Psalm 26: Nothing to Hide before God

On January 18, 2023January 17, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Daily Faith, Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Poetry, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Psalms, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth

Scholar Beth Tanner said it well,

when our integrity is on the line, it is comforting to stand before God, depend on God’s relationship with each of us before we go out and face the not-so-forgiving world.”
in The Book of Psalms (Eerdmans, 2014)

As God’s people, meditating over the rich world of Psalm 26 can help us meet the challenges of this unforgiving world.

Genre and Context

Genre. Psalm 26 is a poetic prayer framed in the language of a plea of vindication, asking God to evaluate David’s commitment to the path of integrity. There are other genre suggestions made to account for the palatable sense of a legal complaint, or a priestly approach to God (26:6–8), a lament (26:1), or of its liturgical sensibilities for God’s people to approach God (26:6–8).

A complaint appeal to God seems, however, to be the most fitting literary form for the psalm. David implies throughout that his spiritual and moral integrity is under scrutiny, and explicitly invites the Lord’s assessment, confident that he will be found “on level ground” (26:12).

Context. There are nine psalms with the superscription (i.e., the headings) which reads, “Of David” (Psalms 25–28, 35, 37, 103, 138, 144). Although these are very ancient, they have never been thought of as inspired. They often provide ancient information about either its background (Psalm 51), its liturgical usage (“to the choirmaster,” Psalm 31), or its collection or authorship (Asaph, Psalm 80). “Of David” is so abbreviated and limited, Psalm 26 could be from any period of David’s life.

There are two additional ways to explore the context of individual psalms: their placement in the Psalter and internal references to other biblical themes. Psalm 26 is placed in Book 1 (Psalms 1–41) cataloging 37 Davidic psalms. The psalm also presumes an understanding of the priestly and sacrificial system (26:6–8), and the “path” of the righteous from Psalm 1.

Movements and Theology

Movements. The psalm clearly moves from the demand to be vindicated by God, with the declaration of having “walked in… integrity” (26:1) to the promise to “walk in … integrity” (26:12). The walk in integrity motif serves as an inclusio—two phrases serving as literary bookends. This is at the heart of the movement of the psalm. Once David’s past and present are vindicated by God’s refining fire of judgment, he promises to continue walking in integrity.

Our English translations do not always agree on how to divide these literary units but the most helpful way to see the movement of thought within the psalm is a five-part outline: (1) 26:1–3, (2) 26:4–5, (3) 26:6–8, (4) 26:9–10, and (5) 26:11–12. At the center of this outline are verses 6–8, which emphasize priestly preparation to stand in the presence of God (“Psalms” in The Transforming Word [ACU Press, 2009]). Clearly, David’s confidence in his innocence is not to be confused with a sense of sinlessness, for this reason, he pleads for redemption and grace (26:11b).

Theology. There are a few significant theological themes to soak in:

(1) A theology of vindication: In the opening invocation of God, David uses the verbal shopheteni (“vindicate me”; 26:1), a judicial term for “passing judgment.” It is used in the positive sense of “demonstrate my innocence.” The same phrase appears two other times: “Vindicate me, O Lord, My God” (35:24), and, “Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against ungodly people…” (43:1). Vindication of the righteous sufferer is a common theme throughout scripture (cf. Job; 1 Pet 2:18–25; Phil 2:5–11). David, too, insisted that God prove, try, and test his heart and mind (26:2).

(2) God’s Benevolent Faithfulness: Steadfast love (hesed) and faithfulness (‘emet) are found together fifty times in the Psalms. It affirms God’s character revealed at Mount Sinai: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty…” (Exodus 34:6–7). As Jonah reluctantly learned, this God also exists for those outside of his covenant as well (Jonah 4:2). David knows his God prefers a redemptive relationship over penal punishment.

(3) The priestly approach: In Exodus 30:17–21, the priests who serve in the tabernacle (i.e., the Lord’s house; Psalm 26:8) must wash their hands and their feet in a bronze basin before entering, “so that they may not die” (17:21). Temple rituals for coming into the presence of God are often spiritualized by those outside the Levitical guild. David affirms that he appropriately prepares himself to be in God’s house since only by the grace of God do we have access to redemption, praise, and worship in his presence (Psalm 26:6–8, 11).

(4) The two paths: The first psalm establishes the two paths: the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Psalm 1:1, 4–6). The wicked and the righteous, and their deeds, are fully known by God; likewise, their fates are determined by their lifestyle. This theological framing is found in Psalm 26. David appeals to this language when he disavowed association with the wicked (26:5; 1:1), and in his request not to be lumped in among the sinners when God scoops them all together in judgment (26:9; 1:1, 5).

