What sets Christianity apart? (part 3)
In Part One, we examined the commonalities among world religions and inquired whether they are fundamentally the same. We discovered that they’re not, and we examined two aspects that distinguish Christianity. In Part Two, we discussed four distinct aspects of Christianity that distinguish it from other religions. Here, we will finish by considering four aspects that set Christianity apart.
7. Positive World Impact
Jesus, a backwater country craftsman, has had an undisputed impact on history and the world. Stephen Prothero has said, “There is no disputing the influence Jesus has had on world history. The Library of Congress in Washington, DC, holds more books about Jesus (roughly seventeen thousand) than about any other historical figure—twice as many as the runner-up, Shakespeare. Worldwide, there are an estimated 187,000 books about Jesus in five hundred different languages.’ Jesus even has a country named after him: the Central American nation of El Salvador (“The Savior”).”[1]
Some people would dispute whether Jesus’ impact has been positive. But religion is generally seen as having a positive impact on humanity. This has been statistically demonstrated. That, however, is not to say religion hasn’t also had a negative impact in certain circumstances. We can quickly cite the Crusades and the September 11th attacks to prove that religion is not always applied in a good way. But, generally, religion is a net positive.[2]
Christianity is specifically good for humanity. This is true statistically and historically, which makes sense because I believe Christianity is true factually. Think of the impact Christianity has had on hospitals. Think of the names of hospitals you know of; most of their names are probably Christian. If not, even still, most of them have Christian histories. But it’s not just hospitals. Consider the sanctity of human life, the value of women, health care, education, science, the abolition of slavery, music, literature, art, and charities.[3] For more on this, I encourage you to check out How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland, or several books by Rodney Stark.
Christopher Watkin even says that “the reason Jesus’s teaching does not take our breath away is that it has so completely transformed how we think and act already. As Tom Holland reminds us, it is only the incomplete revolutions that are remembered; those that triumph are simply taken for granted. The revolution brought about by Jesus’s teaching and life has triumphed so completely that, religious and secular alike, we take it for granted today.”[4] So, I believe Christianity had a uniquely positive impact on the world.
8. Salvation by Grace
Muslims believe there is salvation through submission. That is, if you confess and carry out the pillars of Islam, you may obtain salvation. Christians believe that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Christianity is unique because it teaches that salvation is by grace.
This is how Micah 7:18-19 says it: “Who is a God like You, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of His inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; You will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”
Salvation is by grace through faith. Here’s how Ephesians 2:8-10 says it, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
It should be understood that “faith works.” It does not stay stagnant. As Ephesians 2 says, Christians believe salvation comes through God’s grace as a gift, but that doesn’t lead to license to do whatever. It leads to a life filled with good works.
9. Exclusivity, Inclusivity, and Equality
Christianity is at the same time the most exclusive and inclusive religion. Christianity says that Jesus alone is the way, the truth, the life, and no one gets to God the Father except through Him (Jn. 14:6); and it says whosoever believes—red, black, white, rich, poor, whoever from wherever—will have eternal life.
So, on the exclusive side, Christians believe what 1 Timothy 2:5 says, that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” So, there is one way of salvation—Messiah Jesus. Yet, 1 Timothy 2:6 shows us how inclusive Christianity is. It says Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all.” There are no ethnic or cultural requirements.
Christianity is the most global religion. It has the largest number of adherents worldwide. Christianity is followed closely in size by Islam. But I am not making the ad populum argument here. Just because more people say they’re Christian doesn’t make Christianity true.[5] My point, rather, is that not only is Christianity the biggest religion, it is also the most culturally diverse. Muslims are more monolithic. Though that is not to say they are monolithic.[6] Take, for example, the Christian and Muslim religious texts. Islam’s scripture is only considered Allah’s word in Arabic.[7] Christianity seeks to translate the scripture into the languages of every people, tribe, language, nation, and tongue.
Prothero says Muslims “have always insisted that the Quran is revelation only in the original Arabic, Christians do not confine God’s speech to the Hebrew of their Old Testament or the Greek of their New Testament. In fact, while Muslims have resisted translating the Quran (the first English translation by a Muslim did not appear until the twentieth century), Christians have long viewed the translation, publication, and distribution of Bibles in assorted vernaculars as a sacred duty.”[8]
The Christian movement was diverse from the very beginning, ethnically and also socioeconomically (See e.g., Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28). Christianity is the most ethnically dispersed religion, and Hinduism is the least dispersed.[9] Part of the reason Hinduism especially lacks diversity is because of its caste system. Even while India as a country no longer officially endorses the caste system, its effects are felt.
In contrast, Timothy Keller explains that the cross of Jesus should remove the pride and self-aggrandizement that lead to racial animosity and human disunity.[10] The Bible “insists on the equal value and dignity of all humans. The first churches united high and low classes, rich and poor, slaves and masters, and people of different racial backgrounds in uncomfortable, boundary-crushing fellowship.”[11]
Many may contend here that Christianity is unfair or bad because it says that Jesus is the only way. I’ve dealt with that objection elsewhere. But the fact that someone doesn’t like something does not make that thing untrue. We don’t have to like the truth for it to be true. “Comfort is important when it comes to furniture and headphones, but it is irrelevant when it comes to truth.”[12]
Others may object, if Christianity is the exclusively correct religion, then why are there so many world religions? Because we have a sensus divinitatis, or sense of the divine. This is for various reasons. For one, what can be known about God is plain to see, because God has shown it. “For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). Second, Scripture also teaches and many people attest to having a conscience or the “law written on their hearts” (see Romans 2). Third, people have a sense of the divine because there is a spiritual realm. Most people throughout the globe and throughout history have believed in the spiritual realm. It is chronological and geographical snobbery to assume that we modern Westerners automatically know better.
So, the exclusivity of Jesus does not prove Christianity wrong. Although it may prove unpopular. It does make Christianity distinct from some other religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions hold that there are many ways of salvation (although “salvation” may not always be the best term).
Related to inclusivity and exclusivity is Christianity’s view of equality. The Bible teaches the equality of all humans by saying all humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). It also explains that we are all equally fallen. That is, we all sin and do wrong things. Lastly, it says that salvation is freely offered to all through Jesus.[13] In a similar way, the Bible shows the worth of women repeatedly, while the Qoran, for instance, is often disparaging of women, many believe, even allowing for abuse.
Naturalism, the belief that no God exists, gives no explanation or reason for equality. People who don’t believe in God or the relevance of God might believe in equality, but their belief is not based on any foundation. The idea of equality is accepted as true without proof or solid reason to believe it.
10. Relationship with God
Christians believe that we can have a relationship with God. This is different from Hinduism, for example. Most Hindus believe that the whole of the universe is itself divine. And most Buddhists don’t believe in a divine being. Folk, polytheistic, and animistic religions mainly seek to pacify the gods. “Islam diagnoses the world with ignorance and offers the remedy of sharia, a law to follow. Christianity diagnoses the world with brokenness and offers the remedy of God himself, a relationship with him that leads to heart transformation.”[14]
As we saw in Part One, Christianity teaches that God is an eternally relational being. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden in the beginning, He called Abraham to be His own, and He dwelt in the midst of His chosen people. God, in the form of Jesus, became flesh and lived among His people. Jesus taught His people to talk to God as Father. And we were even told that God dwells in us by His Spirit.
God is immensely relational. And God goes to great lengths so that His people can be with Him. In fact, the Christian scriptures say that God’s people will live with Him forever.
