Church: A Preliminary Survey

On March 25, 2010October 6, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Book of Acts, Ecclesiology, Essays, General Letters, Gospel, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Peter's Letters, Revelation, Theology, Word Studies2 Comments

With so many “churches” in the religious world, people interested in visiting one are often sidelined by the inevitable question, “which church should I go to?” After all, there are as many “churches” as there are potential opinions on what a church should be like. But where should a person begin as they search for a church, should they simply jump out on a whim? Hardly.

Searching for a church should be a reverent endeavor, especially since in the New Testament the “church” is said to have been “purchased” by the very blood of Jesus Christ (Acts 20.28). Consequently, if the church was that important to Jesus and the Father, those seeking to “go to church” should realize this spiritual venture should not be taken lightly.

Where then might a person find the necessary perspective from which to begin this search? The relevant information is found in the New Testament documents, the documents which record the formative forces which began the church in the first place; moreover, the New Testament provides ample information about how people became members of the blood-bought church of Jesus, along with important church organizational references.

This piece is a primer, in a sense, on the nature of the church. There are many ways that this topic can be addressed. But, nevertheless, below are some relevant points to glean from the New Testament on the topic of the church of Christ (Rom. 16.16).

The New Testament Documents

In the New Testament, from the beginning to end, the thought and actual fact that the saved existed as a collective known as the “church” or body of Christ is clearly self-evident (Matt 16:18 and Eph 1:22, 23, 4:4; Acts 2:47). Consider a sample of the New Testament documents.

There are four accounts of the ministry of Jesus, they are called Gospels. The term “church” is found only in the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in chapters 16 and 18. In chapter 16, Jesus speaks of building His church – “my church” (16:18). He explains that death (Grk. hades – not hell, contra KJV) will be incapable of deterring his plans to bring His church into reality.[1] In chapter 18, verses 15-17 describe the disciplinarian process regarding a Christian brother living in sin, and hence, needing private correction. The final stage is to bring the sin to the public forum by telling it to the church, with the intention that it can act as a loving measure of leverage to pressure the brother to quit the sinful practice. Thus, in Matthew Jesus speaks of his church in two ways: (1) that it will be built (Matt 16:18), and (2) as the ultimate forum for maintaining moral purity among God’s people (Matt 18:15-17).

The Acts of the Apostles is the inspired historical account of the church – albeit a history with a theological focus. It is most definitely a primary source for the church, and therefore a logical document to examine in order to find the biblical church. To save space, consider what we find in only the first half of Acts (Acts 1-12). We find it was “the church”[2] that had become fearful after the Divine retribution against Ananias and Sapphira was administered by the Lord (Acts 5:11); the object of Saul of Tarsus’ brutal obsession was “the church” anywhere it assembled (Acts 8:1, 3; cf. Gal 1:13); it was “the church” at large in Samaria and Judea that enjoyed peace when the persecuting Saul became the believing Paul (Acts 9.31).

We find Barnabas and Paul (Saul) laboring in “the church,” particularly in Antioch of Syria,[3] and labeling the disciples (i.e. the individual members of the church) Christians (Acts 11:22, 26); several members of “the church” suffered persecution under the hand of King Herod (Acts 12:1, 5); “the church” in Antioch of Pisidia had prophets and inspired teachers, and sent Paul and Barnabas out to accomplish their first missionary call (Acts 13:1ff.); Paul and Barnabas had appointed elders in every “church” they established on their missionary labors (Acts 14:23), and upon their return to Antioch they recounted they travel to “the church” (Acts 14:27).

The largest sub-category of the New Testament documents is The Letter (also commonly styled, “epistle”) – 21 letters to be exact.[4] They are further divided by the prophets which God employed to pen them: Paul (13 letters), John (3), Peter (2), James (1), Jude (1), and the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews. This is a vast amount of literature to scan, but we can reflect on the following citations of “the church” among the letters and observe that “the church” is the redeemed body of Jesus believers. It goes without saying – at least it should be by students – that the New Testament Letters assume their audience is the redeemed body of Jesus disciples.

