Month: April 2009

Resurrection Weekend Begins

Recently, I went to the apologetics315 blogspot to find some apologetics MP3s to listen to. While there, I got a link to a ministry in the U.K. called Slipstream where Gary Habermas was speaking on the resurrection. The request was that on Thursady, Christian bloggers should write on the resurrection. Well, it’s Easter weekend and we’re going to interrupt our current Trinity study to look at the resurrection. New readers of the blog are invited to stick around afterwards and continue diving with us into the deeper waters of the Christian faith. For now, here are the other blogs you can read that are to be writing about the resurrection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gkcorner.blogspot.com/

 

 

If you haven’t heard Gary Habermas speak on the resurrection, I urge you to do so. I also invite you to go check the blog where I commented on a debate between Bart Ehrman and the next big name in the defense of the resurrection, Mike Licona, who co-wrote with Gary Habermas “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I have no doubt that Mike knows the history well and the problem with the debate was that it was more a philosophy of history debate than a history debate. Nevertheless, Mike is a force to be reckoned with and will continue to be such. A link to that blog is here:
As for Slipstream, a link to its ministry can be found at the side.
Now it’s not my goal to write exclusively on the resurrection today, but I plan to take us through bit by bit. Today is a noted day for Passover celebrations however. As I walked through my town, I would sometimes pass a local winery where I’d see signs advertising that wine was available for the Passover. This is the defining moment in Jewish history. It marked their establishing themselves as a nation and becoming the covenant people.
It’s also around this time that Christ died, and that is no coincidence.
So when Christ institutes the Lord’s Supper he points to two different aspects, the bread and the wine. These are taken to represent his body and blood, an aspect we will certainly be giving a deeper look at when we get to John 6 in our Trinity study. Each of these is quite important however.
The bread was bread that was made without yeast. Why? Israel was on the move and there was no time to waste on bread with yeast. This was to remind them of how they had to flee in haste from Egypt. Now the Jews were not totally anti-yeast as it was used at later times and Christ himself used yeast as an analogy, but the symbol was to remind Israel of that time.
Wine was used as a symbol of joy and Christ pictures it as his blood. In this case, the blood would remind any Jew of the aspect of covenants. In the Passover, the sign that one was of the covenant people was that they put blood of a lamb on their door and the angel of death going through Egypt and killing all the firstborn would not visit a house that had blood on its door. It became the seal to avoid the scourge of death. In the same way, the blood of Christ is what protects us from spiritual death.
The Passover reminded the children of Israel that they were not slaves any more. They were a chosen people set apart to fulfill a great service. In the Last Supper, Christ is pointing to the ones who will continue that. They will be, as it were, the Israel of Israel. It’s not a coincidence that he chose 12 apostles and that he was the one above them. If the 12 apostles represent the 12 tribes of Israel, what position does Christ play then?
N.T. Wright speaks of Christ’s ministry as not hailing the end to slavery in Egypt, but the end of the exile under Babylon. The New Kingdom is here. Christ is bringing in its citizens. Come and take part in the Kingdom of God.
Yet to establish his kingdom, this king will have to go to a cross. How will this work out exactly? Continue staying with us this weekend here at Deeper Waters. Friday, we shall write about the horror of crucifixion. Saturday, we shall write about that empty time when it seems all hope was lost, simply to set the mood for Sunday, when we will share about the joy of the resurrection and why we believe it really happened.
In the end, may we all say it together:
He is risen!
He is risen indeed!

The Second Sign

We’re going through the gospel of John looking for a greater understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re going to be in chapter 4 tonight looking at the second sign that Jesus performed. Note that he performed that in Galilee at Cana. He had been in Judea and was passing through Samaria on his way to Galilee. Let us go to the text at this point to see what happened. 

43After the two days he left for Galilee. 44(Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) 45When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, for they also had been there. 46Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

 48“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

 49The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

 50Jesus replied, “You may go. Your son will live.” 
      The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living.52When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour.”

 53Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and all his household believed.

 54This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.

The case that we have here is of a boy who is sick. We do not know what with, but we know that he is near death. Jesus is at Cana and from Capernaum comes the official whose son the boy is. He begs Jesus to heal him. He begs Jesus to come to see the boy before he dies.

Jesus tells him to simply go. His son will live. The translation we have says “You may go.” Jesus speaks with authority. While one may think the official is the one who would give the orders, it is Jesus instead who is giving the orders.

