Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

While the humanity of Jesus is not assailed and ruthlessly attacked as often as his divinity, it is nonetheless rejected by some and grossly misunderstood by others. The doctrine of the incarnate Son of God is indeed plainly taught in the word of God. Reasons demanding the humanity of Jesus are also given in the Bible. While the fact of his humanity must be emphasized so must also the objectives of incarnation be stressed. We must show that God had reason for Jesus to be “flesh and dwell among men” (John 1:14). We shall show that Christ accomplished all things, while in the flesh, that God sent him to do (John 17:4); being full of grace and truth he brought both to man (John 1:14,17).

So John (1 John 1:1) is declaring that Jesus really lived in the flesh while he was in this world manifesting God. We are aware that while John lived there were certain Jews who did not confess that Jesus Christ “is come in the flesh.” They were deceivers and anti-Christ (2 John 7). While these Docetic Gnostics contended for a phantom body for Jesus, John additionally writes: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2-3). To John, the incarnate Jesus was not an illusion! “Docetism” is a theological term derived from the Greek verb dokeo, meaning “to seem.” It was the doctrine that Christ did not actually become flesh, but merely seemed to be a man. These Jews taught that matter (the physical body) is evil. Therefore, to confess the goodness of Jesus would, to them, ,be a denial of his humanity. The apostle John attacks this false doctrine in his letters. Later, Ignatius and Irenaeus dealt extensively with this error. Tertullian wrote some five books against it.

Jesus Lived In A Body Of Flesh

John affirmed that the one “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled” is Jesus the Christ (1 John 1:1). Not only had John heard Christ but his eyes had seen him and his hands had touched him! This is physical-and this physical is the fleshly body of Christ. The Hebrew writer quotes David, saying, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me” (Heb. 10:5). Of this fleshly body he further affirms, “He taketh away the first (Law), that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:9b,10). It is called “the body of his flesh” and means simply the body consisted of flesh (Col. 1:22).

Shortly after his birth in Bethlehem he was made to escape from the murderous efforts of Herod the Great by a quick flight into Egypt (Matt. 2:13-15). After the death of Herod, Joseph and Mary along with Jesus returned to their own country (Matt. 2:22-23). It was here in Nazareth that Jesus was reared (Luke 4:16; John 1:45,46). The physical development, along with his moral and spiritual guidance, was here in this place (Luke 2:39-52). This writer says “. . . Jesus increased in stature. . . . This word “stature” has to do with maturity or development, and the lexicographers say “in height and comeliness of stature.” Jesus was successful in his physical growth whereas Zacchaeus was not (Luke 19:3). This metaphorical use of increase or progress is used in the dative case, identifying the thing in which Jesus grew. And the passage says it was in his physical or fleshly development. Just as surely as Zacchaeus was in the flesh but did not grow up, that is, he “was little of stature,” Jesus Christ was in the flesh and did “increase in stature.” To argue against the fleshly existence of Jesus also argues against the fleshly existence of Zacchaeus! Who can believe it?

The doctrine denying that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh not only makes its propagator a liar and anti-Christ, but also nullifies all revelation pertaining to the deeds dependent upon the life of Christ. The deeds of his life from the manger to the cross, and the ascension, are all myth if the teachings of the anti-Christ are true. The scriptures affirming Jesus to be “seed of woman” demand his humanity. Paul makes use of Gen. 3:15 in Gal. 4:4 to emphasize the prophetical impact of the truth that Jesus is of woman. He took not the nature of angels upon himself when he came into this world, but the seed of Abraham (man) (Heb. 2:14-18). Angels could not die (Luke 20:36), but Jesus had to die (Heb. 2:9; 9:28). The deeds of his life as affirmed in the word of God demand his fleshly life. Paul says, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Tim. 3:16). This passage shows the sphere of his manifestation: “in flesh.” As above shown, John’s eyes had seen and his hands had handled this Jesus made flesh. “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39).

He Laid Down His Life

The inherent qualities manifesting “the power of an endless life” (Heb. 7:16), set forth the deity of Jesus; but, the humanity of Jesus is declared through the love of God, “because he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). He laid down his life “that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). Paul preached that Christ died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3,4). He further affirmed, “we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). This “seed of David according to the flash” is the one who died (Rom. 1:3). No one took his life, he laid it down “of himself” (John 10:17,18).

