Truth Magazine

By Grover Stevens

The Bible is the Living Word of the Living God. Jehovah, the God of the Bible, is the only “God” known to man that is eternally living, intelligent, all-knowing, holy and righteous, and he alone knows the future and is able to “declare the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10). His Word, the Bible, the Word of God is just as living, eternal, all-knowing, holy and righteous as the person of God (Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet.1:23). Prophecy, and particularly the prophecies of the Messiah, is one of the two greatest miracles since the creation of the world, and it, together with the resurrection of Christ from the dead as an historical fact, is the most conclusive and convincing of all proofs for the existence of God, the deity of Christ, and the divine inspiration of the Bible. The resurrection is not only an historical fact, but also has its place in prophecy. The “law and the prophets” refer to the writings of the Old Testament (Luke 19:26). There are specific prophecies foretelling the coming of Christ, but also the coming of Christ is the heart and soul of Old Testament, just as the Second Coming of Christ is the basic message of the New Testament. We hear the apostle Peter as he declares, “Jesus Christ . . . which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). The Lord Jesus said, “. . . All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44); and “search the scriptures, for . . . they testify of Me” (John 5:39).

Bible prophecies concerning the coming of Christ are the most numerous, most prominent, most specific, most extended over time, and most remote from their fulfillment, of all the prophecies ever made, thus the decided distinction of the Bible and Christ over all other books and religions.

Over 300 prophecies about the Messiah (Greek: Christ; Hebrew: Messiah) have been identified in the “Law and the Prophets,” all made from the first book in the “law” to the last book in the “prophets,” made between 1500 B.C. and 400 B.C., and all fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth in the first century A.D.  400 years after the last prophecy. Dr. A.T. Pierson says, “One might almost as well expect by accident to dip up any one particular drop out of the ocean as to expect so many prophetic rays to converge by chance upon one man, in one place, at one time. God has put especially upon these prophecies as to His Son the stamp of absolute verity and indisputable certainty, so that we may know whom we have believed. Mistakes in so solemn a matter are (eternally) fatal, and God meant that none should be possible” (God’s Living Oracles, see “The Law” on p. 26 quoted in All The Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, Herbert Lockyer, p.17, Zondervan, 1973). Every prophecy concerning Christ has been fulfilled except his second Coming, the end of the world, destruction of death, resurrection and judgment. No man can name one prophecy concerning Christ that Jesus did not fulfill. How foolish of the Jewish people to ignore this phenomenal fact.

Sometimes the prophecies of Christ seem to be contradictory, but not so. Many of the prophecies represent him as a triumphant king and conqueror (as David was), whose dominion would be universal, and who would flourish in righteousness and peace forever; while others portray him as one despised and rejected, full of sorrow and grief, with-out esteem, oppressed and afflicted, yet meek and forbearing, as cut off out of the land of the living, and as pouring out his soul unto death. But, however great the seeming inconsistency, there is an exact fulfillment of both characters in Jesus Christ, and in no other person who ever lived. Misunderstanding of those prophecies dealing with the conquering king and his worldwide rule of righteousness and peace form the basis for the false concepts of the ancient Jews and modern Zionists and non-Jewish Millennialists. Millennialists apply the same prophecies to the second coming of Christ that the Jews do to the first. Both have missed the true meaning of these and other prophecies.

In this study we will only be able to look briefly at a few of the most remarkable of these striking prophecies. It is plain from a casual reading of the Scriptures that they fore-tell the coming of a distinguished person who was to be Savior and Lord, as is expressed by the Samaritan woman in John 4:25. This personage was to be “the seed of woman” (a virgin); the “seed of Abraham in whom all nations should be blessed”; “from the tribe of Judah”; from the “seed of David according to the flesh,” yet God was to be his father and he was to be the Son of God; a “king” whom God would “set upon His holy hill of Zion” on the “throne of David” in spite of raging opposition of the people and rulers who made a “covenant with death” to prevent it; a “Prince of Peace” whose rule would be “forever”; a prophet like Moses (a deliverer and lawgiver); a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”; “the anointed one” or ” Messiah; the righteous Branch”; “the corner stone”; “the Shepherd of Israel”, etc.; even the fact that he would be “from everlasting” (Mic.5:2).

There were prophecies of his birth; the time and place of his birth; descriptive names he would bear; of his character and work; of his dual nature of both God and man (God with us, Isa. 9:7); of his death and resurrection. Scores of prophecies concerning the Messiah and his coming, nature and work are to be found in a host of TYPE and SYMBOL throughout the law and the prophets.