Conclusion
Christianity is unique among religions due to its Trinitarian Monotheism, belief in Jesus the Messiah who is the incarnate Son of God, and emphasis on His death and resurrection for humanity’s salvation. Christianity is both exclusive and inclusive, teaching that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone but available to all who believe. It offers a personal relationship with God, teaches salvation by grace through faith, and highlights human equality.
Notes
[1] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 70-71.
[2] “Religion is one of the greatest forces for evil in world history. Yet religion is also one of the greatest forces for good. Religions have put God’s stamp of approval on all sorts of demonic schemes, but religions also possess the power to say no to evil and banality” (Prothero, God Is Not One, 9).
[3] “By far the largest faith-based charity, according to the study, is Lutheran Services of America, with an annual operating revenue of about $21 billion. The study counted 17 more faith-based charities, all among Forbes’s 50 biggestcharities in America, with revenues ranging from $300 million (Cross International) to $6.6 billion (YMCA USA).Almost all the charities are Christian, except for the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, with an annual operating revenue of $400 million” (Julie Zauzmer, “Study: Religion contributes more to the U.S. economy than Facebook, Google and Apple combined” [September 15, 2016]).
[4] Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 372.
[5] It doesn’t even make those people who say they’re Christian acturally Christians.
[6] Islam has many expressions. It is not monolithic. We are wrong if we think we understand Muslims because we have met one or read the Qur’an. That is a simplistic and false understanding. “Islam is a dynamic and varied religious tradition” (James D. Chancellor, “Islam and Violence,” in SBTS, 42.). In the same way, if you have met a Christian and read the New Testament, for example, that does not mean that you understand Christianity. “The range of contemporary Muslim religiosity varies tremendously. One of the reasons for this is that people understand and ‘use’ religion in a variety of ways; that is true whether we are dealing with Islam or Christianity or any other religion.” (Andrew Rippin, Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (New York: Routledge, 2012), 311.)
[7] “Today the Quran is, of course, a book. But only about 20 percent of the world’s Muslims are able to read its Arabic, and even for them the Quran is, like the Vedas to Hindus, more about sound than about meaning” (Prothero, God Is Not One, 41).
[8] Prothero, God Is Not One, 67.
[9] See “The Global Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, December 18, 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.
[10] Timothy Keller, “The Bible and Race” https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/the-bible-and-race/
[11] Rebecca McLaughlin, Confronting Christianity.
[12] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 137.
[13] See Christopher Watkin, 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦, 116.
[14] Prothero, No God But One, 45.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
What sets Christianity apart? (part 2)
In Part One, we found that part of what sets Christianity apart is trinitarian monotheism and God’s eternal love. Here we will add four more aspects that set Christianity apart from other religions.
3. The Incarnation of God
Christians believe that God loves the world so much that Jesus took on flesh and became man to die for the sins of the world (Jn. 1:1-3, 14, 29; 3:16). Other religions, such as Greek mythology, believe in gods who appeared in human form for various reasons, including love or punishment.[1] Greek gods, however, only temporarily took on human form. Jesus permanently became human.[2]
In Hinduism, the incarnation of a deity usually refers to Vishnu, who is said to have appeared in various avatars (e.g., Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, and Varaha). Other than Hinduism and various mythologies (which most people no longer take seriously), the concept of the incarnation of God is uncommon. However, Wikipedia does give a list of other people who have been considered deities. Egyptian pharaohs were considered deities, and North Korea’s Supreme Leader is considered a deity, for example. Interestingly, even on Wikipedia, Jesus is in a class of His own. He is listed by Himself under the “Controversial Deification” heading.
The Hindu avatar comparison to Christian incarnation is not as clear as it might at first seem. There are clearly some important distinctions between the Hindu and Christian beliefs regarding incarnation.[3] First, Hindus claim many divine incarnations have appeared throughout history, while Christians believe Jesus is unique—the only begotten Son of God. The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus appeared “once to bear the sins of many” and “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him” (Heb. 9:28). So, second, we see that the purpose of avatars and the purpose of Christ are different. The avatars do not take away or bear sin. Third, in contrast to Hinduism, Christianity teaches that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us, and that He is still with us by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the avatars in Hinduism appear for a time to balance out good and evil; in contrast, Jesus came and will come again to forever banish evil and sin.
So, Christianity’s belief in the incarnation of Jesus sets it apart from all other religions. The Creator became creation, the eternal entered time. As is sometimes said, there are many who would be god but only one God who would be man. Or, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, ”While we exert ourselves to grow beyond our humanity, to leave the human behind us, God becomes human.”[4]
4. Messiah Jesus
Muslims say they believe Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the Quran explicitly refers to Jesus as the Messiah. One of the disagreements between Christians and Muslims, however, is what it means that Jesus was the Messiah. Muslims do not believe Jesus was God in flesh or that He was crucified.
It is true that the expectation presented in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament for Christians) for the Promised One seems almost impossibly diverse. How could any one person fulfill the many expectations? How could it make sense for the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22) to be a descendant of king David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6)?
The messianic expectations appeared to be nothing more than unrelated and random shards of glass. Yet, the New Testament authors, over and over, argue that Jesus is in fact the Promised One, the long-awaited Messiah, who fulfills the prophecies, patterns, pointers, and promises (2 Cor. 1:20). Jesus, who was from Nazareth (of all places) is believed to be the one who will crush the serpent of old and lead the way back into Eden, bless all the nations of the earth, and set up His righteous and eternal Kingdom. The New Testament helps us see that the Old Testament predictions work together to form an astounding, almost unbelievable, stained-glass picture of Jesus, the long-awaited, promised Messiah.
Regarding prophecy, there are several Old Testament passages we could consider. Here’s a sample:
- His appearance will be disfigured (see Isaiah 52:14 and Matthew 26:67).
- He will be despised and rejected (see Isaiah 53:3 and John 11:47-50).
- He will take sin upon Himself (see Isaiah 53:4-6, 8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3).
- He will be silent before oppressors (see Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 14:60-61).
- He will be assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death (Isaiah 53:9 and Mark 15:27-28, 43-46).
- He will be a descendant of David (see 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 and Luke 3:23, 31).
- He will be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).
- He will be preceded by a messenger (see Isaiah 40:3-5 and Matthew 3:1-2).
- He will have a ministry of miracles (see Isaiah 35:5-6 and Matthew 9:35; 11:4-5).
- He will enter Jerusalem on a Donkey (see Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:7-9).
- His hands and feet will be pierced (see Psalm 22:16 and Luke 23:33).
- He will be hated without reason (see Psalm 69:4 and John 15:25).
- His garments were divided, and lots were cast for them (see Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24).
- His bones were not broken (see Psalm 34:20 and John 19: 33).
- His side was pierced (see Zechariah 12:10 and Jn. 19:34).
- He, the Mighty God, was born (see Isaiah 9:2-7 and Matthew 1:23).
Christianity is set apart from all other world religions because it says that Messiah Jesus, who is God incarnate, “died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).
5. The Resurrection
Christians believe that Messiah Jesus died as predicted, but that He didn’t stay dead; He rose, conquering sin and death. Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of more to come. The resurrection of Jesus is like the down payment with a whole lot more to follow. He is the “test of concept” that proves that God will one day soon set the world aright.[5]
So, Christians believe time is going somewhere. The world itself groans to be fixed, and the Bible says that the resurrection of Jesus proves it will be fixed.
6. Historical Evidence
Christians do not base their beliefs on a dream wish. There are legitimate historical grounds for their beliefs. This sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Now, some other religions claim historical and archeological support, but the evidence for Christianity is much more convincing.