The purpose of his humanity was that he might adequately represent man to God. Man’s sins demanded death. God’s demand for death for sin would have accomplished nothing by a sinner dying. Man’s salvation then and now depends on the “offering of the body of Jesus Christ” (Heb. 10:10). Only he “who did no sin” could “bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:22,24). However, his death in flesh alone could not have accomplished for man what has been done. That dead body had to be raised! Paul says that Jesus “was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). He who said “I lay it down of myself,” also tells us “I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). After his passion he was both seen and heard (Acts 1:3). When Thomas felt the resurrected flesh of Jesus, he exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Yes, his flesh was made alive (1 Pet. 3:18). The objective of his humanity embraces the fact of his being “a merciful and faithful high priest” for the Christian, and to be “able to succour” the tempted (Heb. 2:17,18). He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). By having become just as much human as any human being, he could know the trials and burdens that all men have, and do something about them. As a mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), he represents us before God. One can rest with confidence that he will be correctly and sufficiently represented by Jesus before the Almighty.

Conclusion

His birth was physical, he was born of woman; his trials and temptations were real because he was human; he suffered in death because he was flesh; his burial was in a literal tomb because his body was physical; his resurrection was bodily one because it was flesh and would, therefore, offer undeniable evidence of his deity and sufficiency for all the needs of the human family.

R.A. Torrey said, “While the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the corner-stone of Christian doctrine, it is also the Gibraltar of Christian evidence, and the Waterloo of infidelity and rationalism.” And I add a hearty amen!

Truth Magazine, XX:21, p. 2-3
May 20, 1976

By Stephen P. Willis

The Greek word kosmos is used by the author of the fourth gospel 78 times.1 It generally means: an apt and harmonious arrangement, an ornament, decoration, or arrangement.2 It has several specific uses that shed a different light on passages according to its meaning. In John, kosmos is used to mean the universe (or earth), the human inhabitants of the earth, the general public, sinful mankind, and the realm of the evil.3 I feel we can limit this to three categories: (1) the created world ,(earth), (2) the created inhabitants of the earth (man), and (3) sinful or alienated man or men.

The purpose of this article will be to examine briefly the relationships of Jesus in reference to the kosmos. In doing so, I was selective of verses cited in Young’s Analytical Concordance, in the article “world (kosmos).”

Creator of the World

First, we see Jesus as the creator who existed before the world (universe). We learn that all things came into being through Him (1:3) and that “all things” include the world (1:10). We read that Jesus was loved before the foundations of the earth; loved by the Father (17:25). Jesus is the eternal creator of the world.

Sent to the World

Secondly, all through the Old Testament we see that man was sinful, but God loved this world’s inhabitants and sent His Son into the world (in the earth and among men, 3:16,17). The Scriptures state that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (1:14). Jesus took on the form of a man and “tabernacled” in the world. Just as the Christ was sent by the Father, the apostles were sent forth by the Son (17:11-6).

Three items might be observed here: Jesus was a light in the world; He spoke in the world; and Jesus loved His own in the world. The term “light in the world” is used repeatedly in the Gospel, but is best explained in 1:4, 5, 9. The light shone in the darkness and gave life to men. He was rejected and not comprehended by the world. The world did not know Him.

Moses had foretold that there would be a Prophet raised up (Deut. 18:15). Jesus is that Prophet (6:14), and, therefore, speaks for God. He came to tell the will of the Father. He came to teach in order that the world might believe (17:21). He condemned the ruler of this world, that is, Satan (12:31; 14:30; 16:18). He claimed that He would leave this world (13:1) and showed that He was not of the world. All this He taught openly in the world, as He reported to Pilate (18:20). World, here, would refer to the men of the earth.

Still, Jesus was a man and had human compassions. He wept at the burial place of Lazarus (11:35). Jesus, though not of earthly origin, did show His humanity when He thought about leaving this world (earth and men). He did love His own people and was saddened to think that He would leave them behind (13:1).

Not of the World

Although Jesus taught in the world, He made it clear in His teaching that He was not of this world (probably all three definitions would fit here). He taught that His disciples, His peace, His kingdom, and His Spirit were not of this world (14:17, 27; 17:6-25; 18:36). When Jesus spoke to the Jews (8:23), He said, “. . . you are of this world; I am not of this world.” Jesus was from above. He proclaimed and established spiritual things (Mt. 16:18-20).