God’s promise and prophecy of a Savior was first given as soon as a Savior was needed, back in the Garden of Eden when sin first entered into the world bringing death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; etc.). In pronouncing the sentence of death upon Adam and Eve, God continued by saying, “And I will put enmity between thee (the serpent/ Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (seed of woman) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). “Seed of woman” refers to the virgin birth of the Savior. Isaiah, reaffirming this fact, said, “The Lord shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). The only person in the history of the world that was born of the “seed of woman,” and not the seed of man and woman as all other people have been since Adam and Eve, was Jesus Christ. Seven hundred years later Matthew and Luke tell us that this “sign” was given (prophecy fulfilled) when Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (1:23, 34-35), and the apostle Paul refers to this prophecy in saying, “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal.4:4). Further, this “seed” was to be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” How foolish of some, even today, to contend that Jesus Christ was not God while he was in the flesh. Further, the fact that woman has seed was written by Moses over 3000 years before it was discovered by modern science. Satan bruised Christ’s heel when he was crucified; and Christ bruised the serpent’s (Satan’s) head when he was resurrected from the dead (Heb. 2:14-15; Rev. 1:18).

The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke show that both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David and there-fore God’s prophecies regarding Christ being of the “seed of woman” and the “seed of David according to the flesh” was literally fulfilled in spite of the fact that the royal line of David had fallen into obscurity for the past five hundred years (Acts 15:15-17). In his summary of the Bible, the Risen Christ declares “I am the root and offspring of David” (Rev. 22:16).

God further promised David that while he was “sleeping in his tomb . . . that He would set up his seed in his kingdom on his throne forever” (2 Sam. 7:12-14). God was careful to specify that the particular “seed of David” whose kingdom and throne he would establish forever was one to whom “I (God) will be His Father, and He shall be My Son.” This prophecy is quoted by the God- inspired writer of the book of Hebrews and there declares to have been fulfilled “when He (Christ) had by himself purged our sins (died on the cross for our sins), and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb.1:3-5). And this is precisely what the Holy Spirit inspired apostle Peter says in Acts 2. Peter says, “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.” (Hence, David’s body is in the grave, sleeping with his fathers). “Therefore being a prophet (inspired of God), and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him (David), that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh (that is, seed out of his fleshly body), He (God) would raise up Christ to sit on his (David’s) throne; He (David) seeing this (that God would raise up Christ to sit on his throne  He seeing this) before spake of the resurrection of Christ, (when he said in Psalm 16 which Peter had just quoted, v. 27) “that His soul was not left in hell (hades), neither His flesh did see corruption.” David had also referred to this promise of God to him in Psalm 132.

Now good people, there you have it, clearly stated, from an inspired apostle of the resurrected Christ! That Christ was resurrected to sit on David’s throne as prophesied by God some thousand years earlier. That this prophecy was fulfilled by Christ when he was resurrected “to sit on David’s throne” is too plain to misunderstand. Too bad for the Millennialists that Peter and David said that God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-14 referred to the resurrection of Christ, and not to the second Coming of Christ. And, Peter’s conclusion in verses 33 to 35 clinches this point beyond all argument: “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted (Christ was then, and is now, “exalted” on David’s throne), and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He (Christ) hath shed forth this which you now see and hear (the Holy Spirit). For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord (God the Father) said unto my Lord (Christ), Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Here the inspired Apostle Peter tells us that Christ was then, is now, and will continue “being by the right hand of God … exalted … sitting on David’s throne . . . until God makes His foes His footstool,” that is, till the end of time. Referring to this same prophecy, the Divinely inspired Apostle Paul says, “For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet, and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor.15:25-26). The “sitting” and the “reigning” are coextensive. Christ began reigning on David’s throne when he began sitting on David’s throne, and he will sit and reign on David’s throne until the last enemy, death, is destroyed, and that will be at the second coming of Christ which will be the end of time (1 Cor. 15:23-26, 51-55). Furthermore, when Peter says, “And having received of the Father the Promise of the Holy Spirit” he is saying that Christ had already,  at that time, the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, when Christ was “raised up to sit on his (David’s) throne,” that Christ had already  received this promise  that is, the promise that the Holy Spirit made through Nathan the prophet to David as we read in 2 Samuel 7:12-14.