Application

It is hard to know the particular scenario in David’s life which gave rise to this psalm. The power of the inspired poetic form, however, is found in the accessibility of our contemporary settings despite the differences.

The integrity of God’s people will be challenged, but such an inspection should be welcomed if God’s people are seeking the way of the righteous in a humble, graceful, and redemptive way

Sources

Tanner, Beth LaNeel. “Psalm 26: Prepare to Appear” in DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of Psalms. NICOT Edited by E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.

Marrs, Rick R. “Psalms” in The Transforming Word One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Mark W. Hamilton. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2009.

Are Miracles Possible?

On March 28, 2021October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]
Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, ²and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. ³For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. ¹¹Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.

Must I “Hate” my Family for Jesus (Luke 14:26)?

On March 14, 2021April 13, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

There are always those who jump at any opportunity to disparage the character of the Son of God. They pursue any apparent inconsistency and press it beyond anything resembling its biblical and original intent.

Such is the case with Jesus’s words in Luke 14:26. The passage reads:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV; emph. added)

An antagonistic critic of Jesus declared that these words makes Jesus a “cult leader” bent of intimidating his followers.

At first glance, the words are troublesome and it would be disingenuous to deny that the passage is disturbing. Nevertheless, the problem is skin deep, and is part of a larger flow of thought in which the Lord emphasizes the principle of focused commitment (Luke 14:28–32).

I will unpack this in two basic steps. First, I look at the context of the passage in the Gospel of Luke to see its big picture theme. Second, I show the term translated “hate” (miséō) has a broad spectrum of meaning and reflects a cultural hyperbolic expression of preference.

A Look at Context

In order to appreciate any passage of Scripture its context must be understood. No single verse reveals everything the Bible has to say on a given subject. It is easy to misunderstand a verse when read without getting a handle of the big picture of the passage.

The “big picture” gives us a proper perspective. This saying is found in the context of a dinner party that Jesus attended at the house of “a ruler of the Pharisees” (Luke 14:1). It is part of Jesus’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51) where he anticipates his rejection and crucifixion (Luke 9:21–22, 43b–45; 18:31–34).

It would be expected for the traveling rabbi to offer wisdom and instruction. The teaching done at dinner takes up a major part of this journey narrative (14:1–17:10) and provides some of Jesus’ strongest teaching on proper use of one’s life and material blessings for the good of others as members of God’s kingdom (search for the lost sheep, the lost coin; receive the wasteful son; live prudently; live generously, etc.).

Earlier in the dinner scene, inspired by a man with dropsy, Jesus initiated a discussion about the legality of healing on the Sabbath (14:2). Since the Bible experts (i.e., lawyers) and Pharisees “remained silent” Jesus went forward and healed the man (14:4). Jesus then pressed them with a question on compassion:

Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? (Luke 14:5)

Since there was continued silence (“they could not reply to these things”, 14:6), Jesus posed a series of parables to them.

The Parables. Jesus told the parable of honorable seats to the guests that searched for prominent seats at the dinner party to rebuke their sense of self-importance (Luke 14:7–11). He then pressed his host to welcome those who could not repay him, trusting in repayment “at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12–14). This led to the parable of “a great banquet” to which many were “invited,” but these made excuses for why they could not attend. So, “the poor and crippled and blind and lame” were invited to enjoy this banquet instead (Luke 14:15–24).

Clearly, Jesus challenged the hypocrisy of his host and fellow guests as they “dined” while surrounded by the crippled and the poor without so much of a concern for their needs. The rhetorical tool of the parable provided an image-rich narrative designed to teach a spiritual truth in an understandable and comparative way. In this way, he shows that grace of the kingdom of God is not for some future age (Luke 14:15) but an ethic to be practiced in the now.

The host’s table was supposed to be the theater of God’s kingdom. In the end, all they could do was grumble because Jesus ate with sinners (Luke 15:1–2).

The Kingdom of Commitment. The themes of the parables Jesus teaches are initially focused on a disparity between the high society of the Pharisees and scribes with those disenfranchised Jews seeking and needing the grace found in the kingdom of God. The main problem was misplaced loyalties manifested in a dereliction of responsibility.

