obvious that many nations continued to come against the island city, that it was destroyed on numerous occasions, and that it became a place for fishing, fulfilling Ezekiel’s prediction about the spreading of nets. Furthermore, it is evident that the multiple periods of destruction and rebuilding of the city have long since buried the Phoenician city that came under the condemnation of Ezekiel. The Columbia Encyclopedia, under its entry for Tyre, noted: “The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town” (“Tyre,” 2006).

Concerning Tyre’s present condition, other sources have noted that “continuous settlement has restricted excavation to the Byzantine and Roman levels and information about the Phoenician town comes only from documentary sources” (“Ancient Tyre...,” n.d). Another report confirmed, “Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times.... Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today’s city” (“Ancient Phoenicia,” n.d). Thus, the only connection that the present town maintains with the ancient one in Ezekiel’s day is location, and the present buildings, streets, and other features are not “rebuilt” versions of the original city. If Ezekiel’s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been “rebuilt.”

WHEN DID EZEKIEL PROPHESY?

Some have questioned the date of the composition of Ezekiel, due to the prophecy’s amazing accuracy in regard to its predictions concerning Tyre. Yet, the book of Ezekiel has much that lends itself to the idea that it was composed by Ezekiel during the time it claims to have been written. When did Ezekiel write his material? Kenny Barfield noted that, besides a belief that supernatural revelation is impossible,

no evidence supports the thesis that Ezekiel’s predictions were penned later than 400 B.C. Moreover, the book (Ezek. 1:1; 8:1; 33:1; 40:1-4) claims to have been composed by the prophet sometime in the sixth century, B.C., and Josephus attributes the book to the Hebrew prophet during the time in question (1995, p. 98).

In addition, Ezekiel was included in the Septuagint, which is the “earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures” available — a translation from Hebrew to Greek which was “executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era” (Septuagint, 1998,p. i).

Simon Greenleaf, the lawyer who is renowned for having played a major role in the founding of Harvard Law School and for having written the Treatise on the Law of Evidence, scrutinized several biblical documents in light of the procedures practiced in a court of law. He noted one of the primary laws regarding ancient documents: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise” (1995, p. 16). He then noted that “this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for” (pp. 16-17). Specifically in regard to Ezekiel, that is exactly the case. If the prophet wrote it in the sixth century B.C. his work is exactly where it should be, translated in the Septuagint around the year 250 B.C., and noted to be from the proper time period by Josephus in approximately A.D. 90.

Furthermore, the scholarly world recognized the book’s authenticity and original date of composition virtually unanimously for almost 1,900 years. The eminently respected Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch, who wrote in the late 1800s, commented: “The genuineness of Ezekiel’s prophecies is, at the present day, unanimously recognized by all critics. There is, moreover, no longer any doubt that the writing down and redaction of them in the volume which has been transmitted to us were the work of the prophet himself” (1982, 9:16). Indeed, Archer noted that no serious objection to the book’s integrity was even put forth until 1924 (1974, p. 369).

OBJECTIONS TO EZEKIEL’S AUTHENTICITY CONSIDERED

In regard to the objections that have been put forth, as Greenleaf noted, the burden of proof concerning the authenticity of Ezekiel lies with those who consider it inauthentic. Yet, far from proving such, they have put forth tenuous suggestions based on alleged internal inconsistencies. First, these critics have proposed that the work could not have been by one man since some sections are filled with descriptions of doom and destruction, while others resound with hope and deliverance. This alleged inconsistency holds little weight, as Miller noted:

Of course, this viewpoint is based on purely subjective considerations. No inherent reason exists that forbids a single writer from presenting both emphases. In fact, virtually all the prophets of the Old Testament announce judgment upon God’s people and/or their neighbors and then follow that judgment sentence with words of future hope and restoration if repentance is forthcoming.... One must be in possession of a prejudicial perspective before approaching Scripture to come to such a conclusion (1995, p. 138).

The second objection to the integrity of Ezekiel has little more to commend it than the first. The second “proof” of the book’s alleged inauthentic nature revolves around the fact that in certain sections, Ezekiel seems to be an eyewitness to events that are happening in Palestine, while at the same time claiming to be writing from Babylon. This objection can be dealt with quickly in a twofold manner. First, it would be possible, and very likely, that news would travel from the remnant of Israelites still free in Palestine to the captives in Babylon. Second, and more likely, if Ezekiel was guided by divine inspiration, he could have been given the ability to know events in Palestine that he did not see (see Miller, 1995, pp. 138-139). Taking the prophecy of Tyre into account, it is clear that Ezekiel did possess/receive revelation that allowed him to report events that he had not seen and that were yet to take place.

