Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Jesus Christ is the central figure of the Bible. He is God’s gift to man and Man’s only hope. The Old Testament pointed to His coming. Virtually every line of the New Testament helps to portray Him. There is little danger of our over magnifying Him. To know God we must know Jesus (Matt. 11:27). To receive God we must receive Jesus (Matt. 10:40). To love God we must love Jesus (John 8:42; 16:27). To come to God we must come to Jesus (Matt. 11:28; John 14:6). To obey God we must obey Jesus (Matt. 7:21,24; Heb. 5:9). To honor God we must honor Jesus (John 5:23).

Names and titles are meaningful in the Scriptures. The personal name given to the Son of God is significant. Many titles are applied to Him in the Sacred Writings, and we need to know their meaning that we might honor Him more fully. A “name” is a word or phrase that distinguishes and identifies; it is that by which something is marked and known. Adam gave names to the cattle, fowl of the air, and beasts of the field in Gen. 2:19,20. There are common and class names. For example, “apple” is the name of a certain class of fruit. There are proper and personal names. “Golden Delicious” is the name of a particular variety of apple. “Man” is the name of a class of creatures. “Sam Smith” is a proper name used by a man for personal identity.

A “title” is an appellation of rank, office, dignity, or honor. “Gerald Ford”‘ is the personal name of the man who currently occupies the White House in Washington, D.C. He wears numerous titles, such as “President of the United States,” “Chief Executive,” and “Commander-in-Chief.” We have no problem in understanding the difference between this man’s name and the titles that reflect his office, rank, and position.

The Name Jesus

The personal name worn by our Lord was chosen and announced prior to His birth. When the angel Gabriel was sent to Mary, a virgin, to announce that she would bear a child, the heavenly messenger spoke these words: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus” (Lk. 1:31). Later, when Joseph realized that his espoused wife was pregnant, supposing that she had played the harlot, he was thinking of putting her away privately. But the angel of the Lord informed him that she was with child of the Holy Spirit, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

This divinely-chosen name is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name “Joshua.” It signifies that “salvation is of Jehovah.” Like many other personal names in the Bible, it has doctrinal meaning. Consider, for example, the name “Joel” which means “Jehovah is God,” or the name “Malachi” which means “my messenger.” The personal name chosen for our Lord is appropriate. Since the name “Jesus” is not altogether uncommon, it is sometimes given clarification by the addition “Jesus of Nazareth” (John 18:5; Acts 2:22) or “Jesus of Galilee” (Matt. 26:29).

Master

The title “Master” often was applied to Jesus during His earthly ministry. Six Greek words translated “Master” can be used as titles for Jesus. Two of these mean “Lord” and that title will be considered later, so I now mention the other four.

(1) Didaskalos is used in such passages as Matt. 19:16; Mk. 4:38; and Lk. 12:13. It is rendered “teacher” in John 3:2. Thayer says it means “. . . One who teaches concerning the things of God, and the duties of man.” It sometimes refers to the teachers of the Jews’ religion and is translated “doctors” in Lk. 2:46 in the King James Version. It is applied to John the Baptist in Lk. 3:12. It describes Christians as instructors in Heb. 5:12. Because He was recognized as a teacher, Jesus was addressed by this title on numerous occasions.

(2) Rabbi is sometimes translated “Master” (John 9:2; Matt. 26:49), but in some cases it is not translated (John 6:25). Thayer says it means “. . . My great one, my honorable sir … a title with which the Jews were wont to address their teachers (and also to honor them when not addressing them . . . ).” It is interpreted as didaskalos in John 1:38. Like didaskalos, we find it applied to John the Baptist (John 3:26). Both didaskalos and rabbi were used by the Jews in reference to their teachers.

(3) Epistates is the word for “Master” in Lk. 5:5 and 17:13. Vine defines it as “a chief, a commander, overseer.” According to Thayer, it means “Any sort of superintendent or overseer,” and it was used by the disciples when addressing Jesus, not because He was a teacher, but because He had authority. Interestingly, this Greek word for “Master” is used only six times and is limited to the book of Luke. The Pulpit Commentary suggests that it may have been used in Luke’s writing because it would have been better understood by the Gentile reader than didaskalos or rabbi. It is interesting to compare Mk. 4:38 which uses didaskalos and Lk. 8:24 which uses epistates. Perhaps the disciples used both words when addressing Jesus, or Luke may have used the latter as a kind of synonym for the former to portray to Greek readers (Theophilus and others) the authority of Jesus as a teacher.

