This Article Was Originally Published On Jan 18, 2021

The year was 1989, and I was a freshman in high school. I was sitting at a lone desk in an empty hallway because, once again, my behavior had gotten me kicked out of class—but on purpose, actually. Because though I was attending one of the best prep schools in New Jersey and in all honors classes, occasionally, when the learning material couldn’t quite hold my attention, I’d goof around until I was asked to take my desk into the hallway. And what would I do once in the hallway? I’d eagerly pull out Strength To Love, by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Since middle school, Dr. King was always my favorite, reading away and even re-reading the heavier content until I got it. Dr. King was a pure scholar.

“My friends, we cannot win the respect of the White people of the South or elsewhere if we are willing to trade the future of our children for our personal safety or comfort. Moreover, we must learn that passively to accept an unjust system is to cooperate with that system, and thereby become a participant in its evil… Put up thy sword.” — Strength To Love, 1963

This book I always carried with me was actually an original paperback that had belonged to my father during his executive administrative position at Seton Hall University. He had emulated the steps of Dr. King and became a leader in the civil rights struggle in New Jersey, implementing scholarship programs and graduate programs for people of color, which are still active until this very day. But not before he first endured growing up in poverty in the Deep South of the 1950s. He attended segregated schooling throughout high school, where his hungry mind always had to wait until the white schools finished sucking the abridged life out of every textbook before his school could finally get them. Even after earning valedictorian at his school, his physics teacher gave him a failing grade on a perfect paper. When my dad asked why, the teacher told him, “I didn’t give you an ‘A’ on that paper because you said you wanted to be a nuclear physicist, and a colored person has no business being a nuclear physicist.”

On this day when Dr. King’s birthday is nationally honored (his actual birthday being January 15), what does he mean to me?

As far back as I can remember, and even before his birthday became a national holiday in 1986, an integral part of our northern urban culture was to ecstatically celebrate Dr. King’s birthday—even if it just meant turning up Stevie Wonder’s “Happy Birthday to Ya,” extra loud on Mom’s clock radio as we’d get ready for school that morning.

Also, as far back as I can remember, whenever Dr. King’s name was mentioned, the emphasis on the title “doctor” was always sacred, as to just say his name would seemingly usher in a hush of honor and dignity as everyone would seem to hold their heads a bit higher for a second. While others called him by his full name without the title, we remembered him as a man who overcame all obstacles to earn his Ph.D., a rarity for countless black folks in those times. He was beloved in our community: He was like everyone’s unofficial favorite grandfather, father, godfather, uncle or son. A man, who for the sake of fighting for the freedoms of the oppressed, didn’t fear violent fists, fire hoses, bone-bruising batons, handcuffs, prison cells, police dogs trained to go berserk whenever they saw brown skin, or even death itself.

I grew up in a home with a humanistic worldview, attending Catholic church only on the important holidays, so I had a vague familiarity with Jesus. But I remember reading Dr. King’s references to Jesus Christ, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount and Christ’s commandment to forgive and turn the other cheek, and then getting to observe how Dr. King actually lived it out. He was the first person to make Jesus’ life and teachings relevant and powerful to me. Long before I was anywhere close to believing the Gospel and giving my heart to Christ, Dr. King showed this once-young, curious “searching” teenager—growing up on the drug-dealing streets of inner-city New Jersey, while at the same time, going to a wealthy prep school where I had my own countless bouts with both blatant and covert forms of racism—that Jesus was real and that Jesus’ teachings were still relevant in modern times and for modern issues.

Fast forward now: I matriculated at the “Ivy League” halls of the University of Pennsylvania, and though I was a pre-med student, I began learning much more about the world around me.

As an African-American Studies minor, I studied other prominent black leaders who had ideologies quite different from those of Dr. King’s.

I attended various lectures and even sat at the feet of people like Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Movement (along with Huey P. Newton). I read Malcolm X and others who critiqued Dr. King’s methods. But to me, Dr. King remained bulletproof from the blaze of any critic; his message of reconciliation was simple and powerful and grounded in the love taught by Christ.

Fast forward, yet again, to when I hadn’t read Dr. King in years, by this point, when I was my senior year at Penn and busy navigating and (seemingly barely) surviving my own personal Ecclesiastes, like the spiritually-wearied King Solomon—suddenly finding everything around me to feel like “vanity” and “chasing wind” when it came to finding “true fulfillment”—and thereby, leading me to discover the regenerating Gospel of Jesus Christ as the true summum bonum (i.e., “greatest good”) for all of mankind. Oh, “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found, t’was blind but now, I see.”

As I graduated from Penn and began devouring the Word of God and growing in a (heavy) Bible-teaching church community, I was learning to “rightly divide the word of God” and even hold up the teachings of others against the Word of God—just as Jesus instructs His followers to do (I Thessalonians 5:21; Psalm 138:2). And it was at this point that I learned the difference between good or “sound” theology, bad theology and even “slightly off” theology.

I began learning more about Gospel-centered ministry, and how when Jesus spoke of giving a (refreshing) cup of water to even a child in His name, that even that wouldn’t go unrewarded by Him—and how some are indeed giving the (refreshing) cup of cold water “in His name” (i.e., while sharing the soul-saving “Good News” message of Jesus Christ, while countless others—all in the name of “Christian ministry”—all too often end up compromising with a “Social Gospel,” which still gives the (refreshing) cup of cold water and meets the pressing need(s) at hand, only they neglect doing it “in His name,” as the final element of Jesus’ command.