Peter’s sermon on Pentecost also shows the fulfillment of many other prophecies concerning the coming Christ, such as Psalm 2 (See: Acts 2:23; 4:25; 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5); Psalm 110 (See: Heb. 5-7, note: 5:5-6); Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-12 (See: Rom. 15:12, Acts 15:16-19; Eph.3:4-6; Rom. 11:5; John 1:17; Eph. 3:26-29); Isaiah 28:14-18 (See: Acts 2:23; 4:25-28; 1 Pet. 2:4-10; Rom. 9:33); Isaiah 2:2-4 (See: Acts 2:17; Luke 24:46-47; Eph. 2:13-22); Dan. 2:44; etc.

The betrayal, trial, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ were foretold in such detail that unbelievers refuse to believe that these prophecies were written 400 to a thou-sand years before the fact. There is plenty of evidence that these books were written at the time assigned to them, but the fact that a translation of these books, known as the Septuagint, was made between 285 and 247 B.C., more than 250 years before Christ came, makes it absolutely certain that they are given by divine inspiration, so why argue over just how many more years before their fulfillment that they were written. Indeed, the “law and the prophets” point to the coming of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 2
January 4, 1996

By Thaxter Dickey

I am a Christian because Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Some, even among Christians, might find that statement dogmatic; but I am in good company. It was on this basis that Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). It is to this fact that the early preaching of the apostles pointed (Acts 2:24; 3:14-15; 4:10, 33; 17:18, 32; Rom. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:8). And Paul says that if it is not true then his preaching is in vain and our faith is also vain (I Cor 15:14).

The resurrection is the central fact of Scripture. It is the uniqueness of Christianity. This is illustrated in the oft told, perhaps apocryphal, story of a Moslem and a Christian discussing the relative value of Mohammed and Jesus as prophets. The Moslem said, “We can make a journey to Mecca to view the grave of our prophet. All you Christian’s have is an empty tomb.” The Christian’s reply: “Exactly.” Exactly, this empty tomb has changed the world.

Consequences and Meaning of the Resurrection

The resurrection shows God’s approval of Jesus and his life. God said, “This is my Beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.” Time and time again God showed his approval of his only begotten Son in words and signs; but the resurrection is the ultimate stamp of approval (Acts 2:22-24).

The resurrection gave meaning to Christ’s death. Lots of men die for what they believe. Many are even good men. But none has had the same power over the lives of others. Auguste Comte, the French philosopher, was discussing the future with Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish essayist. He said that he was going to start a new religion that would sup-plant the religion of Christ. “Very good, Mr. Comte,” Carlyle replied, “very good. All you will need to do will be to speak as never a man spake, and live as never a man lived, and be crucified, and rise again the third day, and get the world to believe that you are still alive. Then your religion will have a chance to get on.” The power of the gospel message of the atonement of the cross is in the resurrection.

The resurrection makes his promises certain and teachings authoritative. How could we believe Jesus’ promises if he had died just as any other man. When Peter says it was impossible for death to hold him (Acts 2:32-36), we say amen and every knee must bow and every tongue must confess that he is Lord. If he had been wrong about this, our confidence in him would be undermined but instead with his resurrection we are brought to believe all that he said.

The resurrection gives meaning to his promise to return. At his ascension the angels said he will return as you’ve seen him leave (Acts 1:6-11). Death was not the end of his life as with other men. Death was but a pause before his victorious resurrection and triumphant return to the Father. And we know that if he ascended, then he comes again.

It was the resurrection that gave the disciples the boldness to preach. They were a dispirited and scattered band after the crucifixion until he came to them and said “peace.” Read again of the disciples who were leaving Jerusalem in discouragement but whose hearts burned within them as they returned to Jerusalem after witnessing the resurrected Lord ( Luke 24:13-53).

The resurrection of Christ testifies of the certainty of our own resurrection. It thus frees us of the power of the fear of death (Heb. 2:14-15). Where else but in the resurrection of Jesus do we learn of the hope of which Paul speaks in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14 with which we are to comfort one another in times of loss?

It gives a reason to live righteously for it gives reality to the concept of a final judgment. One of Plato’s thought puzzles in the Republic was the story of a man who found a ring that made him invisible so that he could do whatever he wanted and avoid punishment. The question he was considering was whether a man will live righteously if he can escape punishment. Many ask that question today, thinking that punishment does not reduce crime; but for many the threat of punishment is the only means of securing right behavior. It is true that we should be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we are holy as he is holy; but ultimately without the certainly of an eternal judgment, which is made possible by the concept of the general resurrection which is made possible by the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no fairness, no justice, no motivation to live righteously.