Purpose of His Coming

Often, we might be asked (or ask ourselves), What purpose did Jesus serve? Why did He come to be rejected and crucified? What did He care about the world? John’s Gospel will reveal the purpose of the Son on earth or in the world.

Jesus came to bear witness of the truth (18:37). He claims that He spoke the truth in 8:45. It is especially interesting to note the word witness. From its Greek root we derive the word “martyr.”4 Jesus was a “martyr” for the truth in every sense of the word. He gave witness to it and even laid down His life for it. He spoke the truth. He was truth.

Another reason Jesus entered the world was to judge the world, i.e. sinful man. We have identified Jesus as the “light of the world,” so let us look at 3:19, where it says, “This is the judgment, that the light is come into the world.” Jesus says, “For judgment I came into the world. . .” (9:39).

But let us seek His true motive, for Jesus said, “for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” Here world is men, whether sinful (totally alienated) or a “good-man-who-still- sins-a-bit.” Let us not think this to be a contradiction to the last paragraph. Many times a grammatical structure such as this is used to emphasize the latter idea (salvation, here), but not totally giving up the former statement (judgment) (cf. 6:29).

Behold! The Savior (4:42)! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29)! With these names, let us not forget the eternal life that is given by the light (3:17). Jesus brought remission of sins, and eternal life to mankind-to the world! What a wonderful mission!

As we have observed, Jesus created the world, He was sent to the world and lived here proclaiming the Message of God. He was in the world, but not of the world. He came to bear witness of the truth, to judge and to save the world.

Victory Over the World

I have kept a very significant point until last. Reviewing these relations with the world, we see Jesus in action against the evil forces that have taken over. Yet during the struggle, Jesus knew the outcome. He spoke plainly to His disciples and told them that they should not fear. We can apply this to ourselves. We should not fear in this world. Why? “In Me you have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (16:33, emph. mine).

FOOTNOTES

1 Jensen, Irving L., John: a Self-Study Guide. (Chicago: Moody Press), 1970, p. 14.

2 Thayer, Joseph, Greek-English Lexicon. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. Co.), 1962, pp. 356, 357.

3 Hendriksen, William, The New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 1953, p. 79.

4 Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V. (Nashville: Broadman Press), 1932, p. 294.

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

By Johnny Stringer]

Preparing the Way (Isa. 40:3-5)

When an Eastern monarch entered upon a journey, it was customary to send harbingers ahead to make certain that the way for the king was prepared. This was especially true when he was to be traveling through barren, little-traveled country, where there would be no path in a condition conducive to traveling. Thus, all obstacles to travel which would hinder the king would be removed, and a path would be prepared for him. This would involve such things as leveling off high places, smoothing over rough places, and filling in low places. Similarly, when the King of kings and Lord of lords began to fulfill His mission among men, there was a need for preparation to be made for Him. As the path of travel needed to be put into proper condition for the earthly king, the hearts of men needed to be put into proper condition for the coming of the heavenly King. John the Baptist was the harbinger who went ahead of Christ to prepare the way for Him.

In serving as the harbinger of Christ, John fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for out God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain” (Isa. 40:3-4). The application of this prophecy to John is repeatedly affirmed in the New Testament (Matt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4-6; John 1:23). John obviously did not literally exalt valleys and make mountains low; the point is, his work of preparing the way for Christ was comparable to the harbingers who prepared a way for the earthly king to travel. Isaiah’s language found a figurative application in John the Baptist, as he prepared the hearts of men for the coming of Christ. It was his task to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk. 1:17).

In fulfilling this vital function, John preached, “Repent yet for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). Because of the prophecies contained in the Old Testament scriptures, the Jews to whom John preached had long anticipated a mighty kingdom, to be established by the Christ (“anointed one”) of prophecy. The Christ for Whom they had waited would soon come and establish that kingdom, and in order to prepare the people for His coming and the establishment of His reign, John announced that the time was at hand (near). He called upon men to repent; otherwise men would not be prepared for the kingdom of Christ. Truly, if men’s hearts are not set on serving God, they are ill prepared for the reception of spiritual truths.