Thus, as a Bible-lensed believer, I had to now look at Dr. King, my first “superhero,” my first scholar whom I read in empty “naughty” hallways, after getting kicked out of class, the man who greatly inspired my own (hero) father, the man who still made my mom get teary-eyed when she found a rare book by him to gift to me, the man who first made Jesus real to me… I had to look at him through the lenses of “rightly divided” Scripture. And having a close friend who worked directly with Dr. King’s children at the King Foundation in Atlanta, Georgia, I even got access to hundreds of pages of King’s never-released essays, including essays from his younger days attending a liberal seminary, where he even questioned the Word of God’s supreme, inerrant theology, while trying to amalgamate the biblical worldview with ancient Egyptian belief systems. Add to that the pressing questions you hear voiced here and there:

Was Dr. King a socialist or communist? Was he an adulterer? Did he fall victim to Jesus’ warnings concerning “the leaven of Herod,” falling into the trap of mingling humanistic political might with unadulterated Gospel hope? There was so much to think about, but I had to be reminded of one thing: Whenever we are confronted with uncertainties or unanswered questions surrounding a person, we tend to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” At the heart of observing others, will always remain the ongoing struggle of reconciling the imperfections of the person, with the redeemable parts and lessons of the message and the overall work.

So what do we do with all of this, and as (rhetorically) stated in the title of Dr. King’s last book he wrote, Where Do We Go From Here? I have come to the conclusion that we owe Dr. King the same grace we’ve extended to King David, King Uzziah, Peter & the other disciples, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his reported involvement in two assassination attempts on Hitler, C.S. Lewis and his non-biblical belief in Purgatory, and countless others. In fact, it is the very same grace we pray to God for concerning our own personal lives every day. The Bible clearly instructs us to “mark the steps of a righteous man (Psalm 37:37),” to call sin for what it is, and to learn from those around us (and those in history), which also included learning from their mistakes, lest we easily slip and fall in (any and all similar) places ourselves (I Corinthians 10:12). Yes, the Word of God is supreme and is to be our guide in all things, but in doing so, love will always remain the “most excellent way” in doing so.

Most of all, here is my biggest question concerning Dr. King: Will I see my hero in heaven?

You know, I’ve read so much written by Dr. King and about Dr. King, that it gets confusing as to where I have read what at times. However, what stands out the most of all that I’ve ever read was an obscure essay he once wrote about the night back when he was leading his first bus boycott for the desegregation of buses in Montgomery, Alabama, and in retaliation, someone shot up his house, leaving bullet holes in the very sanctuary where his wife and kids found refuge.

He proceeded to write of how he sat alone that night in his kitchen—already a husband, father, up-and-coming national civil rights leader, and even a Baptist minister—and shaken to his core by what had happened to his home, he asked himself if he had truly experienced a (spiritually) born again experience in making Jesus Christ his personal Lord and Savior. And not sure of his own answer to that question, but wanting to make sure he was truly “in Christ” and not just deceivingly a mere part of “Churchianity” and “religious culture,” this pioneering visionary, scholar, courageous commander and religious man who emulated Jesus Christ, actually lowered his head and invited the risen Christ into His heart as his personal Lord and Savior for the remission of sins.

I’ve heard many wonder if King Solomon will be in heaven simply because of his severe backsliding (which led him to worship in very demonic ways). But based on his conclusion in Ecclesiastes, I believe King Solomon is in glory.

And I cannot prove it (for who knows the heart but God (I Corinthians 4:5), I believe my hero Dr. King is in glory as well.

In closing, what should be our practical take away and application concerning the legacy of Dr. King?

In this racially-polarized day, when so many (even in the Church) refuse to have the necessary, ongoing, tough conversations concerning race, and when we must be ready to (lovingly) challenge others (and even challenge ourselves at times), let us remember how Dr. King seemed to never grow weary in “leaning into discomfort” for the love of others. In a day when the Church has grossly confused merely knowing with actually doing something with what you know, let us remember how Dr. King’s entire life was a living sermon on how talk is cheap. More so, in a day, when Christians sometimes can’t even garner enough Christian humility to apologize to their next-door neighbors for the slightest offenses, Dr. King made Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness and “turning the other cheek” look supernatural, to say the least.

In a day when Christians can’t even embrace a brother or sister who adheres to a different style of worship or denominational viewpoint, let us remember how Dr. King was able to embrace Malcolm X with love and honor—even after Malcolm X publicly criticized Dr. King and regularly alluded to Dr. King not being “strong enough.” Most of all, in a day when we struggle with sacrificing for anything we deem “too costly,” in Dr. King we see a man who sacrificed even unto death—even (seemingly) prophesying about his imminent death in a message delivered some 24 hours before he was assassinated. In it, he declared that he still wasn’t going to stop and wasn’t concerned with such because he had received a fresh vision of His Lord Jesus Christ, and that He would one day be returning to Earth to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords.

You know, for so many reasons, I still can’t watch this video clip without tears running down my face. And when I grow up, I still want to be so much like Dr. King, just like I desire to be so much like King David, Abraham, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and so many others who have deeply impacted me for Jesus, in one way or another, even as they all prove that even “the best of men, are but men at best” (A.W. Pink).

So dear reader, let’s keep thinking; let’s keep the necessary conversations going while being more eager to listen than to speak; let’s love one another sacrificially; let’s love our enemies as Jesus commanded us; let’s continue facing this current evil day with relevant Gospel outreaches and spontaneous acts of love, all in our deepest desire to showcase Jesus Christ as man’s only solution for every dilemma—and especially the dilemma of race and America’s ongoing reaping from the ongoing sowing of things that clearly contradict the heart and mind of God concerning how people treat and value one another. Happy Birthday, Dr. King! Salute!

“Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.” — Strength To Love, 1963

Editor’s Note: Editor’s Note: This article was previously published on September 16, 2021. This year (2023), the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tishrei runs from the evening of September 24 until sunset on September 25.

Background to Yom Kippur:

The Temple Mount and the tension surrounding this particular location are common themes of contemporary discussions concerning the Modern State of Israel. However, when the people of Israel came out of Egypt (Exodus 12:33-14:31), they did not have a fixed location in which they would worship God. In fact, the building of the first Israelite Temple, which was ultimately established on what we now know as the Temple Mount, did not start until 480 years after the Israelite’s Exodus from Egypt. This project was undertaken by King Solomon (1 Kings 6:1)—the third king of the nation of Israel.

Nevertheless, prior to the existence of a permanent Temple building, the people still worshiped. In Exodus 25-40, God gives instructions to the people of Israel regarding the construction of a portable tabernacle—and all of its component parts—as a place of worship and sacrificial activity. The people transported the Tabernacle with them during the wilderness wanderings, prior to entering the Promised Land.

Subsequent to the instructions relating to the building of the Tabernacle came very specific commands pertaining to the regulation of sacrifices in the Tabernacle (Leviticus 1-7). These sacrifices were performed by priests who interceded between humankind and God by implementing divine instruction on behalf of the people. Aaron (Moses’ brother) and his sons were divinely appointed and inaugurated as the leaders of the community of priests (Leviticus 8-9).

Yet, immediately following their call to the priesthood, the book of Leviticus relates the account of the death of Aaron’s two sons—Nadab and Abihu—by the hand of God (10:1). The text does not explicitly state why God put these two men to death. They were apparently guilty of entering the tabernacle and making an offering in a manner that was not ordained by God (cf. 10:2).

This episode is presented as the historical foundation for the instruction presented in Leviticus 16:1-2 relating to the Day of the Atonement. In short, as a preface to the instructions for Yom Kippur, God declares to Aaron through Moses, “You are going to atone for your sin and the sin of your community exactly the way I am about to command you so that you do not die like your sons died.” The following provides a summary of the rest of the events that were to take place on Yom Kippur that are crucial to our understanding of the significance of this day.

Summary of Biblical Yom Kippur:

Initially, the high priest would enter the Holy Place of the Tabernacle with offerings of a bull and a ram. He was then commanded to remove his ordinary, yet majestic, priestly garb and dress in holy, simple linen vestments after properly bathing his body. After taking two more goats from the congregation to serve as sin offerings, the high priest would offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and his family, prior to making atonement for the people. He then entered the Holy of Holies and sprinkled the blood of the bull that was sacrificed on his behalf, on and in front of the mercy seat—the place where God’s presence was manifested (16:3-6, 11, 14).

This initial stage of the Day of Atonement is extremely important in that the high priest—the person who was chosen by God to intermediate between God and the community of Israel—demonstrated his own shortcomings. The need for the priest to bathe his body is the typical example of his constant need to renew the physical body in order for it to thrive. The sin offering that the high priest offered for himself was representative of (even) the high priest’s need to be cleansed of his sin. It indicated the necessity of the priest to attend to his own spiritual need prior to interceding on behalf of his community.

Next, the high priest was commanded to take two goats and cast lots over them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. God determined, through the casting of lots, which of these two goats was to be offered as a sin offering to the Lord (16:7-9). After this goat was killed, its blood was taken into the Holy of Holies and was sprinkled on and in front of the mercy seat. In this way, atonement was made by the high priest for the Tabernacle as well as on behalf of the people (16:15-16). The high priest then spread the blood of the bull he sacrificed for himself and the goat he sacrificed on behalf of the people on the horns of another altar, outside of the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle complex (16:18).

The sprinkling of the blood in different areas of the Tabernacle indicated that God permitted the high priest to enter into His presence to make atonement for himself, the people and the Tabernacle (which was defiled by the sin of the people) ONLY through the death of a substitute. That is to say, the life of the animal was sacrificed in order for there to be communion with God. These were God’s terms of worship. The people, through the priest, could only receive the forgiveness of their sin through the blood of a sacrifice (17:11).

In the midst of all of the blood sprinkling, there is a somewhat unexpected turn of events. Just when one might expect more bloodshed, the high priest is instructed to lay his hands on the head of the goat, that was not fated to death by the casting of lots, and confess the transgressions of the people. This act seemingly represents the transmitting of the sin of the people onto the goat. That goat—traditionally known as the “scapegoat,” though not without dispute—was taken by a helper and set free into the wilderness, evidently carrying away the sin of the people (16:20-22).

The last stage of the day was one of cleansing. The high priest was instructed to enter the tent of meeting, take off all of his garments and leave them there. The high priest was to bathe, get dressed in (presumably) his normal garments, and then make another sacrifice for himself and for the people. The person who was responsible for letting the goat go alive was also to purify himself. Lastly, all of the remains of the sacrifices were taken outside of the camp of the people of Israel and burned. The person who was responsible for burning the remains of the sacrifices was also commanded to purify himself (16:23-28).

Problems with Yom Kippur:

Since June 19, 2007—the day in which the first iPhone was released—I have consistently yearned to possess every generation of the iPhone. Ten years later, 18 different iPhone models have been produced with the latest and best being the iPhone X. At this point in history, it is possible to look back at the first generation of the iPhone, and while recognizing its splendor at the time of its debut, also acknowledge that it is not a desirable phone at this juncture. The reason is that there were several, if not many, shortcomings inherent to the original model.