(4) Kathegetes is used exclusively in Matt. 23:8,10 and translated “Master.” It means a leader or guide. Albert Barnes says, “It refers to those who go before others; who claim, therefore the right to direct and control others. This was also a title conferred on Jewish teachers.”

Jesus was “Master” in the sense of Teacher, Rabbi, Overseer, and Guide during His ministry. It appears that these titles were regarded as inadequate following the ascension, so titles expressing Deity are more common after His exaltation. Vine remarks, “The primitive community never ventured to call Jesus `Our Teacher’ after He had been exalted to the Throne of God. The title rabbi, expressing the relation of the disciple to the teacher, vanished from use . . .”

Lord

Kurios is the commonly-used word for “Lord” and appears in every book of the New Testament except Titus and the epistles of John. It has several general and customary usages, four of which I now mention.

(1) It often means the possessor or owner of a thing. The householder who hired laborers to work in his vineyard is called “lord of the vineyard” (Matt. 20:8). He was what we think of today as a landlord. In Gal. 4:1, Paul reasoned that the heir, as long as he is a minor, is no different from a servant, though he be (potentially) “lord of all.” Ownership is the idea.

(2) It sometimes means a master in the sense of one to whom some kind of service is due. At Philippi, Paul and Silas found a damsel who “brought her masters much gain by soothsaying” (Acts 16:16). Jesus pointed out that no man can serve “two masters” (Matt. 6:24). The two masters or lords to which he was referring are God and riches.

(3) In some cases it means a ruler. When Paul appealed to Caesar, Festus was troubled that he had no certain thing to write to his “lord” (Acts 25:26). The “lord” to which he made reference was the Emperor. Jesus is called “Lord of lords, and King of kings” (Rev. 17:14). This means that He rules over all earthly rulers.

(4) It can be used as a title of respect and courtesy. In this sense Sarah called Abraham “lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). It is translated “Sir” in several passages. For example, the jailor at Philippi addressed Paul and Silas as “Sirs” (Acts 16:30). It was in this sense that Saul of Tarsus called Jesus “lord” before knowing His identity. “Who art thou, Lord?” (Acts 9:5).

Kurios was used by the Jews in a special sense to honor Jehovah. This title is applied frequently to Jesus in the New Testament. Although Jesus could be called “Lord” because He is our Owner, having purchased our redemption, or as Master deserving our service, or as Ruler over us, as His Deity was revealed the title took on deeper meaning. Vine suggests that the title “Lord” in its full significance “rests upon the resurrection.” There is certainly more to it than a mere expression of courtesy. When Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), he was acknowledging Lordship in the highest sense.

Messiah and Christ

Messias is the Hebrew word for “anointed” spelled as if a Greek word; anglicized, it is “Messiah.” It is used in the New Testament only in John 1:41 and 4:25. Translated into Greek it is Christos; into English, “Christ.” “Messiah” and “Christ” are identical in meaning.

In Old Testament days the priests were anointed with a special anointing oil (Ex. 30:22-30; Lev. 4:3). Kings were anointed, also. Saul was anointed by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1). David, though threatened by Saul, always respected Saul as “the Lord’s anointed” (2 Sam. 1:14-16). David was anointed on three separate occasions (1 Sam. 17:13; 2 Sam. 2:4; 5:3). Since it was foretold that Israel’s Savior would be both King and Priest (2 Sam. 7:11; Zech. 6:13), the Jews came to think of Him as “the Anointed One” to come. This is the background for the well-known title “Messiah.”

Jesus is called “Christ” in such familiar passages as Matt. 16:16; 22:42; 26:63; John 1:19,10; and many others. Sometimes the title appears immediately after the personal name, hence “Jesus Christ” (Matt. 1:18; Acts 8:12; Eph. 2:20). Sometimes the title appears just before the personal name, therefore “Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1; 1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 2:13). Sometimes the title “Lord” appears before the personal name and the title “Christ” immediately after, so we find “Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1; 1 Cor. 15:57; 2 Tim. 4:2). Jesus is truly the Christ, the Anointed One of God.