The official obeys however and goes back and on the way is greeted by his servants who tell him that the boy is living and the official finds out that it was the time that Jesus said “Your son will live” that he was healed.

Living is mentioned three times then. John wants us to know that. Could there be something also to the mention of it taking place on the 7th hour? Numbers mean something in John, such as Jesus coming to Cana for the first time on the third day. That doesn’t count against true chronology taking place, but it is a point worth pondering. 

What is the purpose of this sign? For one thing, Jesus’s divine authority as he is at a distance and healing. Let us remember the lesson we got from the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. Secondly, that he is life. John emphasizes this by mentioning it three times.

Tomorrow, we will be skipping for the Easter weekend and begin blogging on the resurrection. Hope you’ll be there for it.

The Woman At The Well

We’re going through the Bible looking for clues to understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the gospel of John and last time, we looked at how we are called to lower ourselves for the cause of Christ. He must increase and we must decrease. Tonight, we’re going to be in John 4. The passage is the woman at the well. It’s quite lengthy, so I’m going to recommend you either open up a window so you can read the text or get out your own Bibles and consider what is being stated tonight.

In this story, Jesus is passing through Samaria. That’s the first unusual event. If you were an orthodox Jew at the time, you avoided Samaria. Even if it meant extra traveling time, Samaria was just not the place that good Jews went through. In fact, you were to spit on the ground if you heard the word “Samaritan.” I suspect that in the story of the good Samaritan, when Jesus asked the question at the end, this is why the answer was “The one who showed mercy.” The Lawyer did not even want to say “Samaritan.”

Second strike this woman has is, well, she’s a woman. In those days, men did not associate with women in public and men did not teach women. Christ was quite revolutionary in the way that he treated women.

Third strike we see against her is she’s an outcast. How do we know? She comes to draw water at the well at high noon, which is when the heat would have been the worst. No one else was there at the time, which meant this lady wanted to avoid people. She was the town pariah.

She met Jesus at a well. That’s interesting. Why? Let’s go back to our old testament and look at some of the patriarchs. When Abraham sends his servant to fetch a wife for Isaac, the servant finds the wife at the well. When Jacob is on the run, he stops at Laban’s place and helps Rachel get water from a well. In Exodus 2, Moses is at a well and drives off a gang of shepherds who are keeping some women from the well. Moses gets his wife there. It seems wells are pretty romantic places. (Excuse me while I do a websearch to find our nearest well.)

And since this lady converts, it would seem that Christ is meeting his bride at a well. How is she his bride? The same way you and I are. If she becomes a believer, then she is a part of the church. Christ came to meet this one at the well. It was a divine appointment. 

This is a very unusual dialogue. It starts out innocent enough, but even that stuns the woman. How does a Jewish man talk to a Samaritan woman. Christ then tells her about the living water. The lady wants to know if Christ is greater than the Jewish patriarchs, including Jacob, whose name if you recall, was changed to Israel. How does Christ stand in relation to Israel?

The lady is interested in this water, but she is thinking of it as physical water. Double-entendres are quite common in John. He frequently uses a term that can mean two different things. Most often, people get the wrong idea. Just as Nicodemus misunderstood being born again, this lady misunderstands water.

Christ tells her to go get her husband. She tells him she has no husband. Christ then reveals more of his nature saying that she is quite correct. She has had five husbands and the man that she is living with now is not her husband.

Again, this lady is an outcast. Divorce was a shameful procedure and was public. This lady has been publicly shamed by five men. At the time, she is living with someone else probably just to have support and to avoid some of the shame, though we can be sure it is with her always. 

But since she’s got a prophet here, this lady is again a pragmatist and asks where the right place is to worship. The Samaritans had their own penteteuch and their own temple where they worshipped. Now that there is someone here who has divine authority, why not ask him and see what he says?

Jesus’s answer is that God cannot be confined to anyone place, but that the Jews were the ones to whom the original message came. Nevertheless, there will be a time when the revelation that came to the Jews will be open to all and all will be able to worship God wherever they are, Jew or Samaritan, or Gentile for that matter.

The lady says that she knows the Christ is coming and when he comes, he will explain everything. One wishes they could see the look on her face when Christ said “I am he.”

The lady is changed. She had been ashamed of what she had done, but now she wanted everyone to come out and meet someone who told her all she had done. This was the first witness to the Samaritans. Christ again uses the most unlikely candidates to do great things and what is the conclusion? Christ is the savior of the world.