The Elijah-Like Preacher

John’s task of turning corrupt hearts to God could not be fulfilled by one who offered nothing but comforting words and people-pleasing platitudes, or by one who spoke without a dogmatic certainty (e.g., “I think this is right, but everyone has a right to his own opinion, and we cannot really be sure about anything . . .”). It could not be fulfilled by the kind of “preacher” who continually wears a sickly little smile on his face and fills his message with sweet, heartwarming little stories. It could not be fulfilled by one who was fearful of speaking plainly lest someone be offended. To bring about the necessary change in the sinful hearts of men, it was imperative that the message be spoken plainly, forcefully, sternly, and with firm conviction. Men had to be made aware in no uncertain terms of their sinfulness and the importance of turning from their wickedness. Hence, the preacher needed to be one similar to Elijah of old.

John the Baptist was indeed precisely what was needed-another Elijah! God had promised, through the prophet Malachi, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” (Mat. 4:5-6). While this prophecy caused men to expect the return of the literal Elijah, Jesus taught that the reference was to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:14; 17:1013). This does not mean that John was the literal Elijah reincarnated, for he denied being Elijah in person (John 1:21). John, however, was so similar to Elijah that he was figuratively a second Elijah. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharias and promised that he and his wife Elizabeth would have a son (John), he said that John would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk. 1:17). John was of the same nature and character as Elijah, and his preaching was similar to Elijah’s in its bluntness, its incisiveness, its sternness, its forcefulness.

After the similitude of Elijah, John sternly denounced the sins of the people and warned of the judgment that would come upon the impenitent. In his plain, blunt way, he called the Pharisees and Sadducees a “generation of vipers” (very poisonous snakes), demanded that they bring forth fruits of repentance, and minced no words in informing them that they could not depend upon their physical relation to Abraham for salvation from God’s wrath (Matt. 3:7-9). He forthrightly warned of the punishment to be suffered by those who did not produce the fruits of repentance (Matt. 3:10-12). It was with a sense of urgency that he preached, for if men’s corrupt hearts were not changed, they would be unprepared for the King, and rather than participating in the glories of the kingdom, they would be the miserable recipients of God’s wrath.

John’s straightforward, fearless preaching is well illustrated by his statement to Herod regarding Herodias. He said very simply and directly, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). That, good reader, is getting right to the point! One simply did not speak to a king in that fashion-unless he was a preacher like Elijah, who had been equally direct and to the point in his dealings with King Ahab (1 Kings 18:1718; 21:17-24). In thus addressing the king, John knew that he could be imprisoned or executed, but he could not but speak truth. In fact, his rebuke finally did result in his execution (Matt. 14:3-12). If John could, in the face of such danger, inform the king that he had no right to live with the woman with whom he was living, surely preachers today should have the courage to tell men when they are living with someone without the scriptural right to do so; yet, many simply avoid the subject altogether, and others go to great lengths to devise theories designed to justify unscriptural marriages (Rom. 7:1-3; Matt. 19:1-12).

John’s manner of life befitted his message. Similar to Elijah’s, it was a plain, simple life of austerity and self-denial (Matt. 3:1-3). He began his preaching in the wilderness of Judea (Matt. 3:1), after spending his early years in the desert (Lk. 1:80). The word rendered “wilderness” and “desert” in the New Testament denotes an uninhabited area. The wilderness of Judea was rugged, rocky, sparsely populated territory west of the Dead Sea and the lower Jordan River. Laboring in such rough territory, he wore appropriate apparel-the coarse, rough garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle that was made of plain leather rather than the soft linen or silk that was worn by many. He ate the food that was plentifully available to him in the outdoors-locusts and honey. While his eating of locusts may not be appetizing to our tastes, it is not at all incredible. Locusts were specified in the Law as proper for the Jew to eat (Lev. 11:22), and they are still eaten by some. It would be expected that one living in such circumstances would possess a stern, rugged character, and such a personality is reflected in John’s stern preaching. As his manner of life was not soft, neither was his preaching. As his manner of life was plain, so was his preaching plain and straightforward, unembellished with meaningless flowery speech. It was most fitting that John live a life of austerity and self-denial as he denounced the self-indulgence, the greed, and the materialistic attitudes of men and women, calling upon them to deny themselves and devote their lives to God. As John preached repentance to those whose hearts were centered on material luxuries, his own austerity was a living protest against their sinful self-indulgence.

His Baptism

As John preached repentance, seeking to turn men’s hearts to God so that they would be prepared for the coming of the Christ, he baptized them in the Jordan. It was due to his baptizing that he was called “the Baptist”-that is, the baptizer. The word “baptist” is basically a Greek word, which would be accurately translated by the English word “immerser.” His baptism was for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:3). Of course, sin cannot be remitted apart from the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22-10:4; Matt. 26:28), and Christ had not yet shed His blood when John baptized. Nevertheless, God knew that Christ would shed His blood, and knowing that the price would be paid for their sins, God could for all practical purposes consider their sins forgiven when they submitted to John’s baptism. The blood of Christ would cover their sins, as it did the sins of their forefathers who had manifested faith (Heb. 9:15).