Ancient letter writing etiquette had the author’s name first and then the recipient’s name; thus, we read, “from me… to you.” When Paul wrote his letters, he often addressed the recipients with the nomenclature “saints” (cf. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2). The term “saint” is the general description of all members of “the church” in the respect that they have been sanctified in baptism, and this sanctification continues in obedience shown by a holy life (Matt 26:28; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11-13; 1 John 1:6-7). The “saints” are members of the church viewed from the perspective of consecration. In fact, many times the letters begin like this: to the church with the saints.

Some appear to use Jewish terminology, like James and Peter, to describe the people of God. The letter of James is written to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1); meanwhile, the audience for the Letters of Peter (if to the same audience) is depicted in the following way: “To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). However, in Peter’s second letter, he speaks of his audience as “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:1). It seems like the language applies the covenant aspect that biblical Israel had with God, and here it is applied in a new way to demonstrate that Peter’s audience is the new covenant people of God (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:13). These are members of the biblical church.

The Letter of Jude addresses his recipients with the nomenclature “called” and “beloved” (vs. 1). Their calling seems from the simple fact that they received their invitation (a clearer meaning of the term, kleitos translated “called”) to share the “common salvation”. Moreover, they received access to the love of God actuated in the redemption of their soul accomplished through Jesus Christ, thus, they are the beloved of God. What Jude emphasized that their identity was related to their Divine relationship through obedience to the Gospel. For our purposes, we are to understand that these “saints” and “beloved” ones are members of the New Testament church.

The First Letter of John, much like Hebrews, does not begin in the traditional letter format. Some describe them as tractates or some larger form of literary work sent as a letter. Nevertheless, John assumes a relationship – a fellowship between the apostolic circle, God, and themselves – that is based on obedient living and faithful confession of sin as they strive to live a disciplined life (1 John 1:1-10). They already are in this relationship, they are saved. Again, in Hebrews 2:1-4, the evidence is provided regarding the recipients. They are encouraged to remain vigilant, not neglecting their salvation which was shown to have a supernatural origin. Likewise, these recipients are members of the biblical church.

The last document in the New Testament is the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation. The document opens up with these words: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). In the doxology, it is Jesus “who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:5-6). The audience, the churches, share salvation and the love of God, are part of a kingdom, and share involvement in the priesthood of God. The message of Revelation is the victory over the enemies of God as it is revealed in the inability of these satanic forces to prevent the faithful saints from entering the New Jerusalem, wherein lies the tree of life (Rev. 22.14). The brief but spiritually dense letters sent to the churches of Asia in Revelation 2 and 3 show among other things, the audience intended for the prophecies embedded into the fabric of this symbolic book. They assume that the recipients are already Christians, members of the church.

The picture should be clear that the New Testament is a collection of 27 books which speak to or about the church of Jesus Christ. Consequently, anyone looking for a church should reverently approach the prospect with the New Testament as the guiding source for determining what the church that God established should look like and be like.

The Church: A Brief Word Analysis

We may survey some of the information from the New Testament regarding the “church” and the redeemed which make up the “church”, but what does “church” mean? The term “church” is the most common, though unclear, translation for the New Testament Greek term ekklesia. Often times, “church” is thought of as solely “the building” in which a person congregates with others to worship God; however, ekklesia does not refer to a building – hence, “church” is an unclear translation if not misleading altogether. But the term is so commonplace that it need not be shelved; after all, even modern dictionaries have various nuances for the word “church.”

The English word “church” has a peculiar history that demands some attention. Hugo McCord (1911-2004) – professor, translator, and preacher – briefly summarizes the history of the word:

Historically, the English word “church” comes from the Middle English “cherche” or “chirche,” which is from the Anglo-Saxon “circe” or “cyrce,” which is from the German “Kirche,” which is from the Greek kuriakos, meaning “belonging to the Lord.” Webster says that the Greek word doma, “house,” has to be added to kuriakos to make the word “church,” that is, a “church” is “the Lord’s house.”[5]

McCord further observes that only twice does kuriakos – “the Lord’s” – appear in the New Testament (“the Lord’s supper” 1 Cor. 11.20; “the Lord’s day” Rev. 1.10), but in neither case is the phrase “the Lord’s house” ever employed.[6]

Basically, the etymology of the word translated “church” (ekklesia) derives itself from the adjoining of two words, ek and kaleo (ek-kaleo “call out”), into one verb originally “used for the summons to an army to assemble.” As a noun, ekklesia, denoted “the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek city state” (cf. Acts 19:32, 41).[7] This is, in a nutshell, the Greek background of the word beneath our religious word “church.”