For example, the first generation of the iPhone could not multitask in the manner in which it is possible on almost every phone nowadays. It was not possible to copy and paste text; third party applications could not be downloaded; there was no GPS system; the camera did not have a flash; it could not video record; the screen was minute compared to the screens on current phones; and the absolute best model had a memory of only 16GB. In light of all of these deficiencies, the best way to evaluate the value of the current iPhone X is by looking at the shortcomings of the initial model and reflecting upon how those shortcomings foreshadowed a greater end result.

Likewise, there were indeed shortcomings in the original High Holy day of Yom Kippur that foreshadowed a greater end result. God gave the people of Israel specific instructions for the Day of Atonement that contained certain inadequacies, implying the necessity for the atonement of sin in a more excellent manner. There are at least four main issues that arise with regard to the atonement for sin as depicted in Leviticus 16:

1) The Temporary Nature of the Atonement:
Why did the people have to continually sacrifice in order to atone for their sin? Why couldn’t their sin be atoned for once and for all?

2) The Blood of Animals:
How could the blood of animals take away the sin of humans? These first two issues bring to mind the inextricable connection between sacrificial activity and a physical Tabernacle or Temple. According to the Law set out in Leviticus 16, the people needed an actual location to carry out the sacrifices necessary in order to comply with God’s commands for legitimate atonement. Does the absence of a Tabernacle or a Temple—as is the present state of affairs—eliminate the possibility for the remission of sin?

3) The Imperfection of the Priesthood:
The priests had to perpetually sacrifice for themselves, symbolizing the guilt of the intermediator that was to represent the people to God, and God to the people. The priest had his own issue with sin, requiring him to sacrifice for his own sin before he could sacrifice for the sin of others. Aaron was indeed imperfect (cf. the Golden Calf narrative in Exodus 32), as were his sons (see above, e.g. Nadab and Abihu). This begs the question: Could there ever be forgiveness of sin by means of an innocent mediator as opposed to the guilty interceding on behalf of the guilty?

4) The Affliction of the People:
Is the self-affliction of the people related to the forgiveness of sin?

Christ in Yom Kippur.

This past summer, my family spent about seven weeks in Israel. Upon returning home, we were greeted by an enormous underground beehive in our front yard.This beehive grew to be extremely problematic because it was located about 10 feet from the front porch, meaning that we would have to pass many bees upon exiting the front door. I am as incompetent as anyone when it comes to problems with bees, so in my mind, I was sure I could eliminate the problem by killing the bees.

Our family and friends subsequently conducted a series of experiments with the intent of eliminating the bee problem. The experiments consisted of: spraying entire cans of bee spray on the bees, covering the bees with dirt, pouring water on the bees and even running over the bees with the lawnmower. To our dismay, the bees insisted upon endlessly occupying our front yard.

In reality, we were not addressing the source of the problem.

The reason the bees persisted in holding our family hostage was that their hive remained relatively unscathed. Despite our repeated attempts to resolve the matter by facilitating the demise of our unwanted neighbors, our solution to the problem was only representative of what needed to be accomplished. The problem continued to return after an hour, a day or a week. In order to obtain true liberation from the threat of the bees, something greater needed to happen. We needed to deal with the root of the issue—the underground beehive.

Correspondingly, atonement through the blood of animals could not truly eliminate humankind’s plight stemming from their sin. The high priests—impaired by the depravity of their own transgressions—were incapable of interceding in a manner worthy of absolute divine sanction. Thus, it was commanded that sacrifices be repeatedly carried out so that atonement could be made for sin, regardless of how much the people of Israel afflicted themselves.

These systemic inadequacies relating to Yom Kippur foreshadowed a day in which the shortcomings would be perfected—namely, through the person and the work of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus perfected the imperfections of Yom Kippur. This is an implicit message read through the pages of the New Testament.

However, Jesus is explicitly stated to be the culmination of the sacrificial system in Hebrews 7:26-27: “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.”

Jesus is the Perfect High Priest.

As we see in this passage from Hebrews, Jesus is “holy.” By His divine character, He is set apart for the service of God the Father. Jesus is “innocent.” He is without any deficiencies and completely blameless. Jesus is “unstained.” He is perfectly free from the character flaws and blemishes with which all of the previous high priests struggled as a result of their sin. Jesus is “separated from sinners.” He is completely disconnected from the sinful nature. Because of who He is and what He has done, Jesus is rightfully “exalted above the heavens.”

By virtue of these attributes and His exalted position, Jesus is the only Perfect High Priest who does not need “to offer sacrifices daily, first for His own sins and then for those of the people.” Jesus was not guilty of any sin as He offered a blood sacrifice for the remission (cancellation) of sin, thereby being the only one who ever lived who could serve as a perfect intermediator between God and humankind.

Jesus is the Perfect Sacrifice.

Notice that in Hebrews 7:27, Jesus functions in two roles:

1) Jesus is the Priest:
Jesus is the subject of the final phrase. He is the one that is carrying out the act of sacrificing. This is what Jesus did on the cross.

2) Jesus is the Sacrifice:
Jesus is the direct object of the final phrase of Hebrews 7:27. He is the one being sacrificed. This is what Jesus did on the cross. When Jesus was on the cross, He exclaimed, “It is finished” (John 19:30). These words indicated that the ultimate sacrifice had been offered. There was no longer a need for any other priest or sacrifice because Jesus, the Perfect Priest, perfectly offered Himself as the Perfect Sacrifice (Hebrews 10:1-4).