John’s baptism must be viewed in the context of his overall mission-preparing men for the coming of Christ and His kingdom. People repented, turned to God, and were baptized for the remission of their sins because of their faith in John’s teaching that the kingdom was coming soon and because of their desire to be a part of that kingdom. They were determined that when Christ came, they would be loyal to His rule and share in the joys of His kingdom. After Christ had come and set up His kingdom (Col. 1:13), the baptism of John, since it had been in anticipation of His coming, was no longer valid. Therefore, we read that the group in Ephesus who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism,” needed to be baptized “in the name of Christ” (Acts 19:1-5). They had been baptized because of their faith in John’s teaching that the Christ was coming to establish His kingdom, but they needed to be baptized because of their faith that Christ had already come, died for their sins, and established His reign. These are essential facts of the gospel to be believed prior to New Testament baptism (Mk. 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:33-38).

His Exaltation of Christ, Not Self

John had no illusions regarding his own position. He recognized that he was but a forerunner of the Christ. He was fully aware that the Christ, not His harbinger, was the One of supreme importance. His aim was not to attract people to himself, but to point them to the Christ. He always denied that he was the Christ, affirming that he was merely the harbinger to prepare the way for the Christ; and he ever proclaimed the vast superiority of Christ over himself, saying that he was not even worthy to perform the most menial act of service for the Christ, such as loosing and carrying His shoes (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7; Lk. 3:15-16; John 1:19-23; 3:28). After the temptation of Jesus, John saw Him coming and pointed Him out to his own disciples as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world”; as a result, some of John’s disciples began to put their faith in Jesus as the Christ (John 1:29-42). John’s attitude is well summed up in his humble words to his disciples in reference to the Christ: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

Christ’s Approval of John

While John was in prison as a result of his rebuke of Herod, he sent his disciples to inquire of Jesus whether He was truly the Christ (Matt. 11:2). Why He sent them is a matter of speculation, since John had previously affirmed without doubt that Jesus was the Christ. Some say he sent them for their own strengthening, and not because of his personal need. Perhaps it was because his imprisonment had caused him to be discouraged so that he needed reassurance. Whatever the reason for John’s query, Jesus replied by pointing to His works; they spoke for themselves (Matt. 11:4-5). After the disciples of John had departed, Jesus addressed the multitudes regarding John the Immerser (Matt. 11:7-14).

He first asked them what kind of man had attracted them out to the wilderness. Had the one in the wilderness whom they had gone to see been a “reed shaken with the wind?” The answer obviously was, no. Jesus thus drew attention to the fact that John was not weak, wavering, and vacillating. He was not one who was like the tall, slender reed by the Jordan which would passively bend with the wind. Rather, he was strong, stedfast, as a mighty oak. He stood for right and no force could sway him. Jesus then asked the multitudes if the one who had attracted them to the wilderness had been a man clothed in soft raiment, such as is found in king’s palaces. Jesus thus drew attention to the fact that John was a man who lived a life of selfdenial, not indulging himself in material luxuries. He did not seek the soft, easy life, which would demand compromise of convictions. Had he done so, perhaps he could have been in the king’s palace-rather than the king’s prison. Through these questions Jesus paid tribute to the firm, strong character of John.

Jesus proceeded to affirm that John was not merely a prophet, but more than a prophet. He was in fact the subject of prophecy. He held the unique distinction of being the harbinger of the King of kings. Jesus asserted that of all who had been born of women, none had been greater than John the Immerser. What a remarkable statement! Jesus could not have paid John a higher tribute. There could have been no greater. mission for a mere human to perform than that of being the forerunner of the Christ, and there could have been no more eminently qualified human to perform that mission than John the Immerser. Yet, in spite of his greatness, Jesus averred that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John (Matt. 3:11)! Surely, the least in the kingdom is not greater from the standpoint of character, strength, and dedication to God. The least in the kingdom is greater only in the sense that he enjoys an honor and a privilege that John never enjoyed. John, the harbinger of the Christ and His kingdom, died before that kingdom was established; hence, he was not permitted the privilege of being a part of the kingdom of which he preached..