Is he yours?

He Must Increase. I Must Decrease

We’re going through the New Testament now and trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of God. I am referring to the Trinity as there are other doctrines of God as well, but this is one that is truly unique to Christianity. I have this idea that if the church could grasp the concept of the Trinity, it would turn us around. Perhaps the American church would finally have the revolution that it needs. We’re in the gospel of John and tonight, we’re going to be concluding the third chapter.

 22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.” 27To this John replied, “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.’ 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.

 31“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

When I started writing this blog, I was writing the first part in the title and thought “I cannot put that title without putting in the second part.” It would be awfully easy to have simply stated the truth that Christ must increase. What is hard to put in is that we must decrease.

The ancient worldview was that there was limited good. If one person had goodness, it was because it was taken from another. This was especially the case with honor. It wasn’t given out freely. Honor had to be earned. If someone attacked your honor, you had better defend it.

John the Baptist was told that his following was decreasing. John the Baptist, however, saw that this was to a greater good. (Thus further indication that part of John is written to stop an idea that John the Baptist was not the end-all.) The Baptist knew the truth. He must decrease. Christ must increase.

Why? Christ came from Heaven. (Contrary to those who think our souls might drop down from heaven like gumballs when we are conceived.) He is the one who is above all. I believe this is John the writer’s testimony again as he speaks in the same style that he did in the dialogue with Nicodemus. We have a response to Christ and then we have commentary. The Baptist publicly certified who Christ is. Nicodemus came by cover of night.

Let us make further comparisons. John the Baptist was a figure willing to lose what he had. Nicodemus was ashamed. John the Baptist understood what was going on at the time. Nicodemus, who was a teacher of Israel, did not. Nicodemus spoke to Jesus as just a teacher. John the Baptist saw him as the Christ, the bridegroom, and the lamb of God.

In this passage, we see the contrast and the only reason I can think of for the different responses these men had to Christ is the different way they saw him. John was willing to lose all. Nicodemus was afraid of losing what he had. 

Which side are you on today? Are you on the side of John the Baptist who saw Christ as the bridegroom and was willing to lose everything and did not seek his own honor at the expense of Christ, or are you coming by cover of night like Nicodemus because who knows what those around you could think if they knew that you were a follower of Christ?

You know the answer to that.

God So Loved The World

We’ve been going through the New Testament and trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. We’ve mainly been looking for clues that Jesus had to the understanding of his own person as well as clues to what those closest to him had to say about who he was. We’ve been going through the gospel of John lately and right now, we’re in John 3 and we’re going to start tonight’s reading looking at what was once the most quoted verse of Scripture.

16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

Yes. There was a day and age when John 3:16 was the most quoted verse of Scripture. Today, it has been overtaken by Matthew 7:1 and only part of it with the “judge not” idea. It is my judgment that those who quote “Judge not” in such a way do not properly judge to have a clue about what Jesus is really saying here. Now some of you might be angry that I’ve said that. Please do complain. I want to hear your judgment that I am wrong in my judgment while all the while you don’t believe we should judge. The message is about hypocritical judging. Not all judging. 

Martin Luther called this verse “The gospel in minitaure”, and while it has the great message of the love of God in it, let’s be sure we don’t miss the other side. The message came so that people might not perish. Perishing is a real possibility. In fact, as we look at this passage, we see shades pointing back to the prologue with the message of light coming into the world and people not accepting the light.

Also, some Bibles might have this included in the text of what Jesus said. I think that’s in error. I don’t believe Jesus said these words, but this is John’s inspired commentary in response to the conversation Christ had with Nicodemus. 

Note the goal is not condemnation but salvation. The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. We can be reminded of the message in Ezekiel that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. It is my contention that God is doing all he can without being overwhelming ot people and restricting their freedom further to bring about salvation to them. God is looking for people who really seek the truth for the sake of the truth. I will also contend that if anyone is following that path, they will eventually find Christ.

Part of the hesitancy though is that mens’ deeds are evil. C.S. Lewis once compared the idea of man searching for God to the idea of a mouse searching for a cat. We might find him, but we didn’t mean to find him as he is! Surely it didn’t come to that! If any other concept of god can be found, let us go with it! Let us go with all the popular ideas of a god who is a force or one who needs us or one who is simply love and makes sure everyone is happy in the end. We can chase those gods all we want, but we will not find them, simply because they do not exist.