Savior

The title “Savior” means deliverer or preserver. It is sometimes applied to God (Lk. 1:47; Tit. 3:4), but it is fitting for Jesus as the author of our salvation. Many Samaritans acknowledged Jesus to be “the Christ, the Savior of the world” (John 4:42). It is not uncommon to find several titles grouped together, such as “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).

Lamb Of God

This is one of a number of metaphorical titles for Jesus. A metaphor is a term denoting one kind to suggest a comparison with another. Lambs were used for sacrifice under the law of Moses. Jesus is the “Lamb of God” because He is the sacrifice that God provided for us. John the Baptist honored Jesus with this meaningful title (John 1:29,36). Furthermore, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be led as a sheep to the slaughter (Isa. 53:7; Acts 8:32). Like the literal lamb that was suited for sacrifice, Jesus stood without blemish and without spot (1 Pet. 1:19). In the book of Revelation, Jesus is symbolized as the “Lamb” about thirty times. Note especially Rev. 5 and 13:8.

These are but a few of the many titles applied to Jesus in the Bible. These and other titles clearly reveal the concept that first-century disciples had of Him. Many of these disciples knew Him personally; some saw Him following the resurrection; they had firsthand information. Our efforts to honor Jesus should be greatly enhanced by studying these appellations of office, rank, and dignity. “To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”

Truth Magazine, XX:22, pp. 7-8
May 27, 1976

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Clarence Macartney has aptly pointed out that since the minds of men are differently constituted, one kind of evidence will appeal to one nature while evidence of a different sort will appeal to another.1 The marvelous thing about New Testament Christianity is that it carries with it all kinds of evidence to suit all kinds of minds. There is a definite adaptation of Christianity to the needs of human nature. In the category of evidences presented to the human mind for the divinity of Christ, foremost in the New Testament, the teaching of Jesus and the preaching of the Apostles, is the fulfillment of prophecies.

In this writing the reader is called upon to consider just one kind of proof for Christianity, the fulfillment by Jesus Christ of ancient prophecies relating to Him. This material appeals with equal force to believers and nonbelievers, and is the one great evidence to which the Bible itself points. It is the argument of Christ about himself and the one great argument of the Apostles for the authority of Jesus Christ.

What is the importance of this line of reasoning? Just this: if we have a series of predictions foretelling clearly future events which no native shrewdness and no clever guess could have arrived at, and the fulfillment of which could not have been cleverly contrived by an impostor, then the fulfillment of these predictions necessitates a supernatural power at work. In other words, the fulfillment of prophecy by Christ proves Him Divine and demonstrates that Christianity is a divine revelation. Did Christ in His life and death, and in His earthly ministry fulfill the prophecies made in the Old Testament? If He did, then He must be the Son of God and the Savior of the world. When we talk about Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy, we are not talking about a single prediction uttered by one man at one point in history, a prediction fulfilled by Christ. We could discuss many predictions uttered by many different men through many hundreds of years, and all at last converging in Jesus Christ. Truly the greatest proofs of Jesus Christ are the prophecies. But we will confine ourselves to several prophecies of one man, Isaiah.

As Bernard Ramm has pointed out, we need only one prophecy and its fulfillment to prove our point. He says, “one real case of fulfilled prophecy would establish a supernatural act. But if our interpretation of the prophetic passages be correct, there are great numbers of them. One unequivocal miracle, one indubitable fulfilled prophecy would show the fallacy of naturalism, for the causal web of the universe would be ruptured at that point through which the supernatural is intruded. Therefore, radical doubt must be certain it has silenced the testimony of all prophecies, whereas the Christian asserts that rather than resting the case on one prophecy, we have dozens at our beck and call.”2 Be this as it may, we appeal to several lines of argument as proof of our proposition that Jesus Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. We still do this, as suggested above, by studying one major prophecy, that of Isaiah 53.

Jesus and the Apostles

The Old Testament promised the coming of a Messiah. The first Messianic promise is Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Of this same seed it was said, “and when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (2 Sam. 7:12-13, cf. Jer. 23:5-6; Mal. 3:1). These find their fulfillment in expressions such as, “but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Jesus claimed to have fulfilled prophecy relating to himself. He said, “search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jno. 5:39). He said later in this context, “for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (Jno. 5:46). Jesus told the twelve on one occasion, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished” (Lk. 18:31).