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 10-12
May 13, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

Notice carefully that we ask whether Jesus the Messiah really lived, not whether one of any number of Jewish peasants, politicians, priests, prophets, or teachers might have lived and worn the name “Jesus.” We do not ask whether some Jesus who claimed to be some kind of “savior”-national, social, political, religious, or other-lived, but whether the Jesus Christ of the Bible really lived. People sometimes say the Jesus Christ of the Bible is an inspiring “myth,” “a pious fraud,” or a “noble ideal;” one fellow even said Christ was not a person but was a “process.” It is not our purpose here to dabble in “possibilities” and theories about myths, frauds, ideals, or processes, but to face one specific question: Did the Jesus Christ of the Bible really live?

The question can be raised for any number of reasons. Honest inquirers have a right to the facts, to the truth about the matter. It has been preached for centuries that he did live and is the only God-sent Savior of men. If that be so, he lays direct claim to the lives of all of us. He “either did or either didn’t” live, he “either is or either ain’t” such a Savior, and we have a right to know! Surprisingly, the question has been raised and answered with doubt or in the negative by many of those who claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Materialists and evolutionists have absolutely denied that the Jesus Christ of the Bible lived, because his claims and teachings contradict their pet theories. Such men have confused or converted many professed “Christians” who have tried to revamp the old faith without acknowledging rejection of the Christ and the faith. A large part of so-called Christendom reels and staggers before the question, “Did the Jesus Christ of the Bible really live?”

How We Answer Matters Very Much

Some folks have taken refuge in the fantastic solution which says that it does not matter which way we answer the question or whether we can answer it at all. Nineteen hundred years ago, the apostle Paul’s clear statement of the case precluded such sidestepping of the issue. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor. 15:17ff). He “either did or either didn’t” and “either is or either ain’t.” All middle ground is sinking sand! If the truth is impossible to obtain, then for all the good he can do us Jesus Christ had just as well have been legendary or fictional anyway. The practical consequences of doubt are precisely the same as those of denial: our faith is unfounded, forgiveness of sins unsure, beloved saints perished forever so far as we know, and our misery the only certainty!

Just about every theory put forth in answer to our question-everything from the theories of university professors to those of dime store philosophers can be found in the modern play “Jesus Christ Superstar.” The popularity of the play has helped to spread such theories far and wide, and to reinforce them, along with other similar plays. The college student will hear the same concepts, dressed up a bit, in class. Judas says the crowds will “find they’re wrong” about Jesus’ being the true “Messiah.” “It’s all gone sour,” he explains, for Jesus is actually a deluded, ambitious fanatic. Mary is made to say, “He’s a man, just a man . . . .” She says she has had many men (which raises the question of how prostitutes “have” their men, and how this Mary “had” Jesus since she is presented as a prostitute)-“. . . in very many ways, he’s just one more.” “I want him so. I love him so.” The Apostles think they are the ones who ought to be remembered, so they discuss at the Last Supper their intention to retire to write the gospels so that they can be talked about for all time. The Jerusalem crowds proclaim Jesus as “Superstar” in their view of him as a political ruler who will lead against Rome. Annas and Caiaphas consider Jesus a troublesome fanatic, a danger to the Jews. The Temple crowds think Jesus can heal, but he cries out emphatically, “Heal yourselves!” Pilate regards him a “misguided martyr.” Peter is told by Jesus, “It was nice, but now it’s gone,” and in the next scene Peter denies Christ. Jesus, in this play, at times doubts himself, at times denies himself. “I’m not as sure as when we started. Then I was inspired. Now I’m sad and tired.” “Put away your sword,” he says, “Don’t you know that it’s all over? It was nice, but now it’s gone.” He repeats, “I’m through, through, through.” A song near the end raises questions about the identity of Jesus in an agnostic spirit, highlighting expressions of doubt but affirming nothing as certain. Is he like Buddah? Or, Mohammed? It only seems certain that he chose the wrong time to come. The grave is the very last thing referred to in the play, which itself leaves the clear implication that his dust lies a’smoldering in the grave.