So, for instance, Douglas Groothuis has said, “The New Testament witness is far better established historically than the revisionism of the Quran.”[6] The New Testament documents are amazingly historically reliable. “Nearly 100 biblical figures, dozens of biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John, and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research.”[7]
Further, we can gather a substantial amount of information about Jesus through nonbiblical historical writers. From Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Thallus, and Celsus, we see Jesus clearly existed and had a brother named James who was killed when Ananus was High Priest. Jesus was known to be some kind of wonderworker, wise man, and teacher. Yet, He was regarded by His followers to be divine. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and His crucifixion seems to have been accompanied by a very long darkness. Surprisingly, His crucifixion didn’t squelch the Christian movement.[8] Historical writings outside of the New Testament corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament.
The English philosopher Antony Flew, while not a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”[9] Not only does the historical evidence point in the direction of Christianity, but the positive historical impact does too. We’ll look at that in “What sets Christianity apart” (part 3).”
Go to Part Two three here.
Notes
[1] E.g., Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo.
[2] The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus and the New Testament writers over and overclaim Jesus’ divine nature. We see the creedal formula “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). “Lord” was used in the LXX to translate the divine name, so this designation very often equates Jesus with God. Jesus’ title is “Son of God” which implies He is of the same nature as God (Matt. 11:27; Mk. 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk. 10:22; 22:70; Jn. 10:30; 14:9). Jesus is eternally preexistent (Jn. 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 22:13). He has authority to forgives sins (Mk. 2:5-12; Lk. 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn. 1:5-9). He is even explicitly referred to as “God” (Matt. 1:21-23; Jn. 1:1-14; Titus 2:13; 1 Jn. 5:20; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1). And Jesus was condemned for who He claimed to be (Mk. 14:61-64; Jn. 8:58-59). Yet, the writers say it is right to worship Him (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:5-9; Rev. 5). So, Jesus claimed to be the Lord and the New Testament confesses Him to be Lord. The Early Church taught that Jesus was God, too. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) said in his Letter to the Ephesians, “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit” (18.2 cf. 19.3; Letter to the Romans, 3.3; Letter to Polycarp, 3.2). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) said, “The Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead (Philippians 12.2). Justin Martyr (100-165) said, “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128), and he said that he would “prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” (Dialogue with Trypho, 36). We also have early archeological evidence from around 230AD. Ancient remains of an early church were discovered in the Megiddo prison in Israel. The church has ornate religious mosaics and an inscription that says, “God Jesus Christ” (Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ,’” 38-49 in Biblical Archaeology Review March/April 2007 Vol 33 No 2).
[3] Kyle Brosseau, “How to Explain the Incarnation to Hindus.”
[4] Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 84 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory 360.
[5] “The resurrection raises our consciousness to a new set of possibilities in this world and shows us that the way things are is not the way they will always be” (Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 442). “The resurrection is not a one-time happening but the beginning of a new and ongoing age.” (Ibid., 457).
[6] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 664.
[7] Holden and Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 181.
[8] See Boyd and Eddy, Lord or Legend?, 135.
[9] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 583.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
What sets Christianity apart? (part 1)
It makes sense to consider religious claims. “Even if religion makes no sense to you, you need to make sense of religion to make sense of the world”[1] because the world is religious. It always has been. One author says, “Evidence is abundant that human beings are incurably religious.”[2]
It especially makes sense to consider the claims of Christianity. Douglas Groothuis makes a good argument for the stakes being higher for Islam and Christianity.[3] This is because some of the other religions offer types of do-overs through reincarnation. If you didn’t get it right the first time, you can try again in your next life. Christianity and Islam believe it is one and done. So, it makes sense to investigate the religions that offer no redos first.
That being said, there are many world religions. There are also many irreligious people.[4] And both religious and irreligious people can be very kind and good. So, what sets Christianity apart?
What World Religions Have in Common
World religions and even atheism are asking similar questions; they are just giving different answers. Each religion articulates:
- a problem
- a solution
- a technique for moving from the problem to the solution
- an exemplar who charts the path from problem to solution[5]
There are 9 things that most major world religions have in common. Most religions have some type of…
- Higher Power
- Life After Death
- Prayer or Meditation
- Transcendence
- Community
- Moral Guidance
- Service to the poor
- Purpose
- Founder/Central Figure
Are All Religions Basically the Same?
Are all religions basically the same? In short, no. All religions are not basically the same. Even if they do have similarities in places.
As Stephen Prothero, who is not a Christian, has demonstrated, each religion “offers its own diagnosis of the human problem and its own prescription for a cure. Each offers its own techniques for reaching its religious goal, and its own exemplars for emulation.”[6] We should not lump all religions together in one trash can or treasure chest. Instead, we should start with a clear-eyed understanding of the fundamental differences in both belief and practice of those religions.[7]
Christians, however, believe in something referred to as “common grace.” That is, God gives certain gifts to all humans (Matt. 5:45) and all humans are made in God’s image. Humans can arrive at certain correct conclusions apart from God’s divine revelation. So, while all religions are not all basically the same and not all correct, they can have more or less correct insights into various subjects.
So, Douglas Groothuis has said, “Although Christianity cannot be reduced to a common core that it shares with other religions, it can still find some common ground with respect to the individual beliefs held by other religions. Other religions are not completely false, even though their teachings cannot offer salvation and even though they must be rejected as inadequate religious systems or worldviews.”[8]
What Sets Christianity Apart?
We will look at ten significant aspects of Christianity that set it apart from all other religions.
1) Trinitarian Monotheism
“Trinitarian Monotheism”‽ What does that mean? Christians believe there is only one God and that this one God exists as three persons. God is triune (thee [tri] and one [une]). So, trinitarian refers to God’s three-in-one nature. Monotheism refers to there being one God. Mono comes from the Greek meaning “alone.” Theism refers to belief in god or gods (Theomeans “God” in Greek). So, monotheism refers to the belief in one God.
The Christian teaching on the three-in-one nature of God sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Islam, in contrast, teaches that God is a relational singularity. “Allah is distant; God is Immanuel. The differences between Allah and the God of Christianity are vast because the nature of Allah as one cannot compare with the richness of the loving Trinity.”[9] Allah is incapable of possessing a love like the love that Yahweh has within Himself as Trinity. “Allah is complete oneness, love cannot be a part of his essence and therefore, no matter how loving he chooses to be, his nature is not founded on this love, and thus it cannot compare to the love of Yahweh, the God who is love.”[10] God, being love and Himself teaching us to love, is unprecedented.
The triune nature of God shows that He is relational, loving, self-giving, and personal. God is not just some distant, cosmic force. He has personhood. He has existed in all eternity past in a loving relationship, strange to say, with Himself. God amazingly calls us to join in that relationship with Him (Jn. 17:20ff). He recreates us in His image and welcomes us as His sons and daughters. God welcomes us to have communion with Himself.
If the Trinity is true as the Bible articulates, then God is relational, relational to the core. If God is triune, then Jesus is God. That means that God walked among us as a human. That means God can relate to what we face (Heb. 4:15). He is not a distant deity. If God is a Trinity, then that means that in Jesus, the divine experienced death. If God is a Trinity, and Jesus shows us what God is like in full living color, then we can see God is good even if we can’t always understand His ways.
Christianity is set apart from all other religions by its understanding of the Trinity. But Christians believe the Trinity is actually articulated in the Jewish Scriptures.[11] Jesus, Christians believe, is like a light that brings visibility to what was already there.
2) Eternal Love
The Bible doesn’t just say that God is loving, though it does say that. The Bible says much more. It says, “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8, 16). Love is deeply connected to God’s very being. This sets the Christian God apart from all other views of God. For love to truly exist, there must be relationship. The Bible, as we have seen, teaches that God is triune. Although we cannot fully grasp what that means, we do know it means God has for all eternity been in loving relationship. Because God is love, He cares about love and teaches us to love (1 Jn. 4:7).