This is also one reason I try to not be hard on the sins of my fellow man. It’s really easy to do of course. Don’t get me wrong on this. We should call sin sin and we should not tolerate it. However, we must remember that we are fallen as well and we don’t desire to come to the light in our sins either. How many of us have been quite good at justifying things that we know are wrong?

The message of Christianity reminds me that God did not come to save pretty good people who just needed an extra boost. He came to save sinners. He came to save people who could not save themselves. He came to save the worst of the worst.

Note though again that Jesus is the focal point. All of eternity hinges on what someone does with the Son of God. He is the light and if people come to him, then they are saved. If they do not, then they are not. Of course, I am speaking of those who know the message. My answer of those who have never heard is quite different, though readers of my blog will probably know my answer by now.

The light isn’t always pleasant at first and in many cases, none of us like it. We think it would be easier to stay in sin rather than come to Christ, even though it is far better for us to come to him. Whatever it is you are dealing with, it is easier often to stay in it than to come to him. Of course, I’m not saying Christ cures you instantly. I believe this is a huge misnomer we’ve given to people who suffer from a variety of temptations that we give the impression of disappearing immediately if they will just repent. Can that happen? Yes. Is it the norm? No. Often times, it could take good counseling and the presence of the Christian church being a body of fellow believers in love.

Yes. Christ is the ultimate light that saves, but let us remember that he said we are to be the light of the world. Let us not live in darkness either but let us be tiny beacons pointing to the true light. If we act as darkness, it will make it all the harder for those in darkness to find the true light.

Lifting Up The Son of Man?

We’re going through the New Testament seeking a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, an essential doctrine of Christianity. Right now, we’re in the gospel of John. Last time, we looked at the first sign that Jesus did at the wedding of Cana. Tonight, we’re going to look at his talk with Nicodemus and address an idea that seems obscure to some. Why would Jesus compare himself to a snake that was lifted up in teaching that we must be born again?

10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

There are several stories of salvation in the Old Testament through miracles, yet of all the stories in the Old Testament that Jesus could have used, he decided to point to this one. What is going on in this story that points to the work of Christ?

Let’s look at the whole story in Numbers 21:

4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea,  to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” 6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

 8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

What was going on was that the people were rebelling again. They wanted to go to Egypt where they thought they had it better. In response, God sends snakes? Why snakes? Snakes were a symbol of Egypt. In essence, instead of bringing Israel to Egypt, he brought Egypt to Israel.

When the people repent, God tells Moses to make a bronze snake and put it up for all to see. The snake was a symbol of death, but the Israelites had to look to that which they considered a shameful curse in order to find life. When they looked to the snake, they were healed. So what’s the connection?

Christ is speaking of his own death by crucifixion here. This was the most shameful death you could have, yet that which Israel saw as shameful was to be their source of life. Once again, they would have to look upon a source of shame and in that shame, they would see life.

Christ is the fulfillment of what Moses did in that passage. He is the source of life that brings true healing, not from the poison of the snake, but from the poison of sin. In speaking such, Christ saw himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and the source of life for Israel. We are reminded of what John said earlier. “In him was life.”

How are we to respond? Do we look to the Son and live or not look and die?

Mike Licona vs. Bart Ehrman Debate

Tonight readers, we are going to break out of the regular Trinitarian studies routine and look at a recent event. This would be a debate that took place between Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman with the question being “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?” Mike Licona has the website www.risenjesus.com and is the author of “Paul Meets Muhammad” and co-author of “The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus” along with Gary Habermas. I believe Licona is on his way to becoming the next great authority on the resurrection.  Ehrman is the James A. Gray distiniguished professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written numerous books including most recently, “Misquoting Jesus” and “Jesus Interrupted.”

These two met to debate the question. I have chosen tonight to write on my thoughts on the debate.

I have no doubt that both of these men possess great knowledge in the area of history. Naturally, readers do know that I agree with the outcome that Licona was supporting. That’s part of what made this a problem. The case was there but these two men were talking past each other.

To begin with, let’s look at the question. The question was not a historical question. It was a question about the nature of history.  I ask that you keep this in mind as we go through the review of the debate.