What is the practical conclusion to all those theories (and their more complicated counterparts put out by “professors of religion” in highly technical language)? The Messiah himself and everyone else doubted and denied him. If we follow him, we too must doubt or deny him! On the other hand, we can decide not to follow him. (It’s amazing that in the views presented throughout this play, if we were to affirm his Deity, we would not be following him in that case.) Maybe not for the prof’ with his head in the clouds, but for the practical man with his feet on the ground we are left with only two choices: twiddle-dee (follow Jesus in doubt and denial about his mission, so that his word would have no more claim in our lives than that of anyone else), or twiddle-doe (simply make no pretension of following him at all in any sense). Let us stress that all of this is based on mere theories! There is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus doubted or denied himself ever!

Well, what evidence do we have to go on? If there is any historical evidence bearing on the question, “Did the Jesus Christ of the Bible Really Live?”, then certainly justice and fairness demand that that evidence be heard.

First Line of Evidence

I. Historical Evidence From Friends. We have the testimony of the New Testament, real historical documents, that Jesus Christ really lived. Christianity “appeals to certain definite historical facts, . . and stakes all upon their actual occurrence” (S. H. Kellogg, The Light of Asia and the Light of the World, p. 369; cf. 1 Cor. 15:14-18). But can we be sure we have the original New Testament documents? Yes, because (1) there are about 4,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, the oldest part dating back to about A.D. 140 (or, about forty years after the death of the last author). (2) In addition, there are many early translations of the New Testament, dating from about A.D. 150 and following. (3) Numerous quotations from the New Testament, in other works dating as early as Apostolic times. In other words, the refined science of Biblical criticism has presented us an accurate text of the New Testament. Many years of painful research have identified no more than 150,000 variations in the text (counting the most insignificant); but,

Only about 400 of the . . . variations materially affect the sense. Of these, again, not more than about fifty are really important for some reason or other; and even of these fifty not one affects an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching. (Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, p. 1771).

So, the New Testament is “by far the best-preserved ancient document in the world” (Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 3rd. Rev. Ed. By William A. Irvin and Allen P. Wikgren, p. 161).

But can we be sure Apostolic men wrote the Bible? Might the New Testament be a forgery? As one writer points out, “There is . . . far better evidence of authorship (of New Testament books) than exists with respect to the works of almost any classical writers” (George Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, p. 159). It is correctly pointed out that the New Testament books are “productions of contemporaries and eye-witnesses.” Archibald Alexander points out, “The genuineness of the books of the New Testament having been admitted by friends and enemies . . . , in those ages when the fact could be ascertained easily, it is too late in the day now for infidels to call this matter in question” (The Canon, p. 248). In summary, the testimony of the friends of Jesus “can be traced up into the very generation in which the events narrated are said to have occurred” (Kellogg, op. cit., p. 32). Every archaeological and historical fact discovered, having any relation to the Bible record, illuminates or verifies the historical references in the Bible. The New Testament documents are primary evidence, rooted in history, proving that Jesus Christ really lived.

An example of the testimony given by contemporaries of Jesus is found in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:22-36. Four lines of evidence are given. (1) Jesus did miracles; the audience, as well as the speaker, was called upon to verify the fact (vv. 22f). (2) Also, Jesus fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament; the historical documents of the Old Testament still existed, and the audience could verify the fulfillment in their presence along with the speaker (vv. 23ff). (3) The resurrection of Jesus, “whereof we are all witnesses,” said Peter of the Apostles. (4) The miracles done by the reigning Christ through the Apostles, which were witnessed by the audience (vv. 33ff). The necessary conclusion, then and now, must be: “God has made Him both Lord and Christ!”

Second Line of Evidence

II. Historical Evidence from Enemies. Not only does Luke challenge “the scrutiny of the whole world” as to the historical accuracy and reality of his report (Lk. 2:13; 3:1-2), but also secular historians, all of whom wrote within less than 100 years after Christ’s time, present testimony which begs for examination. These historians were neither preachers nor friends of Jesus; in fact, the testimony they provide comes from the adversaries of Jesus Christ. Let the adversaries-“hostile witnesses”-tell us whether Jesus Christ really lived.

(1) Tacitus (d. A.D. 117) tells how some Romans complained that Nero, their own Emperor from A.D. 5468, set Rome afire.

To suppress, therefore, this common rumor, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name Christians. They had their denomination from Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Alexander Campbell, The Christian Preacher’s Companion (Reprint Ed. by College Press, Joplin, Mo., 31).

(2) Suetonius (ca. A.D. 70-ca. 160) wrote a life of Emperor Claudius, who reigned from A.D. 41-54. Of the Emperor, Suetonius says, “He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader” (ibid., p. 41).