The basic argument used by the Apostles to prove the Deity of Christ was prophecy. This was Peter’s approach on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). When Peter and John went up to the Temple at the ninth hour, they healed a lame man. They had occasion to preach to the people and among other things Peter said, “but those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts 3:18). He proves Christ’s Deity by the fulfillment of prophecy. He sums it up by saying, “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days” (Acts 3:24). Peter concludes the sermon by saying, “Unto you, first God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities” (Acts 3:26). Peter’s appeal to Cornelius was, “to him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). He then commanded him to be baptized (Acts 10:48). The list under this heading could go on but this is sufficient to demonstrate our point.

Isaiah 53rd Chapter

By approaching our caption from Isaiah 53, emphasis is upon the “Christ” of our confession (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10) and the fact that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God identified as the fulfiller of Old Testament prophecy. There is no doubt about Isaiah 53 applying to Christ. We have an inspired application of the passage. Philip applied it to Jesus in Acts 8:35. Yet, skeptics want to say the passage in Isaiah applied to Israel. This is not so. Look at the context.3

(1) The one in Isaiah 53:9 was innocent. Israel was not the innocent one (Isa. 1:4-6; 3:9; 42:24-25).

(2) The suffering one of Isaiah 53:7 was a voluntary sufferer. Not so with Israel.

(3) Israel did not bear her suffering in silence, but the one in Isaiah 53 did (cf. v. 7).

(4) The sufferer of Isaiah 53 atoned for the sins of humanity (53:5-6, 11-12). Israel atoned for the sins of no one.

(5) The one referred to in Isaiah 53 went through suffering resulting in a death for mankind (53:8-10, 12). Israel’s suffering did not result in such a death.

It should be observed therefore that the passage is talking about Jesus Christ and not about the nation of Israel. It was natural that Philip would preach Christ based on Isaiah because the eunuch asked, “of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” (Acts 8:34). Verse 35 of Acts 8 specifically says that Jesus was preached at this passage. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the Christ of our confession. Let us, in the space remaining, look at some of the prophecies of Isaiah 53 and their fulfillment to sustain this proposition.

1. Isaiah prophesied of the rejection of Jesus Christ. He said, “who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed” (53:1). That Jesus was rejected, no one can deny. One can hear Christ crying to the Israel of His day, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doeth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Lk. 13:34). John 12:37 says, “but though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.” The very fact that the Jews consulted to kill Jesus (Matt. 26:3-4) and accomplished their feat (Acts 2:36) shows the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:1.

2. Isaiah foresaw the reasons for the rejection of Christ: “for he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isa. 53:2-3). These reasons were true. On one occasion the Jews were astonished at the teaching of Jesus and said, “is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him” (Mk. 6:3). Jesus himself said, “. . . foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Lk. 9:58). It is no wonder that Paul said, “we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23).

3. Isaiah said Jesus would suffer in silence when he said, “he was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (53:7). This prophecy, like others in this context, was fulfilled to the letter. Matt. 27:12-14 records the fact that “when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.” When Pilate addressed himself to Jesus, the text says, “and he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”

4. Isaiah said that Jesus would die with the wicked. He said, “and he made his grave with the wicked . . .” (53:9). Matthew records the fact that there were “two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left” (27:38).

5. Jesus would he “with the rich in his death,” Isaiah said (53:9). Here is a poor, destitute man dying among thieves, yet being with the rich in death. This is not the way a common man would have written without inspiration. Was this fulfilled? Yes, for we read in Matt. 27:57-60 that “when the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.” Jesus was truly with the rich in His death.

6. Another interesting thing about the Isaiah passage is that it says that death would not hold the Savior. “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” (53:10). Peter, speaking as he was moved by the Spirit (Acts 2:4), said that David agreed with this (Acts 2:24-31; 13:28-31). He says, “whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face . . .” The conclusion is, “therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, bath Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). The resurrected Christ is one of the great facts of the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:12-20).