God seeks those who will hear his invitation to relationship. This parable anticipates the rejection of God on the part of the Jews who delivered Jesus to Pilate, and the global outreach to the gentile world with the Gospel invitation. In connection with this parable, Jesus lays out four “loyalty arguments” (14:26–32):

One must “bear his own cross” and follow him. This phrase foreshadows Jesus’ commitment to God’s redemptive plan to the point of his own execution on a cross. His followers are called to the same level of commitment in the choices they make (14:27).
To build a structure one must first “count the cost” to complete the construction. This statement is parabolic, if not proverbial, illustrating thoughtfulness in commitment. What will following Jesus demand of me? What will be the tradeoffs to commit to the kingdom of God (14:28–30)?
Before entering war one must “sit down first and deliberate.” What are my strength or weakness? Should I act towards war or peace? Jesus illustrates that decisive decisions are based on the awareness of things as they are (14:31–32).
Jesus bookends his sayings with strong words of full total commitment. Jesus speaks of “hating” the closest of human connections (14:26), and “renouncing all” for him (14:33).

Jesus was rebuking the conduct of the Pharisees and scribes at the dinner. They showed no loyalty, commitment, or deliberate reflection to follow through in their service to God, only excuses and self-righteous pretensions. Jesus calls this failure out through hyperbole, an obvious and intentional exaggeration.

Hyperbolic Exaggeration

Jesus, in this setting, is speaking hyperbolically. He was using a common feature that overlaps with our own: exaggeration. Today might say to a long lost friend, “I haven’t seen you in a thousand years!” Or, we may even claim, “I’m so hungry I can eat a horse.” They are not literal statements. Hyperbole is, according to Elena Pasarello, a “grasping beyond what is necessary in order to describe a certain feeling, an experience, or response.”[1] We often forget Jesus speaks with similar conventions and this failure affects how we read Jesus’ words.

Clearly “to hate” is a verb with strong overtones. But whose overtones should we be concerned about? Ours, or that of the ancient setting in which Jesus spoke?

First, the hostile environment provides the right background for the use of hyperbole. Our expectations of hate includes with it ideas of “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury” or “to feel extreme enmity toward: to regard with active hostility” affect our reading of this text (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This is not what Jesus had in mind.

In Luke 14:26, the verb miséō is translated “hate” in nearly every major English Bible translation. Greek dictionaries also agree that it corresponds to a spectrum of meaning such as hate, despise, disregard and “be indifferent to” (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13).[2] Context, however, determines how the term should be translated. In the hostile dinner setting Jesus seeking to awaken the dinner party to their hypocrisy, their indifference to the poor and the outsider. God’s people must be woken up.

Second, Jesus is on record elsewhere in Luke that God’s people should treat their enemies with love. Earlier in Luke 6 Jesus teaches the following:

I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you... ³²If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them... ³⁵But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. ³⁶Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27–28, 32, 35–36)

Jesus teaches that God’s people should show a love that is kind toward those who hate them. Whatever miséō means in Luke 14:26 it must be read consistently with Jesus’ other teachings.

Third, Jesus knew, observed and defended the command to “honor your mother and father.” In one of his final encounters on his journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:44), Jesus reminds the rich young ruler of this command (Luke 18:20; cf. Matt 19:19: Mark 7:10, 10:19). In Matthew 15:1–20, Jesus defends this command against the subversive traditions and tactics of the Pharisees and scribes:

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ ⁵But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” ⁶he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. (Matt 15:3–6)

Jesus is calling out the hypocrisy of the traditions of Pharisees and scribes, the very same guild of biblical scholars he is addressing in Luke 14. The non-exaggerated teaching of Jesus legitimately forces us to read Luke 14:26 in a different way. Jesus honored the commandments.

Fourth, parallel sayings of Jesus provide additional clarification evidence. In Matthew 10:37 Jesus provides another lens to understand “hate” in terms of “preference” or deep loyalty:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

To the Jew this was a very common way to express that one’s loyalty to God was to surpass any human bonds of loyalty.

Another example is found in Matthew 6:24, which highlights a cultural way of expressing ideas of “preference” or “indifference”:

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

This probably explains why the Good News Translation (1992) renders Luke 14:26:

Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well. (emph. added)

While this is certainly the meaning of Jesus words, the softening of the language robs us of a significant fact. Jesus found value in targeted exaggerations to make a point.

Fifth, the ides of love and preference, or hatred and indifference are also seen in the Old Testament. For example, Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen 29:30), yet this preference is also stated as “Leah was hated” (Gen. 29.31).

Paul illustrates his affirmation of the justness of God to elect whom he wishes by his election of Jacob over Esau. Jacob elected/preferred over Esau based upon God’s sovereignty (Mal 1:2–3; Rom 9:10–13).