(3) In his life of Nero, he explains, “The Christians were punished; a sort of men of a new and magical (or, pernicious) superstition” (ibid., p. 42).

(4) In his life of Emperor Vespasian, the emperor who persecuted Christians as being a sect of the Jews, Suetonius gives the background to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Commenting on the hope which the Jews had nourished and carried everywhere they lived, he states, “There had been for a long time all over the East a prevailing opinion that it was in the fates (in the decrees or books of the fates) that at that time some one from Judea should obtain the empire of the world” (ibid., p. 43). If the statement seems vague in relation to the question, did the Jesus Christ of the Bible really live, remember that the writer is a Roman historian, not a Jewish priest, a supporter of Rome and her emperors, not of Jesus Christ. Then compare the statement with such prophecies as Ps. 2; Isa. 9:6; 11:1-15; and Dan. 2:44. Then study the fear of Herod (Matt. 2:1-18), the angel’s promise to Mary recorded by Luke (1:32-33), the intense desire of the crowd who came “to take him by force, to make him a king” (Jn. 6:15), and the probing question of Pilate, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king.’ To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth,” although he explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 19:33-38).

(5) Pliny the Younger was sent from Rome in A.D. 106 and arrived in Bithynia on September 18th to serve as Governor. After about a year he wrote Emperor Trajan (ruled A.D. 98-117) for advice on what to do with the Christians. Pliny explains, “For many of all ages, and every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will be accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also, and the open country.” He says he has examined many such people already, “I have put the question to them, whether they were Christians.” He punished those who refused to deny Christ, but released those who “reviled the name of Christ.” He had learned it was their regular practice “to meet together on a stated day before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ, as a god. . . .” The Christians, Pliny added, repudiated “theft,” “robbery,” “adultery,” and all other forms of “wickedness”. He used the word “Christ” at least three times and “Christian” eight times (ibid., pp. 59-61).

(6) Trajan, the Emperor, responded that Pliny was handling well “your proceedings with those who have been brought before you as Christians” (ibid., pp. 61-62).

(7) Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-sometime after 100) left the ruins of Jerusalem behind when it fell in A.D. 70, accepting the hospitality of the Romans and serving as their historian of Jewish affairs. In Antiquities of the Jews (XVIII, iii, 3), he is discussing at one point the riots which resulted from false Messiahs. He says a wise man named Jesus won followers from among both Jews and Greeks, during the time of Pilate. “He was the Christ (Messiah),” explains Josephus, not speaking as a believer himself for he was a Pharisee, but probably helping readers distinguish this Jesus from the many others mentioned in Antiquities. “Principle men condemned him” but he appeared, to his followers, “alive after the third day” (some texts add “his followers reported” which is undoubtedly Josephus’ meaning at least). The tribe of Christians “are not extinct at this day” (ca. A.D. 92-93), he explains.

A Verdict Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Few scholars today deny that Jesus lived, though many of them talk about the “quest for the Jesus of history” – meaning some theory about Jesus other than the Bible account. One thing is certain: No informed historian can deny that Jesus lived, lived in the period reported in the New Testament, lived in Palestine, and was proclaimed as Savior by Jews and Gentiles in the first century-many of whom were not only contemporaries but also eye-witnesses of His life. Even the adversaries contemporary with and immediately following the lifetime of Jesus provide sufficient testimony to establish that much. This line of evidence might be a good starting place for someone who claims Jesus is nothing more than a misty myth or foggy fable; the fact of the life of Jesus can be established beyond all reasonable doubt from secular, unbelieving historians and ancient records. Nothing in this evidence gives the least credance to the theories of so-called scholars or of more popular writers who produce such material as “Jesus Christ Superstar.”

In the final analysis, only the Bible provides sufficient evidence to prove the character of that life. Here are the reports of contemporaries and eye-witnesses closest to Jesus Christ-and the documents are rooted firmly in history, more firmly than any other documents of antiquity! Here stands testimony “written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:31). These witnesses testify that Jesus Christ, after rising from the dead, sent them out with this authoritative command: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). So say the witnesses. What do you say, dear reader? The witnesses are unafraid of honest investigation; they invite it “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things” (Lk. 1:1-4). “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). If you cannot accept this testimony, you cannot accept the testimony of anyone about anything, not ever. Yes, he lived. And lives! “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (Jn. 20:29).

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 7-10
May 13, 1976