Conclusion

The conclusion of J. Gresham Machen, as quoted in Isaiah 53 by Edward J. Young, is fitting at this point. “If there is any passage in the Old Testament which seems to the Christian heart to be a prophecy of the redeeming work of Christ, it is that matchless fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. We read it today, often even in preference to New Testament passages, as setting forth the atonement which our Lord made for the sins of others upon the cross. Never, says the simple Christian, was a prophecy more gloriously plain” (Preface). It is no wonder that the eunuch, after hearing Isaiah 53 applied to Christ, desired baptism (Acts 8:36) and freely confessed, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37). The Christ of prophecy is truly the Christ of our confession.

Footnotes

1. Twelve Great Questions About Christ (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids), p. 39.

2. Protestant Christian Evidences, p. 86.

3. Based on a sermon preached by Larry Haftey

Truth Magazine, XX:22, p. 4-6
May 27, 1976

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

The intellectual climate in which we live is one which tends toward extremes. On the one hand there are the complete skeptics who admit nothing but the “natural,” who affirm that there is nothing beyond the world that we can perceive with our five senses. Consequently, no “supernatural” events can take place–events like the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. On the other hand, there are those who are ready and eager to believe anything and everything, who affirm the miraculous and supernatural in every event and in every circumstance. The presence of these two opposite forces in society has made it difficult for the convicted Bible believer to offer a rational defense for the miracles recorded therein. The total skepticism of the one group influences some to discredit even the possibility of God and His presence in the world. The easy-believeism of the other group influences some to discredit the miracles of the Bible because of the rank phoniness and deliberate deceptions of modern-day “faith-healers” and their clan. Thus, the problem is two-fold: the Christian must establish a “believability” for Bible miracles to break the stronghold of the skeptic while at the same time distinguishing the Bible miracles from the bogus claims of misdirected people today.

It is unlikely, however, that our problems are unique; it would seem that both types appeared in the environs of first century Palestine where Jesus walked, both those who would believe anything and those who will believe nothing. The question then and the question now is still: Jesus’ miracles – are the accounts trustworthy? It is this question we propose to deal with in this article.

The Gospel Miracles

The gospels contain narratives of about 35 different times when Jesus is said to have performed feats that appeared miraculous to those who witnessed them. In addition to these, there are several passages which quite clearly affirm that Jesus was in fact performing a miracle. More than half of these narratives deal with the healing Jesus did. In other cases we are told that he cast demons out of distressed victims. Three times we are told that he raised people from the dead. The remaining incidents speak of his power over things: feeding multitudes with little food, walking on water, changing water into wine and catching enormous amounts of fish.

Modem Objections to Miracles

At the very least, these narratives testify to the tremendous impression which Jesus’ ministry had upon those who witnessed it. Even if these stories were legends we would still be interested in finding out just what it was about Him that compelled people to tell such stories about Him. One thing must be faced, however, from the beginning: there is no use in trying to separate some kind of “non-miraculous” Jesus from the story. His deeds are an integral part of His story – it is impossible to remove them from His life – they are there. Why then do skeptics try to remove them?

First, it is commonly argued that somehow “science” has ruled out the possibility of the miraculous. This is a formidable objection in the minds of many if for no other reason than the fact that “science” is held is such high esteem today. When 20th century man witnesses men on the moon, the advent of atomic energy and the tremendous strides in medicine, he reasons, perhaps, that science has “explained away” the supposed “superstitions” of prior ages. But as one looks more closely at this “argument from science” he realizes that it is nothing more than the statement of a presupposition-the affirmation of prejudice. And this “prejudice” takes the form that “in a purely natural, material universe nothing can happen that cannot be explained through natural cause.” But, quite obviously, this is merely an assumption about the universe that cannot be proven. It is an assumption which is no more valid (and, in fact, less valid) than the assumption that the universe is not wholly “natural and material.” Surely, we must realize that the honest truth-seeker will have an open-mind about the question and will sincerely examine the evidence for both possibilities.

Secondly, it is argued that there is actually no reliable historical evidence for the miraculous. Miracle-believers are told that their “miracles” must comply with a rigid set of rules in order to establish the fact of their occurrence. The evidence for miracles, they argue, must be extremely strong and it must be something that cannot be explained by non-miraculous fact since (to the skeptic) it “is more likely that the witnesses got it wrong than that a miracle actually happened.” It is easy to see that a skeptic who is determined to remain an unbeliever can do so even when the evidence for miracles actually complies with his rigid criteria; he will simply “explain away” the miraculous from the circumstances to fit his pre-conceived notions.