¹⁰And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, ¹¹though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— ¹²she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ¹³As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Finally, in the culture of Jesus notions such as interest, disregard, and indifference are often expressed in terms of “love” and “hate” which do have very limited translations.[3]

On this point, consider the following observation:

[T]he Orientals [Eastern culture], in accordance with their greater excitability, are wont both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals [Westerners], with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing.
Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896)[4]

Scholar G. B. Caird observed similarly:

To hate father and mother did not mean on the lips of Jesus what it conveys to the Western reader (cf. Mark 7:9–13). The semitic mind is comfortable only with extremes –light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate– primary colours [sic] with no half-shades of compromise in between.
G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke (1963)[5]

Jesus is speaking in an exaggerated hyperbolic fashion to give some shock value to illustrate the kind of deep preferential conviction God’s people must have.

Conclusion

The big picture context of Luke 14:26 demonstrates that Jesus is in the middle of a series of instructive parables focused on proper discipleship in the kingdom of God. They are directed to the host, the guests, and the crowds that joined them. When Jesus speaks to the crowds he outlines the deliberative nature of would-be disciples and should be disciples. These are non-negotiable matters.

The idea of “hate” (miséō) as a cultural hyperbolic expression provides a proper understanding to Jesus’ meaning. Jesus did not violate the mosaic law to honor one’s parents, but he lived it and defended against any corruption by false piety. Instead, Jesus spoke in his own cultural semitic vernacular.

In the final analysis, misguided assaults on the character of Jesus backfire. This should also remind God’s people to take the time to examine the passage adequately.

Endnotes

Elena Pasarello, “What is Hyperbole?” Oregon State University.
Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, rev. ed. (2010; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014), 119.
BDAG 652.
Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 415.
G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke, Pelican New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. E. Nineham (1963; repr., Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974),178.

Tips for the Wise: Reading Proverbs

On February 21, 2021April 9, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bulletin, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Proverbs, Wisdom Literature

Communication requires a certain sensibility to understand what is being said, written, or acted. A McDonalds menu communicates certain that “edible” products are available for a certain price, but the sentiment is very different from a romantic poetic Valentine’s Day card. A bank statement certainly tells a story, but does it use the same language and method as horror movie? For some it just might! These communicate to their readers but they do so with quite different expectations in mind. In fact, communication depends on certain expectations set by its author and the setting (context) it is offered.

The Bible presents a unique challenge because it is a library of several genres of communication written to people in a variety of context. Modern readers of the Bible should be aware that they are reading an ancient book with ancient models of communication. It becomes an imperative for the modern reader to respect the various genres of Scripture as intended by God and his chosen prophets.

A type of literature that is both popular but also easily misread is Hebrew wisdom. This type of literature is should not be taken as hard promises from God. I would like to explain why and offer a few suggestions to help God’s people read this section of scripture better.

The Importance of Genre

It is important to recognize that Old Testament books must be analyzed with respect. Conscientious Bible students recognize this. Respect must be rendered to the text not only due to the nature of the document as being the very breath of God’s mouth (2 Tim 3:16), but also because each document is a literary work composed in a unique style – a unique genre.

For example, one should not consider the creation week in Genesis 1 as a fictional-poetic treatise because the book of Genesis is a historical document, designed to instruct humanity concerning the origin of man, the fall of humanity, and the promise of the seed which would come to bless all the nations of the earth – Jesus Christ (Gen 22:18; Gal 3:9). Genesis is an inspired historical narrative and must be analyzed with this in mind.[1]

It is unfortunate that inspired historical documents are often treated by some as poetry or as a fictional novella, at the mercy of any revisionist who disagrees with its message or storyline.

Wisdom in Proverbs

Another unfortunate error, which is often overlooked, is that which transforms wisdom literature into absolute historical fact void of any sense of generality. The value of the proverbs is precisely because they are generalities which provide thoughtful guidance for those seeking to life a wise and spiritual life. Walter Russell calls attention to this aspect of wisdom literature:

It is concise, memorable, simple, and profound; it observes life and reflects the voice of experience; it is thoughtful about human experience and designed to give us practical living skills for confusing circumstances. It also challenges us not to falsely spiritualize everything in life.[2]
Walter Russell, Playing with Fire (NavPress, 2000)

A classic example of the generalness of wisdom literature is found in proverbs like the following:

When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. (Pro 16:7 ESV)

How should such passages be understood: as an absolute formula or as general principles? Did Jesus experience this as an absolute promise? Hardly! What should the Bible reader do, then, with passages like this? Read them based on the merits of the expectations for its genre.

Here are a few suggestions.

First, it is the nature of a proverb to provide general wisdom principles:

The nature of the proverbs is such that they should not be interpreted as prophecy or as promises about certain effects and results. Rather, they are best viewed as theological and pragmatic principles.[3]
Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (HarperCollins, 2000)

For as much as we would want them to be absolute promises we must be cautious. Proverbial passages are not to be pressed beyond their intent, which is: to be general truths to guide the godly in the path of righteousness (Pro 1:1–9).