Thus the enemies of the cross rightly see the resurrection as the crux of the matter. If they can cause men to doubt it, then the life and death of Jesus has no power. In fact Paul says, “If Jesus be not raised then our preaching is in vain.” If he is not raised, then his teachings are not trustworthy; the atoning power of his death is a fiction; we have no more authoritative word about the resurrection than that of charlatans, pseudo-spiritualists, and mediums and there is no reason not to be pragmatic and selfish. But if he was raised, then every knee must bow and every tongue must proclaim him as Lord. And so the Devil has exerted all his wiles to bemuse the minds of men and a number of objections have been raised by the enemies of Christ.

Objections to the Resurrection

Veracity of Scripture. Obviously any challenge to the resurrection is a challenge to Scripture since Scripture so clearly teaches that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day. Many will argue that the Scriptures are not historical documents, merely human fabrications, and thus the resurrection of Jesus is also mere fiction. But any discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this article. Instead our attention will be directed to those theories that give some credence to the Bible accounts and still attempt to deny the resurrection.

The Body is Still in the Tomb Theories

Mistaken tomb theory. Some argue that the Bible accounts of the resurrection are based on a simple mistake: the women went to the wrong tomb. After all, the argument goes, it was late in the evening when they saw the tomb and they had only seen it at a distance. I think this poor sense of direction and these poor powers of observation are a modem and a scholarly overlay on the ancient stories. It is we moderns (and scholars especially) who pay little personal attention to the location or appearance of a location important to us and instead depend upon official maps to arrive where we intend. Besides what about the guard? Were they at the wrong tomb too? Why did they report the same thing to the chief priests? And if the women went to the wrong tomb, why did it have the stone rolled away and grave clothes left inside? And how improbable that Mary would meet a gardener at exactly that time who said such ambiguous things as to confuse her into thinking him the resurrected Christ. These improbabilities are preferable to the miracle of the resurrection only to those who refuse to accept miracles as a matter of their materialist assumptions.

Spiritual resurrection theory. Others argue that the tomb wasn’t empty; that what occurred was a spiritual resurrection  a resurrected hope in the minds of the disciples. The major problem with this alternative theory is that it is not consistent with the psychology of men. It could only be seriously considered in a time in which we have so lost touch with human nature that we believe bizarre theories of the human mind and have an excessive and misplaced faith in the power of subjective experience over objective facts. It is a theory that could have currency only among people who are factually challenged (to use the phrase that Cal Thomas used in a recent article in reference to politics), who, as many today do, believe their own pet theories so that they will abandon facts. (the very thing that they accuse Christians of). For example, in the area of politics and history some say the holocaust never happened; some say that America was the aggressor in WWII; some say that Egyptians were blacks. Just so in religion some say that the resurrection was a spiritual one. Factually challenged in-deed or living in a virtual reality (to use Thomas Sowell’s expression) where facts are never allowed to interfere with political or social theories.

Empty Tomb Theories

Swoon theory. According to this theory. Jesus was not re-ally dead. He was merely in a swoon and was revived by the coolness of the tomb and made his own way from the grave, later to die a natural death somewhere else. This was a favorite explanation of the rationalists of the 19th century, but it is ludicrous to consider it. It requires more faith to believe this than to believe in the resurrection. It is impossible that a man would survive the cross and the spear in the side, be considered dead by the two men who carried him to a tomb, and then revive and have enough strength to remove his grave clothes and roll back a stone (which five women doubted they could move (Mark 16:3; Luke 24:10) and then either overpower the guards or sneak past them and disappear without another trace. This would be miraculous indeed except that it did not hap-pen. The miracle that did occur was the resurrection as described in the Scriptures.

The body was stolen by enemies. The silence of the Jews is as eloquent as the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost. If the Jews had stolen Jesus body away, they would have come forward to dispute Peter’s claim of a resurrection which occurred just seven weeks later in the same city. They didn’t come forward because it was a known fact. He had appeared to many on numerous occasions (1 Cor 15:3-8).

The body was stolen by friends. This was the lie told that very day by the Jews because they knew the significance of the resurrection. But look at the foolishness of that idea. What happened to hearten the frighten disciples  to make them think they could carry off such a lie? What kind of men were they to do such a thing? Men may die for what they believe to be true even if it is false; however, few will suffer persecution and die for a lie they themselves have conceived. Nor can we imagine how they thought to succeed. How did they even come up with so bold an idea and where did they get the boldness to carry it off? The picture we have of them before the resurrection is that of a frighten scattered band (Matt 26:56; John 20:19). What changed that? A lie? Nonsense! But if Jesus was raised from the dead then it all makes sense.