The Resurrection

In the final analysis it is not very productive to argue about this or that matter and how it “could have been pulled off;” the central miracle of the Gospels (and the whole Bible for that matter) is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is upon this one grand miracle that the whole of revealed religion depends. Thus it is reasonable to center our investigation upon this one event as a “test case” for the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus. By an analysis of the testimony of the evangelists it should be possible for us to establish whether or not the accounts of the resurrection are trustworthy, i.e., reliable historical records of what happened. But we need to keep in mind one important fact: what we are establishing is a reasonable platform for faith, not “absolute proof.” There is an element of faith in all knowledge and no less an element when we are talking about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. We can point out the facts, we can affirm the reasonableness of faith, but we cannot compel people to believe; this is a decision that they must make for themselves on the basis of the evidence.

The criteria for determining the validity of testimony may be fairly said to rest upon three categories: (1) the honesty and integrity of the witnesses involved; (2) the ability of the witnesses to know the facts of a situation; (3) the agreement of the witnesses. And how do the witnesses of the resurrection square up to these categories?

1. Honesty and Integrity. When one actually reads the individual accounts of the resurrection (and this is a major problem, it seems, with so many; most unbelievers have never read the accounts for themselves, he is impressed by the straight-forward simplicity of the accounts. It is, in fact, impossible to attribute to these men and women ulterior motives for believing and proclaiming a risen Lord. The fame, wealth and reputations that the world accounts as valuable were left behind when these dedicated believers surrendered to Jesus as Master. These were hounded and persecuted men and women all of their lives; who could think that these humble, dedicated ones would knowingly believe and propagate a false account? And neither were these believers “fanatics” who believed what they wanted to believe. When the accounts are read, one realizes that of all people, the disciples were the most shocked and surprised by the resurrection. The tough-minded Thomas refused to believe in the risen Christ without “hard” evidence (John 20:24-28) and his example serves as a key to the essential integrity of these witnesses to the resurrection.

2. Ability to Know the Facts. One of the requisites to sound testimony is the ability of a witness to know the facts. If the disciples were somehow handicapped in this regard, if, for instance, they did not know Jesus well enough to identify him, or that none of them had been in the environs of Jerusalem within the alleged forty days after his death and burial, or if any other difficulty presented itself such that the witnesses could not possibly have seen and heard what they claimed, then we should seriously doubt their testimony. But, as any fair-minded reader must admit, none of these things are the case. John declared that the apostles had preached only what they “(had) heard, that they (had) seen with (their) eyes, that which (they had) looked at and (their) hands (had) touched” (1 John 1:1). Peter argued that he and the others had not “followed cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16) and, when he preached to Cornelius, he pointed to pre-selected witnesses who had eaten and drunk with Jesus after His resurrection (Acts 10:40,41). The disciples indeed knew Jesus – and no one could possibly maintain, when the evidence is examined, that they could have been misled or deceived. This was their Lord!

3. Agreement of Testimony. Unbelievers, yesterday and today, have pointed to alleged “jars and clashes” in the resurrection accounts, affirming that this is “proof” that the disciples were probably confused and mistaken about the risen Lord. And while it must be admitted there are differences as to detail in the accounts (that is, different writers emphasizing different facts to the exclusion of others), there are no “contradictions” to be found. In fact, would it not be highly suspicious for the four gospel writers to have recorded exactly the same facts and details without any variety of emphasis or design? The truth is that the four gospel accounts that we have of the resurrection are just what one might expect from four different writers, each with his own purposes in mind: accurate details, without contradiction, and yet with the personal perspective of each writer kept intact. (The Christian, of course, realizes that these men were guided by the Spirit, Jn. 16:13, who guaranteed the accuracy of their records.)