Its existence in the Old Testament is due to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), ekklesia appears about one hundred times and is frequently employed to translate the Hebrew term qahal.[8] It is not so much the frequency to translate qahal which is intriguing; instead, it is the regularity of the context when ekklesia is employed which should attract contemplation. O’Brien writes:

Of particular significance are those instances of ekklesia (rendering qahal) which denote the congregation of Israel when it assembled to hear the Word of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.[9]

Interestingly, the Hebrew writer similarly speaks of the redeemed in Hebrews 12:22-24. Thus, a raw translation of ekklesia may suggest the meaning to be, “the called out ones.”[10] In the biblical tradition, however, it seems better to emphasize that it carries the spiritual depiction of an assembly of God’s people prepared to hear and be led by His word in the covenantal sense.

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, recounts how Israel was an ekklesia during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness due to their rebellion and lack of faith (Acts 7:38). And it was during this time that they were taught how to depend upon the Lord. The beautiful and yet tragic relationship between the faithful God and his unbelieving nation is set forth clearly in Psalm 78 (cf. Hos 11:1-9). The Lord’s goal was to “shepherd” and “guide” them with his powerful word and through the demonstration of his presence.

With regards to the Lord’s church which Jesus promised to “build,” it is important that we consider these thoughts in our understanding of the kind of church Jesus was thinking of; as a consequence, it should guide our assessment of how “church” should behave. Individuals gathered together to hear and abide in his teaching, so that in it, they may be shepherded and guided (1 Tim 4:13). Meanwhile, leadership in the church (i.e. elders/shepherds) is to be “able to teach” and “manage” his household, and use these skills as he executes his God’s appointed office (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:1-5). When the church considers this relationship and responsibility and embraces its challenge, we will be taking strong steps to finding a congregation of the Lord – a church of Christ.

Conclusion

We find in the New Testament a consciousness the early Christians held regarding the church. Jesus was to build his church, and after his death, the church began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the Roman world through Judea, Samaria, and to the furthermost extents of known Roman world (Acts 1.8ff). As the church expanded, the apostles and other inspired authors wrote to Christians regarding the ministry of Jesus and concerning Christian living.

Through these documents, important information is related to the nature of the church. Anyone searching for a “church” to attend should not settle for any church but should study the New Testament reverently identifying the nature of the church revealed in its pages.

When examining the English word “church” we find that we are not talking about a building, but instead, the emphasis should be placed upon an assembly of people. These individuals are assembled to hear the word of God, and make those Divine words translate into everyday action – everyday living. Only until we hear and practice the Word will we become the church (ekklesia) of Christ.

Endnotes

The King James Version (a.k.a. the A.V.) is quite misleading here, for the Greek text reads pulai hadou – literally, “the gates of hades.” The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament (ALT) has the following descriptive rendering of the passage,”[the] gates of the realm of the dead [Gr., hades] will not prevail against it” (ATL Matt. 16.18).
Again we disagree with the A.V./KJV-Byzantine tradition in Acts 2.47, where the word “church” (ekklesia) is part of a variant reading of the text. Instead, we agree with others who find that the ending better reads epi to auto, a phrase often used to refer to the “Christian body” in a collective sense (Acts 1.15; 2.1, 47; 1 Cor 11.20; 14.23; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001], 264-65).
Antioch of Syria is not to be confused with the Antioch of Pisidia in Asia Minor. BiblePlaces.com has good images of both Antioch of Syria (link) and of Pisidia (Link).
Technically, there are a few more letters in the New Testament record, but each is embedded in other books. For example, the book of Acts has two letters (a) 15.22-29, and (b) 23.23-30; and, the book of Revelation has seven letters to the church of Asia (Rev. 1-3).
Hugo McCord, The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, Psalms, and Proverbs, 4th ed. (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2000), 696. This edition is known also as FHV4.
McCord, The Everlasting Gospel, 696.
Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPHL, 123.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124; TDNT 3:527; BDAG, 303.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
Etymologically, ekklesia does suggest that individuals were “called out” from their lifestyles by the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14). There is obviously a separation that occurs (2 Cor 6:17, 1 John 2:15-17). These etymological considerations corroborate with New Testament teaching on the church. However, the word has a richer heritage as is seen in its Old Testament use of the Greek language. These aspects must be appreciated in balance with each other.