Conclusion

Christ is risen! His teachings are true. God’s stamp of approval is on him. His death is the atonement for our sins and we too can know the power that seized the apostles and turned the world upside down. He is raised and because he is raised we are faced with the certainty that we will be raised in the last day and face the judgment and so we know that we ought to live soberly and righteously in the present world. We are compelled by the resurrection to accept his claim to authority in all things (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:24-38).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 13-14
January 4, 1996

By Thomas C. Hickey

In the celebrated introduction to his Florida College Bible course on the “Book of Acts,” the beloved and lamented Edgar Srygley used to say: “This is not a study of all of the acts of all of the apostles, not a study of all of the acts of some of the apostles, not a study of some of the acts of all of the apostles, but a study of some of the acts of some of the apostles.”

In a similar way, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as biographers of the life of Christ do not attempt to record all the details of his life. With great economy of words these men, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:21) to do so, gave us brief insights into his life which are calculated to produce faith in our hearts (John 20:30-31).

The twofold purpose of this article is to discuss the character of Jesus, and the import of his miracles.

What kind of man was Jesus? Jesus was the kind of man who could astonish the doctors and lawyers of the temple while having only attained the age of twelve years (Luke 2:46-47). The most learned men of Israel resided in the environs of Jerusalem; they regarded the people of the northern province of Galilee as being ignorant country bumpkins (John 7:15; Acts 2:7; 4:13). By contrast to his evident scholarly credentials, Jesus still had wide appeal to the multitudes of common people who were equally astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28-29), and little children sought him out (Matt. 18:1-6; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48). Jesus was also able to command and retain the respect of the fishermen of Galilee from whose number several of the apostles were chosen (John 1:35ff).

He was the kind of man who could subdue the strong-willed John, the baptizer, with the utterance of a simple logical request (Matt. 3:13-15).

His piety or devotion to God was such that he could go into the wilderness of Judea and fast for forty days and nights and still have the strength of character and will power to withstand the temptations of the devil including the temptation to misuse his miraculous powers to satisfy personal physical hunger (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Or, he could teach the multitudes all day long until he was bone weary, then climb into the mountains of Galilee alone and pray to God almost all of the night (Matt. 14:22-23).

What kind of man was Jesus? He was certainly not the Mr. Milquetoast character by which some worldling’s conceive of Christians. Consider this: the area of Galilee has a climate somewhat like central and northern Florida. It is hot and, on the Mediterranean side of the central highlands, it can be humid. Jerusalem’s climate may be comparable to that of Prescott, Arizona. The Dead Sea area has a climate somewhat like that of Death Valley near Hell, California. The accepted mode of travel in Israel was by “sandal power.” Except for the fertile plains of Galilee, much of Israel is arid and the land is steep and craggy, littered everywhere by stones and boulders. (When the devil tempted Jesus to make bread from stones, there was no shortage of raw material [Matt. 4:3]). The central province of Samaria consists largely of sand, sand dunes, and mountains of sand. From time to time Jesus traveled from Galilee to Jerusalem, a trip of about 90 miles one way (John 2:13; 4:45, 47; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1, 13; 8:1; 10:40; 11:7, 54. The account of Jesus’ last trip to Judea covering the last week of his earthly life before the crucifixion commences about John 12:1. Jesus’ travels from Galilee down to Jerusalem, or over to Samaria, or up to Caesarea Philippi, or to Cana, or the mount of transfiguration, or down to the Jordan beyond Jericho where John baptized  all these were done on foot. No, Jesus was not a milquetoast! I remember one hot September day when these tired bones made the climb from the pool of Siloam up to the temple mount, a distance of about a quarter mile. I have great respect for the stamina of the people of Bible times who traveled everywhere on foot.

What kind of man was Jesus? He was a man of such self-assurance and self-knowledge as the Son of God that he could peacefully sleep through a rough tempest on the sea of Galilee while all around him were wringing their hands in fear and dread (Matt. 8:23-27).

Jesus had the strength of character to do nothing while Lazarus, a close personal friend, grew sick and died in order to establish an important principle (John 11:1-13). On the other hand, Jesus could be, and was, deeply moved to the point of groaning and weeping (John 11:33-35) when he saw the grief of Lazarus’ sisters and friends.

He could discuss the most sublime principles in the simplest of terms (Matt. 13).

He could transcend racial, ethnic, and religious differences (John 4:9; Mk. 7:24-30; Luke 7:1-10).

He could be gentle with children (Mk. 10:13-16), yet stern with adults (Matt. 21:12-13).