The Levitical high priest could only offer the blood of animals, which never truly removed sin, but rather, temporarily covered human sin. Our High Priest, Jesus, offered Himself as a blameless sacrifice on behalf of humanity, alone in the heavenly Holy of Holies, suffering an agonizing death, so that He could serve as an impeccable mediator between humankind and God. As a result of His actions, the veil of the Temple was torn (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45), giving all who are covered by His blood access to the Holy of Holies and, thereby, the presence of the Most High God.

Louis Goldberg summarizes: “…The Mediator of the New Covenant, in His ministry, did not have to confess His sin because there was no sin in Him. Jesus the Messiah, acting in the capacity of High Priest, was holy, innocent, undefiled; He did not have to offer sacrifices before He could minister for us, taking our place perfectly before the exalted and holy God. Jesus alone faultlessly bridges the infinite gap between God and man, and because of His death, He can give us His life.”¹

The events that were commanded by God on Yom Kippur were signs of even greater things. They were representative of what the perfect High Priest Jesus would do in the heavenly Holy of Holies, satisfying the wrath of God toward sin by taking it upon Himself, spilling His own blood, and suffering the death penalty on the cross. Our sin was transferred to Jesus, paid for by His blood, and completely taken away (Hebrews 9:11-14; cf. Leviticus 16:20-22).

Conclusion: Affliction vs. Familiarity

The old adage “familiarity breeds contempt” seems to be why God commanded the people to afflict themselves in Leviticus 16 in addition to the other sacrificial obligations of Yom Kippur. Consider this fact: The people of Israel actually had the presence of the living God dwelling among them in the Tabernacle, and subsequently, in the Temple (cf. 2 Chronicles 5:14). This is the type of experience that might have become humdrum, and consequently, the people could have become complacent in their worship. Nevertheless, when the Day of Atonement came around, and with it multiple sacrifices to atone for the sin of the community, the people were reminded of who they were before a perfect God. Seeing what God required to make atonement as a result of the gravity of their sin, the people’s self-affliction was to serve as an additional reminder for them not to sin against God.

Nevertheless, believers in Jesus have no contemporary mandate to afflict ourselves on any particular day. Now, it is by looking at Jesus and how He intentionally permitted Himself to be afflicted, that we are reminded of the gravity of our sin.

God is not vindictive toward humankind but rather has established a way in which people can come to Him, completely liberated of their sin. God is not resentful and angry at human beings but rather has always loved those whom He created in His image. Through the sacrifice of Jesus, God has created a way for us to recognize Him and love Him back. In this, God has demonstrated that He indeed has never wanted anyone to perish in their sin but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9; cf. 1 Timothy 2:3-4).

It is because of God’s love exhibited through Jesus that humankind is not currently called to afflict our soul. Rather, we experience the affliction of our souls by fixing our eyes on the cross of Jesus. We meditate on the affliction He underwent, suffering mental and physical anguish, and eventually being put to death so that we might live. Our soul cannot be any more afflicted than that of Jesus who willingly died for humanity, suffering the wrath of God for sin that He did not commit.

An inadequate understanding of the ancient Israelite sacrificial system necessarily leads to an incomplete understanding of Jesus’ work for humanity. Because of this, we treasure every single page of written correspondence we have received from God. All of Scripture is relevant, and there is no section of Scripture that deserves to be read with my fantasy fiction attitude.

Yom Kippur is not simply another important Jewish holiday that Christians witness from a distance. Yom Kippur is a day in which we are reminded what the blood of Jesus actually did—and thereby, what it means to humankind. Jesus’ blood provided absolute forgiveness of sin, so that by looking to Him as our great High Priest, and believing in Him as our perfect sacrifice, we have the privilege of entering into the Holy of Holies and communing with the Most High God.

¹ Louis Goldberg, Leviticus, p. 85

Editor’s Note: This article was previously published on September 15, 2021. This year (2023), the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tishrei runs from the evening of September 24 until sunset on September 25.

Biblical Law and My Contempt for Fantasy Literature

Watching, reading or listening to fantasy literature are insufferable experiences for me. I do not like The Lord of the Rings; I have a difficult time following The Chronicles of Narnia; Harry Potter is frustrating to me. It is safe to say that I simply do not appreciate, nor do I really see any value in, the fantasy genre.

I have tried to engage with this material—whether through obtaining the books, or mostly, by viewing the movie versions of these stories. I have repeatedly tried to watch The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. I fall asleep. I have all of The Chronicles of Narnia on my bookshelf. They have been there for years.

I cannot—for the life of me—get into these stories.

I’ve started to realize why I have a difficult time appreciating fantasy; I do not care for anything that I perceive as not immediately applicable to life. Once a child goes into a closet and enters another world, or an 11-year-old boy starts to ride on a broomstick, I completely lose focus. Since these types of things simply do not happen in reality, I find myself questioning why I would fiddle with watching/reading these stories.

I know, beloved reader, that you might be angling your mouse toward the corner of this page, ready to dismiss the rest of this article because of my criticism of a genre that so many Christians hold close to their hearts—But, I beg you not to leave!

My contempt for fantasy literature is an apt illustration of what I (a professor of Old Testament) perceives to be a prominent Evangelical view toward many sections of the Old Testament. This perspective is especially typical as it pertains to sections of the Hebrew Bible that relate to Biblical Law. Christians tend to approach reading sections of the Old Testament like I approach reading fantasy literature, determining that this text does not immediately apply to our lives and, therefore, questioning why we would waste our time reading it.

However, it is not cogent for Evangelicals to, on the one hand, claim to hold the verbal plenary inspiration view of Scripture while, on the other hand, undermine the significance of portions of Scripture we may perceive to be irrelevant to our lives.