So Close: Jesus, the Pharisees, and His Divinity (Luke 5)

On May 28, 2008February 4, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, Articles, Christian Evidences, Christology, Gospel, Luke, New TestamentLeave a comment

By the language of the text, it appears to have been an average day during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. The multitudes had flocked to the Good Master wishing to hear him speak and to request him to heal their infirmities. In this particular case, the Lord was teaching in a house and a paralyzed man was dropped down through the roof by his inventive and determined friends.

They trusted that Jesus could heal him, but it seems safe to ponder that they did not expect the Lord’s gracious response. Luke chronicles the narrative in the following manner:

And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (Luke 5:18-20 ESV)

The Lord’s first response was to give the paralyzed man a pardon. Jesus canceled the man’s transgressions. He overrode the situation and removed the burden of the man’s sins. What a profound event!

Many today wonder why the Lord forgave the man of his spiritual infirmities first, instead of meeting the principal need for which the man was brought – physical restoration. It could be the case that He had already intended to substantiate his Divine claims to forgive sins by means of a miracle, but we simply do not know why with any degree of absolute certainty.

In some sense, the question is irrelevant because the Lord’s activities are interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees. This gives rise to a unique situation where the Lord boldly argues for and asserts His Divine prerogative to forgive sins.

We continue Luke’s narrative:

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Luke 5:21-24)

The miracle was immediate, the crowd was amazed, and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possess the ability and right to forgive sins!

On the Divinity of Christ

Tremendous amounts of energy and ink have been spent discussing the Divinity of Christ. The canonical documents are quite clear as to the Lord’s divinity. John 1:1-3 describes the existence of the Word, who was the agent to create the universe at the beginning (Gen 1:1; cf. 1 John 1.1). In conjunction with these thoughts are the words of John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. Phil 2:5-10). The divine Word has made a human and his habitation was among mankind: he was a living and breathing human (in form and substance) capable of dying.

Paul speaks of the supremacy of Christ by saying that in Jesus the universe stands in “perfect equilibrium,” for in him it is “held together” (Col 1:17; Grk. sunistemi). If Jesus pre-existed in eternity, and then became human, and lived a human life in preparation for his divine ministry, it is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus incorporates the miraculous in His ministry. And though we cannot precisely and neatly slice Jesus into his divine and human sides, this is the great mystery of God in the flesh (1 Tim 3.16).

Yet for some who initially beheld his ministry, this was difficult to absorb. The scribes and the Pharisees, the noted Jewish leaders of the day, heard the words of Jesus, “your sins are forgiven you,” and immediately cataloged His action as blasphemous. How did they come to this conclusion? They properly reasoned “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” If Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary, then it is logical to assume that Jesus is only human.

They were so close! The presupposition of the scribes and Pharisees is correct. Their working knowledge of biblical data and their perception of the situation is, at face value, true. This act of Jesus of Nazareth was therefore viewed as an arrogant hostile takeover of the prerogative of God (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33; Jer 31:34, etc.).[1]

Had Jesus simply been a mere mortal, they would be completely correct; however, they were dealing with a unique situation – Jesus is no mere mortal. He is the “Everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6), a Hebrew idiom meaning that he has an eternal existence (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).[2] Jesus is Immanuel, which means God among us (Matt 1:21-23). The Lord forgave the paralyzed man of his sins because He had the authority to do so. His authority is derived from His Divinity.

Was Jesus a Moralist?

Many have stumbled and erred regarding the nature of Jesus. To some, he is a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders of human existence. They over-emphasize his humanity and praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule). However, they cannot view him as a wonderful teacher of ethics and morals and at the same time deny his claims to divinity.