He could place the kingdom of God above personal relationships (Mk. 3:31-35), yet he could be tender and gentle toward an aging mother whose tired eyes gazed upon his dying body as he hung upon the cross (John 19:25-27).

He had a large following of women (Luke 8:2-3; Matt. 27:55), yet he was not an attractive man (Isa. 53:2). His drawing power was character, not charisma. Even strong men swore allegiance to him (Matt. 26:33, 35).

He could admire the lilies of the field for their beauty (Matt. 6:28), yet curse a barren fig tree for its impotence (Matt. 21:19-21).

With “strong crying and tears,” he could beg his father to let him avoid the death on the cross (Heb. 5:7), yet he could stalwartly proclaim, “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42).

He could stand by silently while his enemies plotted his death (John 19:8-10), then pray for their forgiveness as he hung dying on the cross (Luke 23:34).

He could endure the railing of the malefactors who were crucified with him, then promise eternal life to the one who expressed remorse and penitence (Luke 23:39-43).

What kind of man was Jesus of Nazareth? He was one who could leave the glories of heaven (Phil. 2:5-11; John 3:16; Luke 19:10) and suffer personal deprivation (Matt. 8:20) in the prospect of eternal glory (John 17:5) that we, through his suffering, might have life everlasting.

What do the miracles of Jesus prove? First we ought to determine what a miracle is. Many people use the word “miracle” loosely to describe almost anything that they don’t understand. For example, childbirth is not a miracle although it is truly an amazing event which defies comprehension by even a rational mind. Nor is childbirth even under the most difficult circumstances a miracle. There have been exceptions to this, however. The birth of Jesus was a miracle because it involved parthenogenesis (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25), or the conception of a virgin. Also, other biblical examples of miracles in connection with human birth would include that of Isaac whose parents, Abraham and Sarah, had both passed the age of childbearing (Gen. 11:30; 25:21; Heb. 11:12).

One of the best working definitions of a miracle that I have seen was given by Harry Rimmer who declared, in essence, that a miracle was an orderly event which occurred on a plain of law higher than that which governed the daily operations of the universe. To illustrate, fish breathe underwater through gills, and birds of the heavens routinely fly, but it would require a suspension or an intervention of the laws of nature for men to do this. Such an intervention would not be difficult for God, but it is impossible for men. R.C. Trench commented that “the miracle is not greater manifestation of God’s power than those ordinary and ever-repeated processes; but it is a different manifestation” (Notes, page 8).’

The Bible uses the terms signs, wonders and miracles to describe these events. Peter taught that God approved Christ among men by working signs, wonders and miracles through him (Acts 2:22). Later, the Hebrew writer taught that God confirmed the preaching of the apostles through signs, wonders, miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost (Hebrews 2:4). Since workers of miracles could suspend laws of nature and perform deeds which would have been otherwise impossible, the divine stamp of approval was placed upon their works and words.

The term “sign” translates semion (Greek), and means “sign, mark ,or token.” Thayer comments that it is used of “miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s.”2

The word “wonder” translates teras (Greek), and means “a prodigy, portent; miracle performed by any one; in the N.T. it is found only in the plural and joined with semeia” (Thayer).

The term “miracle” (or, power) translates dunamis (Greek), and means “strength, ability, power.” Thayer comments, “universally inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth . . . specifically, the power of performing miracles.”

The apostle John rarely uses any of these terms, choosing instead to use the term works to describe the miracles of Jesus.

Nicodemus, an apparent member of the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, came quietly to Jesus under cover of darkness and addressed him as “Rabbi,” saying, “We know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, unless God be with him” (John 3:2). To Nicodemus, the miracles of Jesus proved that God was working through him. We have already cited Peter’s statement that Jesus was “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in your midst . . .” (Acts 2:22).

Near the end of the first century John wrote his gospel, or biography of the life of Christ. From all appearances he chose to write more for the Gentile audience. His approach was markedly different from that used by the synoptic authors; he limited the factual details, and emphasized relationships, thoughts, and feelings of Jesus. Excluding essential references to the birth and resurrection of Jesus, John basically made his case on seven miracles of Jesus which, he concluded, were sufficient evidence to invoke faith in the reader.

1. At the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). Tenney remarked that this demonstrated that Jesus was master over quality3 (because Jesus’ wine was better than the other which had already been drunk, John 2:10). Homer Hailey, who drew heavily from Tenney’s work on this point, added that this demonstrated that Jesus was “Lord of creation” and that he was “master of matter” (That You May Believe, page 110).4 The same Jesus who could speak the worlds into existence was unchallenged by the simple task of turning water into wine (Psa. 33:6-9; John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10-12).