Perhaps we need to change the way we look at Biblical Law. I would suggest that there is no Biblical book in which a change of paradigm is more necessary concerning application for the church than Leviticus.

Why Read Leviticus?

Why would we ever want to read the book of Leviticus? Well, the following is a non-comprehensive summary of one of the more important reasons.

Those who have read through the book of Leviticus cannot help but notice how much blood is mentioned or alluded to through sacrifice. This coincides with the book’s extensive emphasis on the sacrificial system that God gave through Moses to his brother Aaron (the first high priest), and thereby, to Ancient Israel. One of the main focuses of the book of Leviticus is how the priests were to intercede on behalf of the people of Israel by performing blood sacrifices for the remission of sin (Leviticus 4-7; cf. 17:11, 14). This sacrificial activity comes to a pinnacle on the High Holy day of Yom Kippur—The Day of Atonement (Hebrew: Yom “Day”, HaKippurim “The Atonement(s)” [literally “sin coverings”]).

But what can we as Christians learn from the Day of Atonement? Isn’t Yom Kippur exclusively a Jewish holiday?

Yes, Yom Kippur is a Jewish holiday. But rather than this fact reducing the significance of the Day of Atonement for Christians, it drastically increases the importance. One of the main reasons for this heightened significance is that all of the writers of the New Testament—except for Luke—were Jews. Because of this fact, the motifs of sacrifice, blood, priesthood, intercession and remission of sins (evident in the book of Leviticus, and especially on the Day of Atonement) are all conspicuously present in the New Testament.

When one studies the Biblical passages concerning Yom Kippur, it becomes evident that it is absolutely necessary to understand aspects of the book of Leviticus in order to grasp the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Jesus’ work on the cross was the climax of that which was depicted during the Yom Kippur High Holy Day. Comparing and contrasting Leviticus 16 with select passages from the New Testament demonstrates the ultimate and perfect culmination of Yom Kippur by Jesus the Messiah.

Yom Kippur among Jews Today

The 10th day of the Jewish month of Tishrei runs this year from the evening of September 29 until sunset on September 30 on our Gregorian calendar. Many Jewish people consider this the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, despite the fact that the consequences for dishonoring the Sabbath are more severe than the consequences for violating Yom Kippur (death [cf. Numbers 15:32-36] as compared to excommunication [cf. Leviticus 23:29]). Many Jewish people who are not normally religious, or even traditional, observe Yom Kippur. Jewish men don a yarmulke/kippa on their heads, wear white clothes to symbolize purity and spend much of their day praying in a local synagogue where there are five prayer services, confessing the sin of the Jewish community. During one of these Yom Kippur prayer services (the Minchah [“Offering”]), the book of Jonah is read to communicate the idea that humankind can turn back to God after having been disobedient.

Observant Jewish people refrain from enjoyable activities in honor of God’s command to afflict oneself on this day (cf. Leviticus 16:29, 31; 23:27, 32; Numbers 29:7). They fast for at least 25 hours (all boys age 13 and over, and girls age 12 and over), many even refraining from drinking water during this fast (cf. Isaiah 58:3, 5; Psalm 35:13). Jewish people refrain from sexual relations; they refrain from bathing or anointing their bodies (i.e. with lotions, creams, perfumes, etc.); they refrain from wearing leather shoes (something that was once considered a luxury), and they undergo a period of intense soul searching.

There are two main greetings that are common among Jewish people that observe Yom Kippur. Since Yom Kippur is a day in which people fast, Jewish people will say tzom qal (צום קל “light fast” [i.e. “may you have an easy fast”]) to each other in order to express their desire for their companions’ day of fasting to be as easy as possible for them.

The other greeting has a bit more of a spiritual ring. Because Yom Kippur is an occasion on which Jewish people pray for forgiveness, others in their community wish them well by stating “g’mar chatimah tovah” (גמר חתימה טובה) which, loosely translated, expresses the wish that one “be sealed in the book of life for good.”

After hearing all of this, you might be thinking, “Wow! Why do our Jewish friends intentionally put themselves through so much discomfort on this day?”

Surely, there is some Jewish interpretation as to how one is to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. Nevertheless, what is interesting is that God is the one who instilled the requirement for hardship on this day in Leviticus 16. The Israelite people were under a divine imperative to intentionally create physical and mental distress for themselves on Yom Kippur. This is the only day on the Jewish calendar in which people were/are commanded to afflict themselves.

Why would God ever command people to afflict themselves on the Day of Atonement? Where can Christ be seen in all of this? What can Christians gain from a better understanding of Yom Kippur?

In order to tackle these difficult questions brought about by God’s command for the Israelites to afflict themselves on Yom Kippur, we shall review the history regarding the emergence of the Day of Atonement, the reason it was observed, and why it was intended to be memorialized for subsequent generations. Enjoy the second part of this in-depth look at Yom Kippur in my next post!

What better time to reflect than on Thanksgiving God’s remarkable faithfulness. It is a reminder to all of us of how the Lord has been there for us from the beginning of Calvary Chapel in 1961. For those of us who were there in the very beginning, and there are only a few of us left, we need to share with the following generations of what GOD has done.

I wonder if the generations that have followed us realize what a rich heritage they have. Psalm 145:4 says, “One generation shall praise Your works to another, and shall declare Your mighty acts.”