The Apostle Paul says the Thessalonians have been “taught by God to love one another” (1 Thess. 4:9). “Taught by God” is one word in the Greek in which Paul wrote. There are no known occurrences of it anywhere in Greek literature.[12] Paul likely coined the term himself. God is love, and He teaches us how to love. Think of that phrase in the context of history. Think about what we learn about love from Greek mythology. Not a lot. Instead, we see gods at war and spreading chaos.
In reality, God is the only one fully qualified to teach on the subject of love, because love would not exist without Him. He is its author. He is its commentator, because you would not know how to love without His instruction. So then, God not only teaches you about love, but He also teaches you how to love. Therefore, to begin any discussion on the subject of love, the logical starting point must be with God Himself.[13]
Christianity is set apart from all other religions because Christians believe God is a God of love, eternal love.
Notes
[1] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 8. “Religion is not merely a private affair. It matters socially, economically, politically, and militarily” (Ibid., 7).
[2] Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason & Religous Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 3.
[3] “Other religions lacking the doctrines of heaven and hell may also offer prudential incentives, but they are less charged prudentially than Christianity and Islam. Both Hinduism and Buddhism teach the doctrine of reincarnation, wherein the postmortem state is not seen as necessarily eternal. Any number of lifetimes may be needed to neutralize bad karma and attain ultimate enlightenment, after which one escapes samsara (the wheel of rebirth) and need not reincarnate. According to Hinduism and Buddhism, if one wagers incorrectly-say on Islam or Christianity-in this life, a religious adjustment is available in another incarnation. But Christianity (Heb 9:27) and Islam offer no such second (or millionth) chance. The stakes are higher and the time allotted to wager is far shorter-one life. Therefore, even if someone finds the apologetic case for Hinduism or Buddhism attractive, given the prudential considerations of Christianity and Islam, that person should attempt to rule out these high-risk monotheistic faiths before pursuing Hinduism or Buddhism —unless, of course, the person deems Hinduism or Buddhism so intellectually superior that he or she can find no rational interest in Christianity or Islam at all” (Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 155).
[4] Although, even atheism has the markings of a religion. Atheists have a creed. Theirs is just that there is no god. Atheism addreses the ultimate concerns of life and existence and answers the questions of people are and what they should value. A commited atheist is even unlikely to marry someone outside of their beliefs. Many atheists even belong to a group and may even attend occasional meetings (see e.g. atheists.org) and have their own literature they read that supports their beliefs.
[5] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One, 14.
[6] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 333. Prothero also says, however, that “These differences can be overemphasized, of course, and the world’s religions do converge at points. Because these religions are a family of sorts, some of the questions they ask overlap, as do some of the answers. All their adherents are human beings with human bodies and human failings, so each of these religions attends to our embodiment and to the human predicament, not least by defining what it is to be fully alive” (Prothero, God Is Not One, 333).
[7] Ibid., 335.
[8] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 644.
[9] Nathan Johnson, “The Love above Allah: The Gap between Trinitarian Love and the Love of Allah,” 18.
[10] Johnson, “The Love above Allah: The Gap between Trinitarian Love and the Love of Allah,” 3.
[11] Refered to as the Old Testament by Christians.
[12] Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians, 286.
[13] Mark Howell, Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
Who is the real Jesus of history?
People sometimes think of Jesus as a white man with long beautiful hair and chiseled abs. We don’t know a lot about Jesus’ hair or abs, but we do know He’s not a white guy. We often picture pop culture Jesus or Jedi Jesus.
Is there a real Jesus of history? If not, what explains the story about Him and His countless followers?
The movie Talladega Nights gives a funny and strangely accurate description of how we often think about Jesus. Ricky Bobby says, “I like to think of Jesus as wearin’ a Tuxedo T-shirt, ’cause it says, like, ‘I want to be formal, but I’m here to party too.’ I like to party, so I like my Jesus to party.” We often have self-conceived versions of Jesus. We may not say we think Jesus is “wearin’ a Tuxedo T-shirt” but may have misconceptions about who Jesus is.
People have said Jesus was a magician, a sage, a homeless charismatic, a mystical peasant, a revolutionary rebel, or a guru. Many things have been said. But it really comes down to four options. Jesus was either a legend, a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.
Is Jesus just a myth?
Couldn’t Jesus be like Robin Hood; a fun story but not based on reality? Maybe Jesus was just a good guy and because of various random historical factors, a legend was built up around Him that is not based on facts. Couldn’t Jesus be an elaborate forgery by His friends?
Is the story around Jesus nothing more than a myth or mythology like the Romans have about Hercules or the Norse have about Thor? Is Jesus a folk hero, like Paul Bunyan is for Americans and Canadians?
Does the story of Jesus seem like a legend? C.S. Lewis, someone who knew a lot about legends, didn’t think the Gospels read like legends. He said, “As a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”[1]
Also, legends do not arise that contradict the fundamental convictions held by a culture.[2] Cultures do not make myths to erode belief; instead, they make myths that gird them up. So, how would a legend about an alleged God/man arise among first-century Palestinian Jews, and especially, how did the alleged legend arise as quickly as it did?
The earliest Christians did not embrace the doctrine of Jesus’ deity easily. They were Jews. They were repulsed by the notion that a human could be, in a literal sense, God. Jews are one of the least likely groups in history to confuse the Creator with a creature. As Richard Bauckham has said, “Before the advent of Christianity, Judaism was unique among the religions of the Roman world in demanding the exclusive worship of its God.”[3] And yet, Jesus’ disciples worshiped Jesus.
If first-century Palestinian Jews were going to produce a legend, it would not have been one about a man who was God. That would have seemed blasphemous. The earliest Christians did come to understand the deity of Jesus. They even saw how it was forecasted by the Old Testament, but it was very difficult for them to grasp at first.
A few things about legends. First, most of the time, people know when a legend is a legend. And they’re not willing to die for something that is a legend. I don’t think anyone has died over claims about Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood. Yet, Jesus’ disciples did die for their claims about Jesus.
Second, it takes time for a legend to become a legend. The dates of the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are too early to be legends. There were legends later, legends such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where the child Jesus caused one of his playmates to whither up like a dying tree. But how would the Jesus legend have arisen so quickly when those who could have easily contradicted it were still alive?
Jesus was crucified in the early 30s, yet Paul wrote about the deity of Jesus already in the early 50s and 60s. There is good evidence for dating at least two of Jesus’ four biographies before AD 62. When the New Testament authors wrote, those who claimed to see the risen Jesus were still around. So, if Jesus is just a mere legend, how did the legend arise so fast? Further, why would those who were in a place to know that Jesus was only a legend, die rather than admit the hoax?
Third, Jews did expect a messiah, and many so-called messiahs led revolutions. Yet, it is very unexpected that a legend would arise about a crucified criminal being God-in-flesh. But that’s just what the early followers of Jesus claimed, and they did so at great cost to their own lives.
Is Jesus just a liar?
Maybe Jesus wasn’t a legend. Maybe He was a liar. Other people didn’t make up tales about Him, He made them up. Perhaps Jesus orchestrated an elaborate deception. People thought He was special, but in reality, He was just an especially good liar.
People were conflicted and confused about Jesus. John 7:12 says, “There was a lot of grumbling about Him among the crowds. Some argued, ‘He’s a good man,’ but others said, ‘He’s nothing but a fraud who deceives the people.’” Some people did, in fact, say Jesus was a liar. After Jesus’ death, some of the religious leaders went to the Roman governor, Pilate, and said,
“Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while He was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples go and steal Him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard” (Matt. 27:63-66).