2. The healing of the nobleman’s son (John 4:46-54) took place with Jesus at Cana and the son at Capernaum demonstrating that Jesus was master over space or distance.

3. Healing the man who had been lame for thirty-eight years (John 5:1-9) showed that he was master over time. Some modern medical doctor might be heard to say, “If we had only caught this sooner, we could have done some-thing . . .” but this proved no impediment for Jesus.

4. Feeding five thousand people by miraculously multi-plying one little boy’s lunch (John 6:1-14) certainly demonstrated that Jesus was master over quantity. Again remembering Trench’s comment (op. cit.), this was not a greater miracle than takes place every day with the multi-plying of the seed sown millions of times with various plants, but it was a different kind of manifestation of power, and it did specifically identify Jesus as having the endorsement of heaven.

5. Jesus’ walking on the sea (John 6:16-21) certainly demonstrated his power over nature. He defied the law of gravity, calmed the winds and the tempest and miraculously and instantaneously transported the vessel and its occupants a mile or two across the northern end of the sea of Galilee.

6. When Jesus gave sight to a man who had been blind from birth some forty years (John 9:1-12), he demonstrated his mastery over light and the power of darkness. He could conquer adversity and turn misfortune into blessing. Of course, believers are not surprised by this since we already know that he could bring light into the world with the simple utterance, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3)

7. The raising of his good friend Lazarus (John 11:39-44) showed that Jesus was master over life and death. If he could raise this man, why not others as he promised?

Conclusion

Although there were some thirty-five or thirty-six miracles performed by Jesus, John limited his argument to the seven cases cited, and concluded, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

John uses various forms of the word “believe” about ninety-eight times in a book whose clear purpose is to show that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. If John felt that his case was made by the citation of only seven of the miracles, how well, then, is our case proven by citing more than five times that number of miracles in all the gospels to prove Jesus’ identity?

Footnotes

‘ Trench, R. C. (1878). Notes On the Miracles. Philadelphia: William Syckelmoore.

2 Thayer, Joseph Henry (1901). Grimm’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (4th Ed.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

3 Tenney, Merrill C. (1951). John: The Gospel of Belief Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Tenney, Merrill C. (1961). New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hailey, Homer. (1973). That You May Believe: Studies in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 8-10
January 4, 1996

By Walton Weaver

To say that Jesus Christ came into the world is simply to affirm an historical fact. The manner of his coming is a much more complex subject, but Scripture itself affirms that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). We accept as fact what Scripture itself affirms about the incarnation of Christ, and make no attempt to address the more complex questions associated with that subject. Our aim is briefly to touch on the question, why? Why did Jesus Christ come into the world? And even on this question we must limit the scope of our inquiry. There are reasons for his coming that are beyond the purpose of this article. Our study will be limited to four reasons which the Bible gives for Christ’s coming into the world. Each of these pertains directly to our salvation.

To Do The Father’s Will

Jesus himself said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). He came to do “the works of Him who sent Me,” and yet he had only a brief time in which to do them  a period described by him as “while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). Though he did many “works” all of which were a part of the Father’s will, there was one work in particular that was to be the ultimate outcome of all of these works. The last week of his life, and in anticipation of his death, he said, “I have finished the work which You have given me to do” (John 17:4). His statement looks back upon his life as brought to a perfect end by the sacrifice of himself which he was about to make. On the cross he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), no doubt meaning that he had accomplished the work he had come into the world to do. God had prepared a body for him that he might offer himself to God in a very special way (Heb. 10:5). This offering of himself upon the cross was the ultimate goal of all that he had come into the world to accomplish.

God did not desire the sacrifices and offerings made under the law, but he prepared a body for Christ that he might come and do the Father’s will “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). To this end, Jesus affirmed, “I have come  In the volume of the book it is written of Me  To do Your will, 0 God” (Heb. 10:7). The Hebrew writer had already said, “who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:7-9). Christ was obedient to the Father’s will in every respect. His perfect obedience qualified him to be offered up as a sin offering to God. His resolve to completely do the Father’s will is best illustrated in the length to which he was willing to go in the offering up of himself on the cross for us. Paul makes this point when he says that he “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