Concluding Remarks

It should be apparent by now that the question of the reliability and trustworthiness of the gospel accounts regarding Jesus’ miracles is not really a question of evidence. To any fair-minded reader, the evidence is not merely “ample,” it is, in fact, overwhelming! There is nothing to suggest in the accounts that we have that there has been any sort of elaborate ruse or deliberate trickery foisted upon us. There is no hint of deceit or charlatantry. The facts of the matter are set forth very simply and, we might add, very ‘humbly be a group of devout, dedicated disciples of the risen Jesus. If people persist in unbelief it is not because there is not enough evidence to believe. It is not a problem of evidence, but of the will. There is no “reason” for honest men and women to disbelieve; it is a matter of their conscious choice to ignore and/or reject the evidence that points to faith. It is thus crucial at this point to ask the reader, “Believest thou what thou readest?” If the answer is yes, we bid you to obey the gospel of the risen Lord who died for you (Acts 2:38); if the answer is no, we beg you to consider your stubborn will and the consequences of rejecting God in this life (Acts 17:31).

Truth Magazine, XX:22, pp. 1-2
May 27, 1976

By Dennis C. Abernathy

We are certainly hearing a lot about unity in the religious circles today. In this article we want to look at unity as it is in Christ, by simply pointing our minds to the Word of God.

First of all, man can be united with God, but it is in Christ. This is termed reconciliation. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself . . . . be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:19-20). God is our Father (2 Cor. 6:16-18). The church is the family or the household o# God (Eph. 2:19). Christians, of course, being God’s family, have an inheritance from their Father (Rom. 8:16-18; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). God has demonstrated His great love for His children. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jno. 3:1-2). In consequense of this great love for us and the hope which we entertain in our hearts, we purify ourselves, “even as he is pure” (1 Jno. 3:3, 2 Cor. 7:1).

In order to be united with God, one must be united with Christ. This takes place in our initial obedience to the gospel, baptism being the culminating step. It is in the likeness of His death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom. 6:1-11). Keep in mind, dear reader, that it is sin that has separated man from God in the first place (Isa. 59:1-2). Consequently, there must be a new life –a putting off of the old man and a putting on of the new man. “Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4; see also Col. 2:12). This baptism puts one into Christ. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3; see also Gal. 3:27).

All of this talk about an individual’s accepting Christ and at that instant he is born again (all of this taking place before baptism) is simply the doctrines and commandments of men and not God’s will at all! We must obey God fully in order to be free from our sins. Partial obedience will not do! There is no freedom from sin without first there being obedience to that form of doctrine which has been delivered that we might be made righteous before God. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye become the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). I want you to notice, and forever mark it down, that they became free from their sin when they obeyed from the heart. Did they obey just anything? Certainly not. What did they obey? That form of doctrine which was delivered you. Is this not true today? Must not we obey God’s revealed will with all of our hearts? Surely we must, if we would be free from our sins.

What have we said? Sin separates from God. Therefore the sin must be remitted (the barrier removed) before one can be united with God and this takes place in baptism (Acts 2:38).

Unity with God is achieved in Christ, and unity with Christ is achieved in His one body, the church. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. . .” (1 Cor. 12:13). “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4:4). Simply stated, it is impossible to be united with God, in Christ, and not be in His church.

Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). “And he is the head of the body, the church . . .” (Col. 1:18). We are reconciled in the body, the church. “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:16). (Note here that reconciliation is said to be in Christ and in one body, the church. Hence to be in Christ is to be in the church). We are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 2:41,47). We have already shown that we are baptized into Christ. Therefore, to enter into Christ is the same as entering into the church, the one body.

People talk about being saved and not being in any church. That idea certainly did not originate in the mind of God, therefore it is not in His Word. Ephesians 5:23 states that Christ is the Saviour of the Body. The body is the church (Col. 1:18). If that means anything it means that those who are saved are in the church, and that those who are not in the church are not saved. This is what Acts 2:47 teaches. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (or, were being saved).”

The church was purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Then people are bold and brazen enough to say that the church is not essential to one’s being saved. No, dear reader, our Lord did not shed his blood for a worthless institution or for a vain cause.

Are you united with God? If you are you are in Christ and His church. You got there by obedience to the blessed gospel of Christ, through which God’s mighty power to save you and me is exerted.

We hear so much today about “Just accept Christ.” While I know we must accept Him and His terms of pardon, maybe we need to put a little more stress upon the fact that it is God who must accept us. We must be accepted of God or reconciled to Him, and not God to man (2 Cor. 5:19).

In conclusion, one must obey the Lord in order to be saved. That implies more than faith only or even more than faith and repentance. It means obedience to all of God’s plan which results in unity with God. “And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46).

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 13-14
May 20, 1976