He was not a mere moralist who “inherited” and “perfected” a preexisting moral tradition from the Jews! And those who are so persuaded to think of Jesus in this light, C. S. Lewis stressed the inconsistency of this view:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [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.[3]

We believe that the Pharisees and Scribes held a similar view that many hold – that Jesus was a just great teacher. They were so close, but still so tragically far away from the real nature of God-Man Jesus.

Are You Close, or Yet so Far?

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 – actively or inactively – and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Again, we ponder over this decision with the words of Mr. Lewis:

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.[4]

The is a passage in the Gospel accounts that is often nicknamed “the Great Invitation.” It is in Matthew 11.28-30. In it, Jesus invites all who believe in him and his teaching.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

He promises that the life that he promises stems from his gentle and lowly heart, and promises rest for your soul. Someone has wonderfully said, that in verse 30 the pressure to successfully live out the teaching of Jesus “fits just right” according to each person’s burdens. We finally ask you: will you come so close to the truth of Jesus and his claims to divinity, or will come so close but yet stand so far off from the good life he promises. The answer is left in your hands. God bless you to do the right thing.

Endnotes

Note: Special thanks to Dr. Earl D. Edwards, Head of the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Bible, for introducing me to this observation in a Bible class. It is not enough to simply observe that the Pharisees and scribes were wrongly charging the Lord with blasphemy, we must also appreciate that they had correctly reasoned that a human did not have this right or power – this was the sole possession of God.
Wayne Jackson, Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1991), 25.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 52 (emphasis added).
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 53 (emphasis added).

Jon Meacham, the Bible, and His “Problematic Source”

On May 20, 2008October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Criticism, Bibliology, Book of Acts, Christian Apologetics, Daniel, Gospel, Major Prophets, New Testament, Old Testament, TheologyLeave a comment

It has been a few years since Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” was all that the world could talk about. It was a situation bound to receive controversial media coverage – it just comes with the territory of religion in the media. A case in point was the February 16 issue of Newsweek published in anticipation of Gibson’s film. About a week before this publication hit the stands, Jon Meacham’s cover story entitled, “Who Killed Jesus?,” was published online on MSNBC.com in four internet pages – then later archived on Newsweek.com.

Meacham’s article feigned an attempt to evaluate Gibson’s new movie, and instead, assaulted the biblical text. He openly affirms, “the Bible is the product of human authors.” He further argues that these authors were producing religious propaganda for Christianity, and like any other literary work the Bible is plagued with historical inaccuracies. Concerning the Bible Meacham writes:

The Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.[1]
Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek (2004)

This is just one quote from a number of similar statements found throughout the article. The editor of Newsweek couches his statement with liberal theological overtones. In other words, Scripture is regarded as human produced literature designed only to give morals, void of any direct involvement of God. We shall see that the problematic source is not the Bible, it is Meacham’s theological presumptions.

The Media’s Treatment of the Bible

Meacham’s view of the Bible articulates three ways the Bible is often misrepresented in mainstream American media: (1) the Bible is of sole human origin, (2) the Scriptures are unreliable historical records, and (3) the biblical sources are legendary that need specious sources to embellish the narrative to provide the “true story.” With a national circulation over 3 million plus, there is no doubt that the church, our neighbors (religious or otherwise) and our youth are influenced by this.

How shall we respond? Bible believers need to be able to affirm the following response. Although these erroneous views of the Bible are widespread, the Bible (i.e. Scripture) is beyond that of human production and consequently trustworthy, because the internal evidence of predictive prophecy, the uncanny historical accuracy, and the marvelous unity of the 66 books is of supernatural origin and guidance.

Predictive Prophecy

Predictive prophecy is one of the most powerful lines of evidence that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The specific foretelling of future events serves as an accurate brief definition. Moreover, there are at least three criteria: (1) it must be given separated by a significant amount of time, (2) there are specific details (not generalities) and, (3) 100% fulfillment must follow (not 95% etc.). As an example, observe the prophecy of the rise and fall of four world powers of antiquity given in Daniel 2 and its relationship to the establishment of the church in the first century.