To Reveal The Father

Christ is the only one whose testimony of the Father involved an immediate apprehension of him. He is the only one to have himself observed the Father. The very fact that he “came down from heaven” (John 3:13) enabled him to bear witness to what he had “seen” with his Father (John 5:19; 6:46; 8:38) and what he had “heard” from him (John 8:26, 28, 40; 14:10, 24; 15:15  the same was true of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13). While he was in the world the same relation which he had all along with the Father continued. He continued to be “with” the Father who sent him (John 8:16, NKJV). His judgment was true because he was not alone; it was the Father’s judgment as well as his own because his relation to the Father was such that whatever he said the Father also said. Christ’s judgment was not merely a human judgment; it was a divine judgment because of his unique relation to the Father. His judgment was God’s judgment be-cause he was one with the Father. Is this not but another way of saying that whatever he spoke and whatever he did he spoke and acted as one with the Father because his very nature required that he speak and act as one with him (Heb. 1:3)? This is what he meant when he said that he could of himself do nothing (John 5:19, 30  nor could the Holy Spirit speak “of himself’  John 16:13).

This unique relation with the Father enabled Jesus to perfectly declare the Father unto us. This was another reason for his coming into the world. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Again, the unique relation of the unique Son of God (lit., in the earliest manuscripts, “the only begotten God”) to the Father is what is affirmed. The words “who is in the bosom of the Father” suggest an abiding closeness between the Father and the Son. It is Christ’s intimacy with the Father while he was declaring him that is being described, and yet what is said describes what is permanently true of Christ. Alvah Hovey quotes Luke as pointing out that the “timeless present participle is here used, like the finite present in 1 John 3:3, 7, to express an inherent, permanent relation of the only begotten Son to the Father” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 69). Because of this ever abiding relation to the Father, John says that Christ is the one who has declared him or made him known. What has been declared is what Christ knew by being in the bosom of the Father. Christ had immediate and intuitive knowledge of God (John 8:55). This could be affirmed of no other. Only the Son has such knowledge of the Father (see Matt. 11:27). He alone could say when asked of Philip, “Lord, show us the Father,” that “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He was declaring the Father unto us in his every word and action.

To Destroy the Works of the Devil

John says, “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Both Jesus and other writers of our New Testament also had much to say about this same problem and how Jesus’ coming into the world was meant to deal with it. Questions on the origin, nature and consequences of sin, on the one hand, and the nature of God and how he must deal with sin, on the other, are central to the subject of salvation and why Jesus Christ came into the world. These are not new subjects; they are not first introduced in the New Testament. From the very beginning the problem of sin was present. God’s hatred for sin had also been demonstrated again and again throughout the Old Testament period. When John affirms that “the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil,” he is simply announcing what is God’s last effort to overthrow the power sin, and what is more important, what proves to be his triumphant act in accomplishing that fact.

With the lifting up of Christ on the cross a certain judgment would be brought against this world (John 12:31a). The ruler of this world would be cast out (John 12:31b). Jesus would through his lifting up draw all men unto him-self (John 12:32). “That world remained God’s world, even though it had become disintegrated by sin and had tried to organize itself without reference to its Creator, and in con-sequence stood under His judgment. But Jesus lifted on the cross, the supreme expression of the invincible power of divine love, would draw to himself like a magnet all who accepted in faith His victory over sin and evil; and over against all such believers the world and its prince would be impotent” (R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 150). Jesus Christ and the cross is the Christian’s victory over the world. To those who are called the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Though Christ died in weakness, he is mighty in us (2 Cor. 13:3-4). John assures his readers that they are of God and have overcome those who have the spirit of Antichrist “be-cause He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:3-4). No Old Testament saint ever had such strong incentive to be an overcomer.

To Take Away Sins

Not only did Jesus come to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, but he was also “manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:5). Sin is a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Sin reaps the wage of death (Rom. 6:23), or separates one from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The sacrifices of the law could not remit sins (Heb. 10:1-4) and bring sinful man back into God’s favor. A better offering was required; yet it must be a blood offering, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). The better offering was the blood of Jesus Christ. We may now be “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). Christ “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …” (Gal. 3:13); God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Such an offering was necessary in order that God might be just: ” . . . For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:22b-26). All men had broken God’s law. All were lawbreakers. The penalty was spiritual death, eternal separation from God. God had allowed this condition to continue all during the Old Testament period. No provision to take away sins had been provided. The demand of the law for punishment had to be met. God sent his Son to suffer the penalty for our sins. In his death upon the cross the just demands of the law had been met. God is just in saving those who believe. Christ’s sacrifice also made provision for those under the First Covenant (Heb. 9:15). Through the provisions of the New Covenant we have the assurance that “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The testimony of John the Baptist is, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin on the world!” (John 1:29).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 1
January 4, 1996