Does Jesus, who seemed to always speak the truth wisely, seem like a liar? Many works of charity—like hospitals and orphanages—can be traced back to Jesus’ influence, yet was Jesus Himself a deceiver and a bad person?
Jews took the Ten Commandments very seriously. They did not look lightly on “You shall have no other gods” (Ex. 20:3) or “You shall not make for yourself a carved image” (v. 4). Jews even regarded the images on coins as “graven images” so special coins were printed in areas heavily populated by Jewish people. Neither did they take the command not to lie lightly (Ex. 20:16). Jesus’ earliest followers and worshipers were Jewish. They, however, didn’t worship Jesus early on in His ministry. They were still confused or unsure about His identity. But they did worship Him after His resurrection from the dead (Matt. 28:9, 17). They knew He was not a liar after they saw Him alive from the dead as He said He would be.
If the Gospels are merely a big hoax or prank, why would the authors include embarrassing or counterproductive aspects? Why would the Gospel of Mark tell us:
- Jesus’ family questioned Jesus’ sanity
- Some thought Jesus was possessed by a demon
- Jesus seemed to disregard Jewish laws
- Jesus’ disciples are often seen in a bad light
- Women discover Jesus’ empty tomb, while the men are hiding in fear
Beyond all this—and many other examples could have been given—there’s the fact that the Gospels center around an alleged Messiah who was crucified by the Roman oppressors. It is hard to imagine a more difficult story for first-century Jews to believe.
I imagine a first-century Jew saying this to an early Jewish Christian: “So, you’re telling me that Yahweh took on flesh and was crucified by our military overlords, and you claim He’s the Savior of the whole world?!… What?! What are you smoking?” Why spread such a lie?
What motivation would Jesus have to deceive? And does He seem to be a liar? If Jesus was a liar that does not explain how the hoax continued after His death. Why would the early church make up such an elaborate lie? If it was the most masterful lie in all of history, what was it for? The earliest followers of Jesus had nothing earthly to gain by claiming Jesus was something special. Jesus was crucified. People weren’t exactly lining up to die in that excruciating way.
Is Jesus just a lunatic?
The other option is that maybe Jesus thought He was the Messiah. He thought He was God. He was self-deceived and He deceived others. Perhaps He had a “God complex”—a narcissistic personality disorder as listed in the DSM (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders*)? The Mayo Clinic says those with this condition have an inflated sense of their own importance and a need for excessive attention and admiration. Other signs of this disorder are troubled relationships, a sense of entitlement, a willingness to take advantage of others to achieve goals, and a lack of empathy for others.
Does it seem like Jesus had a narcissistic personality disorder? I’d encourage you to read the Gospels and consider that question yourself. But in my reading of the Gospels, that does not fit Jesus. Jesus loved others and literally laid down His life for others.
Jesus does not seem like a lunatic. Although, He is unlike any other human. In all of literature, Jesus stands out as exceptional and real. But Jesus was accused of being demon-oppressed.[4] And Jesus did say some strange and confusing things. He said He was “the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35) and “the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25). He said, “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn. 6:55). He said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24).
Jesus said some things that would understandably make people think He was crazy. If I said the sort of things He said, I wouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s interesting to me though, that He was taken seriously. People don’t take crazy people seriously because they’re crazy. They might laugh, they might care for them, and they might even lock them up,[5] but they don’t take them seriously. Jesus was taken seriously. So seriously, in fact, that people sought to kill Him for His claims (Jn. 8:59; 10:31).
Not surprisingly with the claims that Jesus made, some people said He was insane (Jn. 10:20). In fact, there was a time that Jesus’ family thought He was out of His mind (Mk. 3:21). Yet, lunatics may claim to rise from the dead, but they don’t really rise from the dead. Jesus on the other hand, showed Himself to be alive by many proofs after He clearly died (Acts 1:3). Therefore, Jesus’ unbelieving brothers and even doubting Thomas believed. They went from categorizing Jesus as some kind of misled crazy zealot, to calling Him King.
Why did people go from thinking Jesus was looney to bowing to Him as Lord? What explains this? If Jesus was crazy, why does He seem so sane and remarkably appealing and persuasive? And what should be thought of Jesus’ seismic impact?
What if, instead of being crazy, Jesus is the sanest human that ever walked the earth? What if Jesus shows us what we’re supposed to be like? What if, when He loves so much that it looks ludicrous, He’s actually showing us how we were always meant to be? What if Jesus is the Lord, and when He walked among us, He was seen as so different—so crazy—because He was so different? What if calls at His insanity actually testify to His deity? What if Jesus was at least for a time mocked as a lunatic because He is the Lord?
In complete darkness, light seems very strange. In a place where everyone is lost and groping to find their way, someone who knows the way is an anomaly, and knowing human nature, likely an ostracized one. The different duck is the ugly duckling, even if it’s a swan. In the same way, early claims of Jesus’ lunacy might identify Him as Lord.
Could Jesus be too good to be false? Could Jesus’ impeccable character reveal who He really is?[6] Could Jesus have seemed crazy for the very reason that He is the Lord?
Is Jesus the Lord?
To consider where you should land with this important question, I encourage you to read Jesus’ biographies—Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John—yourself and see if they describe a legend, a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.
Who do you say that I am? (Matthew 16:15)
Notes
[1] C.S. Lewis, “What are we to make of Jesus Christ?,” 169 in God in the Dock.
[2] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 2007), 37.
[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 140.
[4] Matt. 12:22-32; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:14-23; Jn. 7:20.
[5] Mark chapter 5 talks about a demon-possessed man who would have appeared crazy. People attempted to chain him. They didn’t take him seriously.
[6] See Tom Gilson’s helpful book, Too Good to be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.
Photo by Conscious Design
Equality: What it is & where it comes from
In the United States equality is at least expressed to be important. Its importance is seen in people’s views and policies on political participation, education access, views on employment and pay, and disability rights. The Civil Rights Movement has shown that equality is valued by many but not all.
What does equality mean and where did the concept of equality come from? It means the state or quality of being equal. Are there good reasons for believing in equality?
The Assumption of Equality is An Assumption
Naturalism, the belief that no God exists, gives no explanation or reason for equality. People who don’t believe in God or the relevance of God might believe in equality but the belief for them is not based on any foundation. The idea of equality is accepted as true without proof or a solid reason to believe it.
Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and author who received a PhD from the University of Oxford and is a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I appreciate his candor in this quote from his book Sapiens:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently.’[1]
So, Harari rewrites the famous line from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truth to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.”[2]
For the naturalist, equality isn’t really a thing. It is a dream wish. Perhaps maybe pleasant make-believe.
Christians have a Foundation for Equality
The Bible teaches the equality of all humans by saying all humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). It also explains that we are all equally fallen. That is, we all sin and do wrong things. Lastly, it says that salvation is freely offered to all through Jesus.[3]
In Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, Tom Holland argues that Christianity has profoundly shaped Western civilization, influencing core values like human rights and equality. It may not be consciously recognized but many Christian beliefs our embedded in society. As Harari has said, we “got the idea of equality from Christianity.”
The belief in human equality and rights, equality of men and women, love for foreigners, and care for the poor, weak, and marginalized are specifically Christian beliefs. History shows us that it was only as Christianity spread that these believes became generally accepted. The ancient Greeks and Romans would have laughed at them.[4]
Christian Equality has a lot of Explanatory Power
“We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.” Sirius Black said this to Harry Potter in one of their last meanings. Humans have complexity as J.K. Rowling is so adept at showing. The Bible agrees. We are complex beings. We are all equally made in the image of God, fallen, and redeemable.