Second, the generalness of proverbs should discourage their use as an infallible rule.

For example, it is certainly true that the guidance of Proverbs 16:7 has run true to many who have lived a godly life. But it is also true that living consistent with the will of God will bring heartache and sorrow due to persecution (Matt 5:1–12, 2 Tim 3:12–13). A person’s enemies may become one-hundred-fold almost immediately when following God.

Recall the Lord Jesus’ ways which pleased the Father (John 8:29). Might one suppose that his enemies should come to a state of peace with him? If one took this proverb as an absolute formula, then yes. However, not all saw Jesus as a teacher come from God (John 3:1–2) and his enemies multiplied and waited to catch him in their theological traps (Luke 11:53–54). Proverb 16:7 is general in scope, emphasizing a positive aspect of godly living, never intending to exclude negative factors.

Finally, perhaps the most problematic factor in dealing with general principles is the failure of some to take into account that no one verse carries embedded within it the totality of a biblical subject.

While the sum of God’s word is truth (Psa 119:160), the Proverbs are maxims. In Proverbs 22:6 it is written:

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (ESV)

The passage is designed to emphasize that children are impacted by their parents long after they leave home. The impact of domestic education is life lasting. Yet one should not take this passage as an absolute formula, for this would dismiss one of the most vital elements of the nature of man: free moral agency. The impact is life lasting, but the choices are left to the child.

It is unfortunate to see some depart from the faith after being “raised in the church.” It should not be assumed that it is the direct result of the parents being derelict in their parental duties. Life and decision-making are complicated matters.

Concluding Thoughts

Biblical literature is composed of a wide range of genres. These genres of literature ought to be treated with the respect they rightly deserve, otherwise poor exegesis will follow. In principle we run the danger of binding were God has not bound.

We must be conscientious Bible students using Scripture correctly. May we never apply general principles as absolute infallible rules.

Endnotes

There is a debate over how to read Genesis 1, but I find no reason to reject the twenty-four hour view even when presented in a stylistic way. See David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), and John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (2000; Repr., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001).
Walter B. Russell, Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2000), 161.
Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), 290.

The Written Word of God

On January 31, 2021February 3, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Bibliology, Essays, New Testament, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth, Theology

The word Bible is a transliteration of the Greek bíblos, meaning “book, writing.” In the New Testament, the word has a range of applications that refer to sacred and important literary roles, written documents we would call “books” today (Mark 12:26; Phil 4:3, Acts 19:19, Matt 1:1).[1] It seems embarrassingly simplistic but the Bible means “the Book,” probably in the sense of, “the Book par excellence.” It speaks to us God’s Word, it tells us God’s story of the creation of the world and the pursuit of His fallen creation to bring about reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

At times it is easy to put the Bible aside and replace its intended centrality for our spiritual nourishment with other spiritual disciplines. Worship and praise, although an important discipline and expression, do not nourish the soul with transformative power the way the Bible does. Doing good in the community is detached from its purpose and mediation of the kingdom of God when ignorant of the biblical story and message imprinted on its pages.

For this reason, I’d like to focus briefly on three points. First, God intended for his revelation to be put into a written—durative—form that would extend beyond its original setting down to you and me, and beyond. Second, God intended for his word to provide standardized teaching to transform the believer and the lost seeker. Third, God’s word is what shapes God’s people into a faithful and vibrant community where the gospel is embraced and enacted.

The Durative Written Word

Several years ago, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix made the argument that while God could have used angelic revelations, visions, and dreams, moral “oughtness,” or direct divine communication and intervention, God chose a permanent method to dispense his teaching and will – “the time-tested superiority of a written record of truth.”[2]

The value of a written record, particularly a religiously written record, is seen in Geisler and Nix’s concluding argument:

A written record has one additional advantage as well, namely, it can stimulate memory and conjure up within the individual’s imagination a host of personal implications that are latent within the given symbols or words of that record. Words, then, are not wooden as to prevent a “personal blessing” for the individual reader, particularly in light of the fact that biblical words are the objective vehicle through which the Holy Spirit applies truth personally and subjectively to each reader individually (cf. John 16:13; 1 Pet 1:11).[3]
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Moody, 1986), emph. added.

The Bible, then, is a written record –a durative witness– to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

A life that existed in eternity, was revealed in the sinless life of a human servant of God, and fully demonstrated to be divine in the death and resurrection of himself, Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1–3, 14; Phil 2:5–8; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 1:1–4). This is a permanent record of the Greatest Story Ever Told.