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa began with a couple of mere 20-year-olds joining hands with about 10 seniors in a little trailer court recreation room on Newport Blvd. in Costa Mesa, CA. Little did we know that God had an amazing plan. We soon grew out of that small place and rented the Girls Club building in Costa Mesa. We thought “this is getting serious” as people wanted to donate money to pay the rent and buy hymnals. It was necessary that we incorporate as a non-profit organization…but it came to our attention that we didn’t have a name. Lois Nelson, the wife of the then leader Floyd Nelson, called my husband Hal and asked, “What would you think if we named our little church Calvary Chapel?” Hal immediately thought, “This sounds like a great name since we were a small group of about 25 and could never think of ourselves as being anything more.” So, Calvary Chapel it became!

As we invited family and friends to join us, we grew and had to find another place to meet. A gentleman in the group heard that a little church on Church Street in Costa Mesa was for sale… for over $24,000. That was an impossibility; we could barely pay our rent and small expenses. By this time, though, we did have a small savings account. The board was presented with the idea that with a $10,000 down payment we could purchase the little church. Miraculously, an elderly woman in our congregation said she would make up the difference between our savings and the necessary down payment. Within a few months, we were sitting in our own little church that seated a whopping 100 people; we filled barely half of it, but we were up and running with a Sunday school room, nursery and pastor’s office. But we needed a pastor for this little congregation.

The services were led with the help of professors from Southern Bible College and others for several years. Another miracle was about to take place when Pastor Chuck Smith agreed to speak on a Sunday morning. We then asked him to speak again; we loved the teaching we heard. We brazenly asked if he would consider being our pastor. It took a lot of nerve because we couldn’t begin to pay him as much as he was then receiving. Yet, we witnessed another miracle when Chuck said he was feeling led to come back to the area. The board then asked the congregation to vote, and they unanimously voted Chuck Smith to be our pastor.

Once again, through an act of God, our congregation grew until we outgrew our precious little chapel. Toward the end of 1965, a few hippie types attended our services, and another miracle was about to happen. They accepted Jesus into their lives and left their drugs and old lifestyle behind them and began telling others about Jesus. They came by the hundreds and then by the thousands…

This posed a difficulty. We had to sell the little chapel and rent a larger church, yet the miracles kept happening. Pastor Chuck made a low-ball offer on a school in Santa Ana; surprisingly, it was the only offer. The old school had to be torn down, and our new church on Sunflower and Greenville was built….and that was even too small. Cars filled the parking lot and parked up and down the streets. Costa Mesa police officers offered their off-duty time to help with the hundreds who came early to get in line, in order to find a place to sit or stand when Pastor Chuck began teaching. I saw a picture of Chuck with a pensive look on his face observing the congregation of people, young and old, crammed into the church, maybe what he was sensing and asking himself is, “What just happened?” He was simply teaching God’s Word, and we were all absorbing it like sponges.

Miracles were still on the horizon. We erected a huge circus type tent on the 20 acres that God miraculously made available to us, to accommodate the thousands of young and old alike. In retrospect, it was a roller coaster ride we could not have imagined, and it got the attention of the media. Out of those early years, young men rose up to pastor Calvary Chapels, and to this day, there are Calvary Chapels around the world.

Just as the church was built on the Apostles and the Prophets with the cornerstone Christ Jesus Himself (Ephesians 2:22,21), we at Calvary Chapel modeled that same foundation by the simple teaching of God’s Word. We have inherited a great legacy. From my memories of those early years, how can I not be so thankful this Thanksgiving? And how can I not share it with those generations that are following behind, with the encouragement that God is still doing the miraculous? We shouldn’t expect anything less. To God be the glory; great things He has done this Thanksgiving and beyond.

^{Originally published in 2020}

Remembering Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today.

Aaron Campbell, one of our Executive Team Leaders, has written an article titled, “Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Serving Christ.”

Here is a sermon by Dr. King titled:

“Loving Your Enemies”
Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church
Montgomery, Alabama, 17 November 1957.

“‘ You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust”
(Matthew 5:43-45, NKJV).

“‘Love your enemies.’ Now let me hasten to say that Jesus was very serious when he gave this command; he wasn’t playing. He realized that it’s hard to love your enemies. He realized that it’s difficult to love those persons who seek to defeat you, those persons who say evil things about you. He realized that it was painfully hard, pressingly hard. But he wasn’t playing. And we cannot dismiss this passage as just another example of Oriental hyperbole, just a sort of exaggeration to get over the point. This is a basic philosophy of all that we hear coming from the lips of our Master. Because Jesus wasn’t playing; because he was serious. We have the Christian and moral responsibility to seek to discover the meaning of these words, and to discover how we can live out this command, and why we should live by this command.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Read more of Dr. King’s sermon.

There are acts of unplanned kindness that break through the humdrum of daily existence and shine a new sense of light. Infused with grace, these unexpected gifts have the power to change the course of someone’s day or even become a life moment, an example for generations to come. One such event, described in a BBC documentary¹ by those who lived through it, had the power to potentially stop World War I on December 24, 1914.

The Western European propaganda promised both sides that the enemy would be defeated and the troops would be home before Christmas.

It was the end of the “Belle Époque,” a period of prosperity and insouciance. Europe was expanding, a patriotic fervor enflamed it’s citizens, all the while the divide between rich and poor increased. Pictures of the times leading up to the beginnings of hostilities show jovial youth in pristine uniforms with the glimmer of future conquest in their eyes. It would appear that a decisive rapid victory was inevitable—the media promoted it, the governments promised it, and the military high command assured it.²

The reality was quite different. On the Western Front, the German army marched through neutral Belgium and pushed within 70 miles of Paris. The Allied forces exploited a weak point in German lines and brought the battle back up to the Alsace and Lorraine area while a race to the sea drew a new battle line through Belgium. The fighting intensified as the two opposing armies dug down and made trenches that would last the duration of the war.