The Bible says we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). We are all broken. Christians are no less complex. Christians are simultaneously sufferers, strivers, sinners, and saints. So, “The line between good and evil is never simply between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The line between good and evil runs through each one of us.”[5] Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said in prison in Nazi Germany, “Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves.”[6]
Therefore, in one sense, Christians should be “culturally wary because they know that evil is real, that everyone is a sinner, that no one is beyond a stumble or a scandal, and that human beings are capable of some devious deceptions and horrific thoughts, words, and acts.”[7] Yet, in another sense, Christians should also be cultural optimists “because they know that no matter how grim and hopeless sin makes the world or how wretched sin makes an individual or a group, it does not define us at our deepest level, and it is an imposter that has no ultimate claim on anyone, whoever they may be and whatever they may have done.”[8]
Christianity gives a realistic and complex picture that explains the paradoxical nature of people.
If we lose Jesus, we lose our bases for Equality
I appreciate how Rebecca McLaughlin says it:
Even if historians agree that our moral building blocks came to us from Christianity it’s tempting to think we can keep the values we cherish while gently removing the claims about Jesus Himself. Like easing out a bottom layer Jenga block, perhaps we can build our moral tower higher without belief in God at all. But extracting Jesus from our moral structure isn’t like gently sliding out a Jenga block. It’s like pulling the pin on a grenade. In the resulting explosion we don’t just lose morality, are sense of meaning blows up too.”[9]
This is the case because if Jesus is not real and right, the next most plausible explanation is that of Harari or Nietzsche.
Conclusion
Secular culture assumes equality but gives no basis for it. Christianity, and specifically Jesus, gives a solid footing for equality. Without Jesus equality is on a shoddy structure and is destined to fall. In other words, if Jesus is make-believe so is equality. On the other hand, if Jesus and His ethic are real, we can’t mix and match to our liking. He is either a liar, lunatic, legend, or the Lord. But if He is anything other than the Lord, His emphasis on equality evaporates with Him.
Notes
[1] Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 109.
[2] Harari, Sapiens, 110.
[3] See Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 116.
[4] Rebecca McLaughlin, Is Christmas Unbelievable?
[5] N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 38.
[6] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 10 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory, 128.
[7] Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 168
[8] Ibid.
[9] McLaughlin, Is Christmas Unbelievable?
Photo by Jacek Dylag
Is the Bible Reliable?
Christians believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible give us God’s authoritative words, and we have very accurate copies of those original manuscripts. As the Bible says, God’s word will not pass away (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:23, 25).
We do not have an original copy of any piece of the New Testament (an “autograph manuscript”). The process known as textual criticism, however, helps us get back to what was originally written. What would have happened with the original writings of the New Testament, the autograph manuscripts, is they would have been carefully and painstakingly copied and then passed on to the next group of early Christians to carefully copy. These copies would have then been copied as well. Eventually, the original writing would get worn and torn.
We do not have original copies, but we have manuscripts that are very close to the date of the autographs. One of the amazing things about the New Testament is the sheer number of copies we have as well as how close they are to the original manuscripts, both in accuracy and date.
There are three main types of manuscript variants. Daniel Wallace, a specialist in Koine Greek and New Testament textual criticism, says that over 99 percent of textual variants don’t affect the meaning of the text, are not viable, or “don’t have any likelihood of going back to the original, or both.”[1] The largest category is spelling difference. “This accounts for over 75% of all textual variants.”[2] The second “largest category involves synonyms, word order, or articles with proper nouns.”[3] Neither of these categories impacts the message of the text in any meaningful way. There is a third and much smaller category, however, in which the meaning of the text can be affected. Two examples are the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). In this third category, manuscript evidence must be weighed and considered. But even in this last category, no Christian doctrine is changed. Even Bart Ehrman, a popular New Testament scholar who is not a Christian, has written, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”[4]
We can be sure that we accurately have the words of God, but in a few places, we have needed to get back to the words of God, so we have had to trim back what is not supported by the manuscript evidence. So again, that’s what there are notes in most Bibles about the long ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery.[5]
It should also be understood that “many textual variants exist simply because many ancient manuscripts exist. The amount of the manuscript evidence is one thing that makes the New Testament stand out among other works of antiquity.”[6] Other ancient works are supported by a dearth of manuscripts. Of course, with fewer manuscripts, you have fewer variants, but you also have less evidence to weigh to get you back to the original work.
The Bible’s number of manuscripts is especially impressive considering the Roman emperor Diocletian’s “Edict against the Christians” during the Great Persecution. In Eusebius’ Church History, he talks about the edict “commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground” and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire.[7]
So, is the Bible historically reliable? The Bible reports actual historical events and the manuscripts for the Bible are very reliable. Nothing in ancient literature matches the historical documentation of the Bible. Nothing comes close.
Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.[8]
The reliability of the New Testament history is overwhelming when compared to that of any other book from the ancient world.[9]
The New Testament is easily the best-attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.[10]
Christians can be confident that most English translations of the Bible are fair representations of what the biblical authors wrote. A vast number of variants exist only because a vast number of ancient, hand-copied manuscripts exist. No textural variant anywhere calls any essential Christian doctrine into question or indicates completely different, competing theologies among the New Testament authors. We have not lost the message of the text. God has preserved his Word, and the text’s wording is trustworthy.[11]
In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high![12]
Here’s a table[13] so you can see a visual representation of the manuscript data:
Therefore, “to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[14]
The Bible is historically accurate and other historical works collaborate information we see from the Bible. Tacitus, a first-century historian, wrote this about the early Jesus movement:
Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christ, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and a pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.[15]
Thus, early non-Christian sources support the main details about Jesus. The authors of the New Testament were either eyewitnesses to Jesus themselves or interviewed eyewitnesses, so we have accurate historical accounts about Jesus (e.g., Lk. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; 1 Jn. 1:1-3).
There are reasons to trust the Bible from an archeological (and even an astronomical[16]) perspective as well. For years, many people thought the Hittites the Old Testament talks about did not exist. However, archaeological research has since revealed that the Hittite civilization did exist. There are many similar examples.
Various inscriptions support things we see in the Bible. The Pool of Siloam, once doubted, has been found. The James Ossuary seems to support facts about Jesus’ family. The Shroud of Turin, though debated, is potential “hard evidence.” In fact, “No book from ancient times has more archaeological confirmation than the Bible.”[17]
The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are attested by various historical accounts. I believe a persuasive argument can be made for the validity of the actual physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe the resurrection of Jesus best explains why the disciples were willing to die for their claim that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah and why the Jews would switch from gathering for worship on the Sabbath (on Saturday) to gathering on the Lord’s Day (Sunday, the day Jesus rose from the dead). I think it best explains why people, including Jews, would worship Jesus. It best explains all of it; the church,[18] the New Testament, and various parts of the Old Testament. So, we can trust the Bible to give us accurate historical accounts.
Notes
[1] Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra (vol. 175, January-March, 2018), 98.
[2] Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 98.
[3] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 98.
[4] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 252.
[5] “The New Testament grew in size from the earliest copies to the latest copies—fourteen hundred years later –by about 2 percent. That is a remarkably stable transmissional process” (J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006], 55).
[6] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament,” 99.
[7] Eusebius, Church History, 8.2.4.
[8] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands A Verdict, 9.
[9] The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 131.
[10] Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, 162.
[11] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament,” 104-05.
[12] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 82.
[13] See Josh McDowell, Evidence the Demands a Verdict, (San Bernadino, CA: Here’s Life, 1972). Homer’s Illiad is the best-attested ancient work after the New Testament.