A third objection to Ezekiel’s authenticity actually turns out not to be an objection at all, but rather a verification of Ezekiel’s integrity. W.F. Albright, the eminent and respected archaeologist, noted that one of C.C. Torrey’s “principle arguments against the authenticity of the prophecy” (the book of Ezekiel — KB) was the fact that Ezekiel dates things by the “years of Jehoiachin’s captivity” (1948, p. 164). Supposedly, Jehoiachin would not have been referred to as “king” since he was captive in another land and no longer ruled in his own. Until about 1940, this argument seemed to possess some merit. But in that year, Babylonian tablets were brought to light that contained a cuneiform inscription giving the Babylonian description of Jehoiachin as king of Judah, even though he was in captivity (p. 165). Albright concluded by saying: “The unusual dates in Ezekiel, so far from being indications that the book is not authentic, prove its authenticity in a most striking way” (p. 165).

Due to the fact that modern critics have failed to shoulder the burden of proof laid upon them to discredit Ezekiel’s integrity and authenticity, Smith rightly stated: “The critical studies of the Book of Ezekiel over the past fifty years or so have largely cancelled each other out. The situation now is much the same as it was prior to 1924 (the work of Hoelscher) when the unity and integrity of the book were generally accepted by the critics” (Smith, 1979, p. 33). Miller correctly concluded: “All theories and speculations which call into question the unity and integrity of the book of Ezekiel are unconvincing.... The most convincing view is the traditional one that sees Ezekiel as the long recognized sixth century Hebrew prophet and author of the Old Testament book which bears his name” (1995, p. 139).

CONCLUSION

So accurate were the prophecies made by Ezekiel that skeptics were forced to suggest a later date for his writings. Yet, such a later date cannot be maintained, and the admission of Ezekiel’s accuracy stands as irrefutable evidence of the prophet’s divine inspiration. With the penetrating gaze that can only be maintained by the Divine, God looked hundreds of years into the future and instructed Ezekiel precisely what to write so that in the centuries following the predictions, the fulfillment of every detail of the prophet’s words could be denied by no honest student of history. “When the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent” (Jeremiah 28:9). Ezekiel’s accurate prophecy adds yet another piece of insurmountable evidence to the fact that “all Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

________

REFERENCES

Albright, W.F. (1948), “The Old Testament and Archaeology,” Old Testament Commentary, ed. Herbert Alleman and Elmer Flack (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press).

“Ancient Phoenicia” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://gorp.away.com/gorp/location/africa/phonici5.htm.

“Ancient Tyre (Sour)” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Tyre.html.

Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.

Barfield, Kenny (1995), The Prophet Motive (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Benjamin of Tudela (no date), “Traveling in Jerusalem,” [On-line], URL: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin.htm.

Benjamin of Tudela (1907), The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (New York, NY: The House of the Jewish Book), [On-line], URL: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin/ benjamin1.htm.

Davis, George T.B. (1931), Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Million Testaments Campaign).

Fleming, Wallace B. (1966), The History of Tyre (New York, NY: AMS Press).

Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics).

Herodotus, (1972 reprint), The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt (London: Penguin).

Josephus, Flavius (1987), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: Against Apion, trans. William Whitson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Katzenstein, Jacob (1973), The History of Tyre (Jerusalem: The Schocken Institute for Jewish Research).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament — Ezekiel and Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Miller, Dave (1995), “Introduction to Ezekiel,” Major Lessons from the Major Prophets, ed. B.J. Clarke (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications).

Rufus, Quintus Curtius (2001), The History of Alexander, trans. John Yardley (New York, NY: Penguin).

Septuagint (1998 reprint), (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Siculus, Diodorus (1963), Library of History, trans. C. Bradford Welles (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Smith, James (1979), Ezekiel (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Till, Farrell (no date), “Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html.

“Tyre” (2006), Columbia Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=48355.

________

Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Major article on the resurrection of Jesus. Seven lines of evidence from 1 Corinthians 15 are examined to support the historical resurrection.

1. How a Christian views death.

2. The facts of history.

3. Confidence beyond fabrication.

4. Through a glass, darkly.

Also discussion on resurrection vs. resuscitation, the intermediate state, and the resurrection body.

Sidebar "What if he didn't rise?" Ten implications from 1 Cor 15 are given.

*

Forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal. —Philippians 3:13-14

The great American baseball player Satchel Paige once said in jest, “Don’t look back—something may be gaining on you.” In contrast, George Santayana, a Spanish thinker and writer, noted in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” So which is it? Do we move on, never looking back, or do we dwell on our past errors to avoid making them again?

Scripture seems to indicate that we should do a little of both. We do need to think back on our lives and learn from our mistakes. That’s part of the process when we confess our sins and ask God for forgiveness. We need to think about our disobedience long enough to seek God’s mercy and then choose to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Forgiveness is God’s way of clearing the slate, but it’s our responsibility to depend on the strength of the Holy Spirit who lives within us to avoid repeating the errors of the past. The apostle Paul, for example, acknowledged his past mistakes, drew upon God’s mercy, and then focused on becoming more like Christ (Philippians 3:13-14).

So, is it best for us to look back or to look ahead? We would be wise to do a little of both: We need to look back for forgiveness, then look ahead to make progress. —JDB

More like the Master I would live and grow,

More of His love to others I would show;

More self-denial like His in Galilee,

More like the Master I long to ever be. —Charles Hutchinson Gabriel

To grow spiritually, face up to your failures, then focus on Christ for the future.