A Pattern of Teaching

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:15–18 ESV)[4]

In a section focused on the conversion process (Rom 6), the apostle Paul frames it in terms of “dead to sin and alive to God.” Under the parody of death to slavery which releases one from “ownership” and then by means of a resurrection to life —legally free from slavery— Paul argues that one legally enters into voluntary slavery (Rom 6:15–19).[5] It is here that Paul rejoices:

thanks be to God. that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching [typos didachēs] to which you were committed. (Rom 6:17)

It is here that a particular phrase emerges — “the standard of teaching [typos didachēs].”

Some feel that since Paul typically uses typos (standard, example, molding, etc) “is personal in nature” as in the following list:

Adam in Romans 5:14.
Paul and company in Philippians 3:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:9.
The Thessalonians church in 1 Thessalonians 1:7.
The conduct of Timothy (1 Tim 4:12) and the good works of Titus (Tit 2:7).

If so, then it is “highly probable” that Romans 6:17 is a personal reference to Jesus.[6]

On the other hand, it has been argued that Paul means typos in its metaphoric use as a molding and hence normative teaching which “shapes the [Christian’s] whole personal conduct” once obedient to it.[7] So which is it? Are we forced to make a hard-line distinction between these two proposals?

I do not think so, for they are too intimately connected at the theological capillaries. First, Jesus despite being an actual person is the incarnate Word. Thus, when one submits to the word of God, one is submitting to Jesus as the complete exposition of God’s revelation.

Second, when one submits to the teaching of the gospel and is formed by it, one is being formed and fashioned by Jesus. It seems that one should not try to split hairs here since to submit and to be fashioned by the One is to submit and to be fashioned by the other. And so, we can agree with Harrison when he says,

Though Paul had not founded the church, he could be confident that whoever did had taken the trouble to give teaching upon which he himself could build as he wrote his letter. This in itself presupposes a rather fixed norm of instruction.[8]
Everett F. Harrison, “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache,” BSac 119 (1962)

The concept of normative instruction is found throughout the biblical record. This supports our position that God intended to leave behind a reliable and trustworthy record of his message.

The Living and Active Word

Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:11–13)

I have always found this passage to be troubling. It is troubling because it is straightforward but surrounded by a perplexing description of the “word of God” (4:12).

But first, consider the context of this passage (Heb 3:1–4:13). Thematically, (a) the author elevates Jesus as one who is faithful to his appointment by God as a son over God’s house, a house which is built by God, which the writers says “we are” (3:1–6). (b) As a consequence (therefore), the writer calls the Holy Spirit’s message from Psalm 95:7b–11 a warning to members of this house to be faithful to God’s voice. Concepts such as rebellion, provocation, hardened hearts, and God’s promise of reward or punishment, rest or disbarment from divine granted rest (3:7–19).

(d) The principles of Psalm 95 are brought to a conclusion in an appeal to fear lest any should seem to have failed to reach rest (4:1–10). The writer presses, then, a connection between Israelite failure and Hebrew Christian failure to enjoy the rest; one by means of unbelief (3:19), the other by means of disobedience (4:7). Yet, in all of this, there is a desire to create an environment of obedience of faith where confidence and hope thrive (4:2; 10; 3:6). (e) Finally, the last section (4:11–13) adds an additional conclusion to the reasoning begun in 3:1. The exhortation is to enter the rest promised by the Divine edict, and the explanatory words of “falling” in the wilderness before rest are implied. The writer then connects this exhortation with the implied method of obedience by accepting our heavenly calling to listen to the Word of God (3:1; 4:12).

It needs to be observed that “the author speaks to all the readers but focuses on a concern that ‘any one’ of them fall short: the concern here is not an individual achievement but rather that ‘the people of God’ reach its goal intact” (emph. mine).[9] The word of God then has an integral role to play in the communal faithfulness of God’s people. Its capacity to meet this goal is outlined in four ways.

Luke Timothy Johnson provides an excellent discussion of these descriptions:[10]

The word of God is living (zōn). “Hebrews applies the same quality of life that is normally associated with God’s being to God’s word.”
The word of God is active (engergēs). “The translation ‘active’ (see RSV) is certainly possible, but while it captures well the sense of ‘energy,’ it fails to capture the nuance of ‘power.’”
The word of God is sharper than two-edged swords. “The sharpness of the blade is revealed by its ability to cut to “the division between soul and spirit, joints and marrow.”
The word of God discriminates between thoughts and conceptions of the heart. “As with ‘soul and spirit, joints and marrow,’ the discernment between thought and conception is the more impressive because the difference between them is so slight and unavailable to human perception.”

If the church is to move in the direction of its mission and its calling, it must embrace the “deep tissue” work of the word of God to actively expose the areas that are strong and those areas that require Divine accountability and transformation.