[14] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, 29. “Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the N. T. is likewise assured” (J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 16).
[15] Tacitus, Annals 15.44. There are other examples we could look at. A Rabiniac writing says, ““Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, ‘He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.’ As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve” (Sanhedrin 43).
[16] “Astronomical records show that there were several significant celestial events around the time of Jesus’ birth” (Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” 246 in In Defense of the Bible. See esp. The Great Christ Comet). This is significant because of the “star” (or comet?) that was connected to Jesus the Messiah’s coming.
[17] The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 139.
[18] For example, “The creation of so many texts and their survival is remarkable and counter-intuitive. Jesus was a Jew, and anti-Semitism was rife in the Greco-Roman world. He came from Nazareth, a tiny village in Galilee, a remote landlocked principality. He was crucified, a brutal and humiliating form of execution reserved for the lowest orders to deter subversives, troublemakers, and slaves like those who followed Spartacus” (In Defense of the Bible, 228-29).
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
Is the world broken?
Have you ever thought about the problem of evil and suffering? Have you ever asked, “Why is the world so cruel?”
My daughter came to me crying. “Why do Mom and Lyla have to be sick? If God exists and is good, why is there suffering?”
As I thought about how to answer, tears came to my eyes and an image came to my mind, a shattered platter. By looking at the shattered shards you could tell the platter used to be ornate and beautiful. Upon reflection, that seems like an accurate picture of the world. It certainly seems broken, but yet it has clear traces of beauty.
What happened? How did the platter get that way? If the platter is broken, it seems to make sense that it was previously whole. Otherwise, it would not be broken; it would just be. The shattering, the brokenness, is just the way the world is. There, then, was no previous better state, nor should we expect a future better state.
So either the brokenness of the world assumes a previous state of the world that was whole and good, or there is no wholeness, only shattered shards that were never part of a whole and never will be. Everything is either light with little pockets of darkness, or everything is darkness with little pockets of light.1
Are beauty, goodness, and love innate, or are they random meaningless sparks in a universe that is growing cold? A world without God may have a few pockets of light, but chaos should be expected.2 If God exists, however, and Christianity is true, then chaos is not the final state of the world.
We intuitively sense that the world is broken. We feel it in our bones metaphorically, and some of us feel it literally. How could the world be broken if it was not at some point whole? It seems, therefore, we can make a deduction from the broken state of the world to the original good design. Or else our hope and intuitive sense that something is wrong is wrong.
Whole
The Bible says God created the world whole. The original creation was very good (Genesis 1:31). The platter was ornate and beautiful, so to speak. No disease or need for dentures. No sin or suffering. No turmoil or tears. No fighting or fears. No death and no destruction.
Christians believe “the bedrock reality of our universe is peace, harmony, and love, not war, discord, and violence. When we seek peace, we are not whistling in the wind but calling our universe back to its most fundamental fabric.”3 Christians believe in evil, and they believe it’s a problem. The world was not supposed to be a place of suffering. Evil and suffering are not a hoax, but they don’t have a place in God’s good intentions. The world is broken.
Broken
The platter shattered. The world broke. Sin unleashed suffering, disease, destruction, and death. The brokenness of the world and the messed up nature of humans are teachings of Christianity that can be confirmed by turning on the news.
Christianity explains the origin of the problem of evil and suffering and makes it clear that it is a problem. That is, Christianity says suffering is not innate in the way the world was supposed to be. And Christianity traces the problem of suffering to a historical cause.
Christianity not only says there’s something wrong with the world, it says there is something wrong with humans, with you, and with me.4 It’s not easy to admit our faults, but to deny there is anything wrong with humanity is to say that this is as good as it gets.5 That, also, is not a happy conclusion. Better to face reality head-on than to stumble in a land of make-believe.
Naturalism, in contrast, does not seem to give a sufficient answer, other than suffering is just the way of the world. We’re essentially animals, so we’re going to be animalistic, and so suffering will result. We’re in a world of chaos and chance, so the world will be chaotic. There is no real problem of suffering, there’s an expectation of suffering. Or, there should be. And for naturalists, there is no category for evil.6 Evil gives off no kinetic energy. There is no entity to evil. Various people may have opinions, likes, and dislikes, but from a strictly naturalistic perspective, there is no evil.
Another problem is that “modernity cannot understand suffering very deeply because it does not believe in suffering’s ultimate source.”7 Modernity will then never find the true answer to suffering. If I fix a leaky sink in my house because I notice a puddle and mold, that may be helpful, but it will not fix the problem if the problem is a leak in the roof. If we don’t know the origin of a problem, there is no hope of fixing the problem. We will be left with external shallow bandages. As I say elsewhere, naturalism cannot truly identify evil as a problem because evil, for naturalism, does not exist. If evil is not seen as a real problem then it certainly can’t be solved.
As Peter Kreeft has said, “If there is no God, no infinite goodness, where did we get the idea of evil? Where did we get the standard of goodness by which we judge evil as evil?”8 Or here’s how C.S. Lewis said it: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe to when I called it unjust.”9
The Bible says sin and suffering are not original to the world; sin and suffering have a beginning in history, and they are not a feature of humanity or the world as originally created.10 That is good news. We do not have to be left in our broken state. We sense that not all is right in the world or in our own hearts and lives. The Bible agrees. Yet, that is not all; it says there is a solution.
The Broken Healer
While writing this, my daughter came into the room and said her bones hurt. That is part of her condition. She has CRMO, which stands for chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis. Basically, her body attacks her own bones, inflammation causes liaisons and fractures her bones, which can lead to deformity. It could stop harming her body when she stops growing, or it could continue her whole life. She currently gets infusions at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in hopes of putting it in remission.
How does Jesus relate to her pain? As Jesus’ biographies relate, “Jesus on the night that He was betrayed took the bread and broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is broken for you’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24). Jesus was broken for her. Jesus’ bones did not break (John 19:36; Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20), but His body did. He did writhe in pain. Jesus may not heal all our brokenness now, but He was broken so that the fractured world could be healed.
The Bible says God took on human flesh (John 1:1-3, 14) partly to experience suffering Himself. God, therefore, understands suffering, “not merely in the way that God knows everything, but by experience.”11 Jesus became fully human in every way so that He could be faithful and merciful, and provide rescue and forgiveness to people (Hebrews 2:17). The Bible may not completely answer the mystery of suffering and evil, but it does give an answer: Jesus. Amid the struggles and psychological storms of life, the cross of Christ is a column of strength and stability. It signals out to us in our fog: “I love you!” The cross is the lighthouse to our storm-tossed souls.
Christianity teaches that the Potter made the platter and was heartbroken over it breaking. So, because of His love for the platter, the Potter allowed Himself to be broken to fix the broken platter (John 3:16). The Bible does stop with the Potter being broken. The Bible concludes with resurrection. Jesus dies, yes. But He does not stay dead. The shattered shards are mended and whole. Jesus is the foretaste, and His rising proves that the whole world will be put back together.
Healed and Whole
The mathematician, scientist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote this thought, which, at first, is a little confusing: “Who would think himself unhappy if he had only one mouth, and who would not if he had only one eye? It has probably never occurred to anyone to be distressed at not having three eyes, but those who have none are inconsolable.”
What does Pascal mean by this? He means that we only miss something if it’s missing. We only miss something if it’s gone. We don’t notice an absence of things that were never there. Hunger points to food, thirst points to water, and a sense of brokenness points to a previous wholeness. As Peter Kraft has said, “We suffer and find this outrageous, we die and find this natural fact unnatural.” Why do we feel this way? “Because we dimly remember Eden.”12
Within our very complaint against God, there is a pointer to God and the reality of Christianity. Christianity gives a plausible explanation as to how the brokenness of the world happened in space and time history. But it also gives us a credible solution; the Potter who made the world and died for the world, promises to one day fix the world.