Mike Licona made his argument from basic facts that are practically universal amongst New Testament Scholars. The first is that Jesus was crucified and thus, dead afterwards. The second was the appearances to the disciples. The third was the appearance to Paul. Licona argued that based on these and the problem of hallucination theories, the best case to be found is the resurrection. It’s not ad hoc, it explains all the evidence, and the only extra ingredient needed is that God exists. For a fuller explanation of this argument, see the book, “The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Ehrman did not dispute these and in fact, does not. However, he came with the arguments that the gospels contradict themselves, they’re anonymous, and they’re dated late. He also threw out as an argument that the disciples were fishermen and so they wouldn’t be educated to write the fine Greek of the New Testament. The first problem is that not all of them were fishermen. In fact, Peter, James, and John were the only ones who were writers that I can think of that we know were fishermen. Matthew was a tax collector. He would have known how to fill out records in the appropriate language. As for Mark, I do not know for sure what he did so we cannot assume he was a fisherman. Luke is believed to have been a doctor and would have been familiar with reading and writing. As for fishermen, John’s family owned a fishing business and as a result, he would have been trained in reading and writing as well.

Licona rightly pointed out that we can talk about contradictions all we want, but that won’t change the facts that were presented. Often, this turns into a debate on inerrancy. Now I believe in inerrancy, but that is not what is necessary to show the resurrection of Christ. You can have the gospels simply be historical documents with basic reliability. For information countering Ehrman’s claims, I recommend going to www.tektonics.org and looking under the E section for Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman also asked why is it that Mike Licona started off as a Christian and then investigated and remained a Christian. It’s amusing Ehrman asks is that any shock while at the same time he says that he started off as a Christian and left the fold. What’s that to teach us? I’d say it means that there are often other factors. Ehrman contributes a lot of doubt to the problem of evil, for instance. Keep in mind other writers started off skeptics and became believers, such as Simon Greenleaf, author of “The Testimony of the Evangelists”, which can be read online. 

Ehrman stated repeatedly that if you posit God to explain the resurrection, you’re not doing history then. You’re doing theology. Ehrman had a problem with the idea of miracles saying that they were automatically the least probable event.

Ehrman also said that Jesus was crucified didn’t matter. He could have been stoned instead. In fact, it did matter. This was seen as the most shameful death of the time which fit the Israelite idea of “Cursed is anyone who dies on a tree.” Since Jesus died that kind of death, he would have been seen as under God’s curse. Yet this was a benchmark of the Christian message. 

Ehrman also said the appearance were really one event, yet said Paul’s case was more difficult to explain than that of the disciples’. Seems to me like that’s two events. One kind of event was an appearance to believers. Another kind of event was an appearance to skeptics. One wonders also about Ehrman’s request of “How did Paul know it was Jesus?” and his desire to throw out the idea “Don’t tell me God told him.” What’s wrong with that is that that is what Acts 9 says. The voice answered and said “I am Jesus.” It’s like saying, “I want to know what really happened, but don’t suggest the explanation the text gives.”

While Licona had the good information, Ehrman was wanting to try to get Licona to not do theology or philosophy at all, which was the problem. The whole debate had to have a philosophical underpinning to it. I believe Licona should have said “Yes. I am doing theology as well, but my theology is based on the historical evidence.”

During Q&A, it was rightly pointed out to Ehrman that the writers could have used scribes which would have answered the question on the Greek. Kudos goes to Dr. Thomas Howe who spoke of how in one of his books, Ehrman said that when a reader reads a text, they change the text. If that’s the case, how could we know what Ehrman wrote. Ehrman replied saying “I’ll e-mail you” to which the reply was “I’ll be reading that text also.”

My personal part in this was after the debate going to Ehrman and asking about his claim that history can’t tell us about acts of God. I asked if he could historically prove that. The reply was that history can only tell you what humans can do. (In reality, that would be false even on naturalistic premises. History can tell us about non-human characters like comets, the bubonic plague, animals, etc.) I asked “Can you historically prove that?” The answer was “No.” To which I just said, “Okay.” I believed the point was established. Ehrman wasn’t doing purely history either. No one was and no one could and one wishes Licona had brought in the context of the resurrection. This would include reasons for believing God exists, the fulfillment of OT prophecy, the hope of a Messiah, the systematic theology built up around the atonement and the concept of resurrection, etc.

Overall, it was good of Ehrman to come to an environment where he was definitely in the minority, and it made me think that many who were uninitiated in apologetics would have left a presentation like Ehrman’s skeptical. In this case, I am thankful for him. I would like him to create more skeptics. I mean that in the sense of I want people who are asking hard questions about the resurrection instead of those who are not growing in their faith. I would rather have a small number committed to the facts and able to present them than a thousand with a simple idea faith that has no backing to it.