The image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:1-24) was a picture of 4 sequential kingdoms: Babylonia (605-539 B.C), Persia (539-331 B.C.), Hellenistic (331-63 B.C.), and Roman (63 B.C-A.D. 476).[2] Daniel living in the 6th century B.C. predicted the fall of Babylon and the rise of these world empires. Furthermore, in Daniel 2:44-45 the prophecy was declared that during the reign of Imperial Rome, the God of heaven would establish His kingdom for all time.

While Rome was in power Jesus was born, lived, ministered, died, and resurrected (Gal 4:4). He declared that he was going to establish His church (Matt 16:18), which in this context means His kingdom (Matt. 16:19-20; Mark 9:1). This kingdom-church would come after the Holy Spirit had come upon the 12 Apostles (Acts 1:4-8), which arrived on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The prophecy was fulfilled as precisely as it was given centuries in advance.[3]

Precise Historical Accuracy

Historical accuracy is another line of reasoning which demonstrates that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The book of Acts is a powerful example. Luke wrote the book of Acts, which is a chronicle of the labors of Peter and Paul as the gospel goes from Jerusalem to the entire world.

The accuracy of Acts is such that no human could have been so accurate, except for the guidance of the Holy Spirit; observe:

This companion of Paul was a careful and meticulous historian. For instance, in Acts he mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons in Acts, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. He is thoroughly familiar with the geographical and political conditions of his day. And this is really amazing since the political/territorial situation was in a constant state of flux and flow in Luke’s time.[4]
Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (1982)

Accessibility to libraries was minimal due to how few or exclusive they were, and even if they had reference works, “the events Luke was trying to chronicle had taken place – at least at the beginning – in what the people of that day would have said were remote areas of the world.”[5]

There has yet to be the historical accuracy of the magnitude of Acts and the Bible recovered from antiquity to the present.

Unity of the Scriptures

A third line of argumentation is the unparalleled unity of the Scriptures. For instance, Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 are among a variety of passages appealed to for the claim that the Bible is not a harmonious work. Here is the argument. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to the same event in antiquity, the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. (Daniel 1:1 ESV)

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon)... (Jer 25:1 ESV)

However, the date of the event mentioned appears upon face value discrepant for Jeremiah says the event happened in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign while Daniel says the timeframe was during the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s rule (see “System” chart[6]).

SYSTEM	1ST Sovereign	2ND Sovereign	3RD Sovereign	4TH Sovereign
Babylonian	Year of Ascension	1^st Year of Reign	2^nd Year of Reign	3^rd Year of Reign
Palestinian	1^st Year of Reign	2^nd Year of Reign	3^rd Year of Reign	4^th Year of Reign

If the two accounts cannot be harmonized then this is a historical mistake, underscoring a purely human enterprise. The answer to this riddle, however, lies in the distinct systems of dating regnal years used by Daniel and Jeremiah. Bruce K. Waltke writes:

In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as “the year of accession to the kingdom,” and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king’s reign.[7]
Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra (1976)

Therefore, Daniel living in Babylonia used that system, while Jeremiah employed the Palestinian method. The unity spans cross-cultural methods of communication, how wonderful! The remarkable unity is so strong that even difficult passages backfire on the critic.

As so often happens, the supposed discrepancies become evidence against the critics of the Bible.

Conclusion

The Bible is not a problematic source; however, that does not mean that it has no range of complexity. The Bible is “a faithful record of historical events,” and its principles are grounded upon historical reality (e.g. creation, the Exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.). The Bible comes together like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. It is due to overwhelming evidence like this that we affirm that the Bible is beyond human production. The “problematic source” is Meacham’s liberal perspective – it is not the Bible!

Sources

Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek.com (Accessed: 16 Feb. 2004), par. 6.
Robert T. Boyd, World’s Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 309.
Jason Jackson, “How Can the Church be the Fulfillment of Daniel 2:44?,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 28 Sept. 2005).
Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1982), 46.
James M. Boice, Acts: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 14.
Jovan Payes, “Ascertaining the Date of Daniel: A First Look,” BiblicalFaith.wordpress.com. This particular line of reasoning is important evidence supporting the unity of Scriptures against baseless accusations of intertextual (book to book) problems. We are not suggesting there are not difficult passages that take more depth to study, but we are asserting that this “problem” passage is an eloquent statement of intertextual unity.
Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976): 326.