Christianity gives a logically consistent explanation for the brokenness of the world. And it supplies the solution. We certainly long to be healed and whole. Every dystopia, true and fictional, starts with a desire for utopia. But inevitably dissolves into dystopia. Jesus, however, is not only all-powerful and thus able to bring about a different state of things, He is also all-good so He actually can bring about a utopia. He can heal and make the world whole.
The Bible says that the Potter who formed the platter will reform and remake it in the end. The shattered shards will be put back in place, and everything will be mended and whole. The last book of the Bible says this:
‘Look! God’s home is now among people! God will live together with them. They will be his people. God himself will be with them and he will be their God. God will take away all the tears from their eyes. Nobody will ever die again. Nobody will be sad again. Nobody will ever cry. Nobody will have pain again. Everything that made people sad has now gone. That old world has completely gone away.’ God, who was sitting on the throne, said, ‘I am making everything new!’ (Revelation 21:3-5)
For now, we make mosaics out of the shattered shards of life. We paint as best we can with the canvas and colors we have.
Conclusion
We started with a few questions. Here are a few to consider at the end. What if you are not the only one that has walked your path of pain? What if you are not the only one that has faced your terrible trauma? What if there was someone who, because of their experience, knowledge, wisdom, empathy, sympathy, and their own suffering of trauma, could relate to all that you have gone through? What if that person loved you? What if they wanted to help you heal from your pain and protect you? What if they would go to any length to free you from what you have suffered?
What if the problem of evil gives a plausible argument for the reality of Christianity? What if naturalism does not even have a way to believe in the reality of evil? What if we do not like God because of all the bad things in the world, but God Himself actually took the bad things of the world on Himself to fix the broken world?
What if Jesus was shattered so that one day you could be mended and whole? And what if He promises to help pick up the pieces and make a masterful mosaic?
Photo by Evie S.
- Peter Kreeft, Making Sense Out of Suffering. ↩︎
- As Christopher Watkin has said, “in a world without the sort of god the Bible presents, there is no necessary stability to reality because nothing underwrites or guarantees the way things are” (Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 225). ↩︎
- Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 55. ↩︎
- As N. T. Wright has said, “The ‘problem of evil’ is not simply or purely a ‘cosmic’ thing; it is also a problem about me” (N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 97). ↩︎
- Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 166. ↩︎
- Consider that “Physics can explain how things behave, but it cannot explain how they ought to behave. If the universe is the result of randomness and chance, there’s no reason to think things ought to be one way as opposed to another. Things just are.” (Michael J. Kruger, Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College, 116-17). ↩︎
- Peter Kreeft, Making Sense out of Suffering. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Fontana, 1959), 42. ↩︎
- See Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 168. ↩︎
- D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering & Evil, 179. ↩︎
- Kreeft, Making Sense out of Suffering. ↩︎
Religion and Obligation – But I don’t want to obey?…
People often don’t like religion because they don’t want to obey
A lot of people react to religion and want nothing to do with it. Not because they’ve considered its truth claims but because they feel it is constricting. Interestingly, we got our modern English word “religion” from the Latin word religio meaning “obligation” or “bond.”
So, it has been recognized for a long time that religion is binding. The question is, why? Why should anyone obey a religion?
If the religion’s truth claims are accurate then there would be a good reason to obey. Otherwise, I’m not going to be bound by a religion just because that’s what my grandma believed… No. If you’re going to tell me what I can do and not do, you better offer some good reasons why I should listen.
God demands obedience
1 Kings 8:60-61 says, “The LORD is God; there is no other. Let your heart therefore be wholly true to the LORD.” It is admittedly a big claim that “the LORD is God,” and He alone. But if that claim is true it seems to make sense that the LORD could demand obedience.
So, the question it seems we need to answer is not: “Should I obey?” But: “Is it true?” A lot of times it seems we’re tempted to go at it a different way. We’re tempted to think: “I don’t want to obey, therefore I won’t consider if it’s true.”
We can see the ridiculousness of that thinking when we apply it to a different context…
Imagine you’re driving on the highway with me. I’m going 95 when the speed limit is 70. You’re concerned because you know there are often speed traps in the area. Also, you don’t want to die. So, you say, “Perhaps you should slow down. There could be a speed trap.”
I, however, am rather content with the speed I am going. But you see a police car ahead. You very kindly warn me: “Um, that’s a police car… See it?! He’s right there! Slow down!”
But I don’t listen. I want to drive fast so I ignore the possibility of a cop car.
Religion and obligation
Ignoring information that might be pertinent because we want to do what we want to do might be problematic. Just because we don’t want there to be a cop to enforce the rules does not at all mean there is no cop.
I understand people not wanting to be obligated by a religion. We all naturally want to be in charge; we want to do what we want to do. We want to be God. But we can’t be God if God is God.
If God is, then God is in charge. He is God. If the religion is real, it necessarily leads to obligation.
That brings up the very important question: “Is God?”
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved
Imagine I gave you a pill that made you feel morally obligated to give me money… Kinda random but hear me out. After the pill wore off, what would you think of your moral conviction to give me money? Would you regret it? Question it? Probably both.
That’s what moral conviction is if we’re simply evolved creatures. Why? How is that so?
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved. That is, our “moral genes” just happened to make us better suited for survival, and thus those with a moral characteristic passed on their “moral genes.” And so, we have morality. But, so the thought goes, just as the Neanderthals died out, morality could have died out. Or certainly, a different form of morality could have won out.
In fact, Charles Darwin says in The Descent of Man that if things had gone differently for humans they could have evolved to be like bees, where “females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters.” The atheist Michael Ruse in his book, Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy, says, “Morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.”
So, if we’re simply evolved from monkeys, morality is the equivalent of taking a pill that makes us think certain moral convictions are right. But the reality would be different. We, based on this view, only have those convictions—whatever they are: treat people nice, don’t murder and maim, etc.—because we happed to evolve that way (“took the pill”).
Of course, just because the way that you arrived at a conclusion was wrong, does not mean that your conclusion was wrong. In a test where the answer is A, B, C, or D, I could just choose “C” because it’s my favorite letter. I may be correct in my answer, but I certainly don’t have a solid reason for believing in the validity of my answer. In fact, probability would say my answer is likely wrong.
Another problem with wholesale naturalistic evolution is if we believe it explains everything then it in some ways explains nothing. Gasp. Yeah, that’s not a good thing.
If evolution explains morality, then I’m moral because of evolution which at least in some ways undercuts morality. Some people even say that religious people, like people that believe in Jesus, are religious because they evolved that way. Believing in a higher power brought some type of group identity which led tribes of our ancestors to be more likely to protect each other and thus survive and pass on their genes. And so, religion is the result of random mutational chance.
In fact, you could argue all of our thinking processes are the result of evolution. We’re just matter in motion. We’re all just responding to random whims. From belief in morality to belief in evolution, we’re just evolved to think this way… We can’t do anything about it. It’s programmed into us. It’s the pill we were given…
But if all this is a pill we’re given—what we’ve randomly evolved to think—what should we think?… Isn’t all our thinking just built into us through evolutionary processes?…
Alternatively, Christians believe that humans are created with an innate moral sense.
So, it seems morality is either a fiction with no basis in reality or God created us and explains reality—explains why we have an innate sense that we should treat people nice and not murder and maim.
There are big implications for either view. What is your view? And why?
What explains the contradiction of humanity?
What explains the contradiction of humanity?
in X 