Concluding Thoughts

Let us never ignore the great breadth and extent of the Word of God. God speaks in broad and generic terms through creation (Psa 19:1–2; Rom 1:20–21). God spoke through the oral preaching of prophets and apostles in the past. God spoke to selected individuals through dreams and visions. And most clearly, and finally, God has spoken through the very image of the Divine, Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1–3). Nevertheless, it is the sacred writings that Paul says we know of salvation and spiritual formation (2 Tim 3:10–17). Why? Because it is the very breath of God in a durative written record that provides us the pattern of the gospel message that makes us Christians and Christians only.

Endnotes

James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), 111.
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986), 323.
Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction, 324.
All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016) unless otherwise stated.
Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981): 87.
Everett F. Harrison, “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache,” Bsac 119 (1962): 120.
Leonhard Goppelt, “túpos, antítupos, tupikós, hupotúpōsis,” TDNT 8:250.
Harrison, “Some Patterns,” 120.
Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 131.
Johnson, Hebrews, 133–35.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Revised and expand. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986.

Goppelt, Leonhard, “túpos, antítupos, tupikós, hupotúpōsis,” TDNT 8: 246-59.

Harrison, Everett F. “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache.” Bsac 119 (1962): 120-28.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Edited by C. Clifton Black, et al. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.

Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81-95.

Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.

Jesus: Only a Moral Teacher?

On January 25, 2021August 29, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, C.S. Lewis, Christian Evidences, Christology, Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Miracles, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

A few years ago the Barna Group published the results of 2014 survey of “2005 web-based and phone surveys conducted among a representative sample of adults over the age of 18 in each of the 50 United States.”[1] The results showed that while a strong 93% believed Jesus was a historical figure, they held various views of his nature:

43% believed he was “God living among us”
31% believed he was “uniquely called to reveal God’s purpose in the world”
9% he “embodied the best that is possible in each person”
8% he was “a great man and a great teacher, but not divine”

These are the signs of the time. Across generational lines people accept the historicity of Jesus rather than believe he never existed (See my research paper: “Regarding the Divide between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History“). The perception that Jesus is God, however, is questioned more by Millennials than their predecessors.

We have to come to grips with the reality that even some “Christians” believe Jesus as only a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders in human existence. They praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule) recorded in the Gospels. The New Testament, however, adds a unique dimension to his nature that make it impossible to accept his teachings while at the same time ignore the deity of Jesus Christ affirmed in its pages.

I will look at one historic figure who felt he could separate the ethical teacher, Jesus, from an enfabled supernatural Christ, and then demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching ministry was tightly interwoven with the miraculous.

The Case of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), a “Founding Father” of the United States of America, is an interesting case study. He profoundly shaped the United States as drafter of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). And while he was a self-proclaimed “Christian” and even promoted Bible literacy, Jefferson regarded all the miraculous elements in the Gospels as supernatural “rubbish” which must be removed from Jesus’ teaching, as one does “a diamond from the dung heap.”[2]

Jefferson was a theist and often used the language of Natural Theology/Philosophy (i.e., evidence in nature of a Creator-God) when speaking of his belief in God. For example, in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson appeals to “Nature’s God,” other times, “Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the universe,” “overruling providence,” and a “benevolent governor.”

Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet, in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic.[3]
“Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

As a product of these tensions, Jefferson was a hybrid rationalistic-deist with a Jesus twist. There is God (without miracles), there is providence (without intervention), and there is the mind God gave humanity to bring about good into the world.

To Jefferson, then, one of the greatest harms that ever happened to Jesus was the corruption of his teaching with the additions of “fabrications… of their own [i.e., disciples’] inventions [of miracles].”[4] This conviction led Jefferson to “edit” the Gospels by cutting out–literally–the teachings, sayings, and discourses of Jesus and then pasting them into his “wee little book.”[5] This project finalized in The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), today known as, The Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson affirmed that his work was “proof,” as he wrote to Charles Thomson, “that I am a real Christian… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”[6] However,

In neither the eighteenth century nor today would most people consider a person with [his] views a “Christian.”[7]
“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

Certainly not an orthodox Christian. The problem with Jefferson’s estimation of Jesus as a moral reformer is its inconsistent denial of all the accompanying miraculous elements the Gospels often safeguard interwoven with his mission, nature, and instruction. As I shall illustrate below.

The Authority of the Son of Man

The Gospels reveal that the teaching ministry of Jesus cannot be divorced from their miraculous components without doing damage to our understanding of the nature and mission of Jesus.