Maybe, just maybe then, we’ll see the revolution we need in the church.

The First Sign

We’re going through the New Testament and trying to come to a deeper understanding of the knowledge of the Trinity. We just recently finished the prologue of John so now we’re going to go through the book and hit some highlights and there are definitely a lot more of them. John has been referred to as a gospel of signs so we’re going to be looking at the first of those signs in John 2 tonight.

1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” 4“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”

 5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

 6Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

 7Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

 8Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

   They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

 11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

What was this miracle saying about Jesus?

The wedding in Jewish culture was a very festive event even celebrating the consumation of the new marriage. They would often last for a week and it was the time to show off. The honor of the host was at stake and if he failed to deliver, it would be a huge embarrassment to him and the community. In fact, if it wasn’t done appropriately, a family could face legal repercussions. 

Thus, what was at stake for the Master of Ceremonies was the way he would be seen in the community from then on. If he failed, he would be liable to legal action and he could be sure he would not get such a position again. Any number of things could lead to a crisis.

Such as running out of wine.

Which is exactly what happened.

Now Jesus’s mother asks him to help out. What is used? Stone jars. Not just any stone jars. These jars would have contained water that would have been used for ritual purification purposes. Most houses would only be able to hold one. This place has six. Most of them were borrowed probably, but this indicates that there was an incredibly large crowd there so the threat of shame is even greater.

In doing this miracle, it is more than just providing a drink. Jesus is taking the water used for the old system of purification and turning it to wine, a drink symbolizing joy. He is saying that the kingdom of God is coming and is replacing the old with the new. There is no longer need for purification water. Let’s enjoy the fruit of the kingdom!

And who is bringing the kingdom? Jesus is announcing by this it is arriving in his person.

The kingdom of God is centered on God’s rule over his people taking place through the actions of Christ.

We shall continue tomorrow going to the next portion in John to touch.

John 1:18

Happy April Fool’s Day! One of my favorite days of the year! For those who are interested, I am entirely evil on this day. I did happen to prank my own mother, again. I love her dearly, but her picture should be next to the word “gullible” in the dictionary. It’s practically become a tradition. As of this point, no one has April Fooled me yet, although my roommate did have a nice try in trying to tell me that my check for the rent bounced.

Now let’s get to the text. We’re going through the New Testament looking for clues to understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. We’ve been going through the prologue of John and tonight, we shall end it by looking at John 1:18. Let’s look at this in a number of different versions. First, the NIV:

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

The NKJV:

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

The ESV:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side,  he has made him known.

And lastly, the NASB:

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

This is one of the debated passages about what the text says, but with any translation, we can still find the full deity of the Son. I recommend reading works on textual criticism for those who want some more information on that. I would not consider it my area of expertise. A number of good commentaries on the passage can help as well as works on textual criticism such as those by Dan Wallace or Bruce Metzger.

Let us consider some aspects though. John has brought us full circle starting with the Word and the God he is with and ending the passage with both of them. It begins by saying no one has seen God. Some might think this rules out the deity of Christ at the start, but that is not what John is saying. He is saying that no one has seen God in his essence with comprehension. God has always been at a distance. The text would indicate not even the angels have truly seen God. It would also mean that when we look at a theophany in the OT, it is most likely a Christophany, as all those times people said they saw God, they were seeing the Son. That’s how this passage can harmonize with the others that have people seeing God.

However, the one who knows God is the one who is in his bosom. He shares the most intimate relationship possible with the Father. He is the Son who bears the nature of God although he does not have paternity as the Father has. He is of the same substance as the Father. 

The last clause is particular interesting when it talks of how the Son has revealed the Father. The word there is the word that we get “exegete” from. Exegesis is the process whereby one reads a text and reveals the substance of what is therein. 

This is what the Son does of the Father. How do we know what he is like? We know by looking at the Son. Unless someone knows the Son, it is impossible for them to know the Father. We might have some ideas of him that are correct, but in order to really know the Father, one must know the Son.

And so, John has brought us full circle. The Word was in the beginning with God and was God and the Word has come forth from the Father. That Word reveals the Father through his Son. To know the Son is to know the Father for the Son is the revelation of who the Father is.

We shall continue going through John tomorrow.