The story of the healed paralytic is one of the most touching miracle stories in the Gospels. This miracle in Galilee event is recorded in Matthew (9:1–8), Mark (2:1-12), and Luke (Luke 5:17–26). Jesus had returned to his home in Capernaum, Galilee (Matt 4:13, 9:1; Mark 2:1) where crowds found him once again and flooded the domicile as he was preaching (Mark 2:2). As there was no room, the friends of a certain paralyzed man creatively removed the tiles of the roof so they could drop the man down for healing (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3–4; Luke 5:18–19). What happened next was a game changer: Jesus doesn’t heal the man, he forgives him (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20).

This episode instructs on the authority and divinity of Jesus. The narrative provides an unexpected conclusion in the first act (forgiveness): forgiveness of the invisible ailments of paralyzed man; after all, they came for healing. This declaration, however, raised the ire of the “scribes and the Pharisees” who were offended at the very idea. This was a blasphemous scandal:

“Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21 ESV; Mark 2:6–7; Matt 9:3)

Jesus had committed a spiritual offense of highest magnitude in the eyes of the “scribes and Pharisees.” By declaring forgiveness he claimed a Divine prerogative to forgive sins (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33, Jer 31:34). Remember, for the scribes and the Pharisees Jesus was just a freelancing rabbi, nothing more than a Jewish man.

In the second act (miracle), Jesus called out their inner monologue regarding his sacrilege (Matt 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22), and then raised the stakes. Jesus has entered into the spiritual “kill box” of Jewish orthodoxy: a human cannot forgive sins, only God does that; a human cannot claim deity or Divine prerogative, to make the claim is to blaspheme. Jesus then utters an “either…or” challenge like the prophet Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20–40).

“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Luke 5:23)

The rhetorical question answers itself. If he can do the “harder” thing that requires an empirical/visible demonstration (“rise and walk”), then he can do the “invisible thing” which is to forgive sins. The entire ethical validity of Jesus’ teaching depends on this challenge. In a public demonstration Jesus tells the paralyzed man:

“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24)

The miracle was immediate (Luke 5:25), the crowd was amazed (Luke 5:26), and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possesses both the ability and right to forgive sins!

Therefore, in this instance, Jesus exercises his privileges showcasing his God-nature. In the third act (reaction), the people respond with:

“We have seen extraordinary things today.” (Luke 5:26; Mark 2:10; Matt 9:8)

This miracle shows just how impossible it is to sever the miraculous from Jesus’ teaching ministry. Jesus taught and preached on moral excellence, this much is true, but he acted clearly as one who is more than human. As John says it, Jesus is “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The New Testament documents, if they are going to be read properly, must be read on their terms not what we think has happened to the text.

Lunatic, Liar, Lord… Legend?

We conclude this piece with a challenge from C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) in his work, Mere Christianity. Lewis goes into considerable length in calling attention to a problem of viewing Jesus as “a great moral teacher” and rejecting “His claim to be God.” As Lewis sees it:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[8]
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan)

Lewis offers three basic options when it comes to Jesus: He is either (1) a lunatic, (2) a liar, or (3) the very Lord and God revealed in the documents of the New Testament. In Jesus’ words, he affirms his own claim: “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Jefferson, and many who follow in his footsteps, however, would suggest at least a fourth option about the Jesus of the New Testament: (4) legend. If the disciples embellished his divine nature, then, why not embellish his teaching ministry, his compassion, or for that matter his ethics? I wish to press this clearly, one must receive Jesus en toto–that is, completely (miracles and all)–for to accept him partially (only a moral teacher) is to have no Jesus at all.

The strong reliability of the transmission of the New Testament demonstrates that the miraculous elements of the Gospels are original to their presentation of Jesus, which strengthens the internal eyewitness testimony of the New Testament’s message about the Deity of Jesus. Furthermore, the small interval between the events of Jesus life to written accounts is too brief for legend to so transform the “truth” of the historical Jesus. The legend claim is simply not enough.[9]

A Concluding Plea

The biblical accounts leave the issue clear that Jesus pre-existed before coming to minister on this soil. From the outside, he looked and lived as a human; but, inwardly and also through demonstrations showed himself to be the Divine Word (John 1:1–3).

So what will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Give Him one real, genuine inquiry. He will not disappoint you.

As for me, I will serve Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). May the Lord bless you in your quest to learn about Jesus and his message, and the salvation that he alone can offer.

Endnotes

“Jesus: Man, Myth or God?,” Barna.com, accessed: 26 January 2021.
“Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org (Charlottesville, VA: Monticello and the University of Virginia), accessed: 25 January 2021; “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed: 25 January 2021.
“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
“From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819.”
“Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816,” Founders Online, National Archives.
“Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816.”
“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (repr., New York: Macmillan, 2001), 53.
To read a succinct argument in support of these statements, read John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law, and Christianity (1964; repr., Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 3–44.