By December of 1914, the talk of a valiant instant victory was crushed under the news of a horrific death toll due to newer technologies. Testimonies of war crimes streaming from the civilians caught in war zones and villages disappearing under the rubble.³

The Pope attempted to call a cease-fire for the holidays, in hopes to appeal to the Christian heritage on both sides. Word circulated to the troops of the front but neither high command was willing to consider it.

The bitterness of war had already sunk into the heart of the entrenched enemies. Fighting continued to rage until the night of December 24.

Witnesses speak of a light snow fall that night. A profound desperation and chill from living knee deep in mud, fighting to keep their rations from rats as they were huddled to the ground when Christmas time arrived.

That’s when something extraordinary transpired that has never been repeated, at least not in the same way, nor on the same scale.

In the north by Ypres that night, the British soldiers listened as the shelling was replaced by a chorus of “O Tannenbaum” The unexpected beauty was remarkable enough for them to answer with “The First Noel,” and then the two opposing armies joined together singing, “O Come All Ye Faithful.”⁴

In France to the south, the French army hushed to sound of the Germans singing “Silent Night.” Not be out done, they joined in, each army singing in their respective languages.⁵ In some places the Great War raged on, but all over the Western Front, a spontaneous movement of peace was observed as the troops celebrated together the Savior’s birth, even if from the inside of their trenches.

None would have been surprised by a return to hostilities the next day. In fact, that was the case for many that Christmas Day. The high command on either side would not approve of the nights impromptu vigil. Yet, in a day without the instant communication technologies that would later help control armies, there was a little more leeway to be human.

That day the Germans put up small Christmas trees on their trenches. Surprised English soldiers took pictures that can be found today by a simple Google search. But the goodwill didn’t stop there.

Numerous witnesses speak of the unimaginable.

Germans stepping out of the trenches with white flags, meeting the enemy in the middle, in No Man’s Land. They didn’t come to fight. They shook the hands of the enemy. They arranged for the dead to be buried. They held Christmas services.

The fraternizing went further. Enemies spoke of families waiting back home, exchanged Cognac, Cigars, Chocolat and other delicacies. There were football matches documented by photographs sent home in many of the amazed soldiers letters. In some places the unofficial truce lasted until the New Year.⁶

When the authorities on both sides heard about the Christmas Truce, they were furious. The news reaching home was limited to the best of their abilities. The propaganda machines needed to turn and keep the public approval of the war effort. Photographs and letters were destroyed. A warning was issued to soldiers on both sides that further fraternization with the enemy would end in charges of treason. Both sides doubled efforts the following years to ensure that it never happened again.⁷

It stands to wonder what would have happened if the movement spread.

What if reason returned, and the peace of Christ incarnating into our world transformed into more than just a truce? Christmas is a time when many seek peace, but not everyone finds it. Statistics today speak of depression, suicide and overwhelming debt. But what if there could be peace? It’s enough to make me think of the conflicts within our movement and in our personal relationships. I wonder if the Gospel might not be applied to bring peace to our lives as we put down our arms, our comebacks, our pride, as we stop for a moment to remember the One who became a man to take away our sin. Our High Command, however, won’t ask us to pick up our guns the next day. I wonder if He might not even ask us to do more than agree to a Christmas Truce. Chances are, He’d call us to live in His peace.

^{Image above credited to Imperial War Museum.}

¹ Peace in No Man’s Land, BBC
² Apocalypse la 1ere Guerre mondiale, Furie
³ Verdun Memorial
⁴ The Smithsonian Magazine
⁵ Verdun Memorial
⁶ France 24
⁷ BBC iWonder

My grandfather hated mayonnaise. So when my dad and grandfather would get burgers after a hard day’s work in their Unicurve valve factory, the person taking the order always knew to hold the mayo. But as a Holocaust survivor, life wasn’t always this grandiose.

My grandfather, David Tibor Szloboda, was a man of many talents.

Originally a blacksmith from Eastern Europe, he became an inventor and held certifications in mechanical and chemical engineering. His most prized patent, the Unicurve valve, made a legendary entrance, boasting the ability to power a car on mere vapor! Hearing stories of my grandfather gave me a powerful zeal to understand my roots and where I came from…

My grandfather, David, was born in Hungary to humble beginnings. As a young Jewish blacksmith in Eastern Europe, he spent his early years learning the trade; long exhausting hours and measly pay was his reward. Those things didn’t matter; I was so fascinated by this man! I read pages of his patents. He published things like “the destructive distillation of garbage” and “a new method of energy: substitute for fossil and atomic.”¹ He spoke many different languages: Hebrew, German, Hungarian, English, to name a few in his arsenal. He had blonde hair, blue eyes and broad shoulders! Shoulders so broad that when Nazi Germany came rolling in, they thought he would be a great fit for their slave labor camp.

The Nazis had him watch as they brutally murdered his whole family.

Then they imprisoned him. Day after day, slaving away to survive, sometimes shoveling bodies of those who worked to death. They burned the bodies. There wasn’t enough time to bury them, nor did the Nazis care. He survived a year and a half of these atrocities. When it was over, he moved back to Hungary, then to Israel when it became a nation again, and finally, to Canada (so that my dad and aunt would not have to face the hardships of war).

“Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” Writer and philosopher, George Santayana, most likely wrote this quote.² In its original form, it read: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Though 75 years is only a relatively short amount of time, have we as a society already moved on and all-but-forgotten one of the world’s most execrable atrocities? Have we instead chosen as a people to turn a blind eye?

Far be it from the Christian who knows God’s Word! Did the apostle Paul not write to the church in Rome: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5). If by ignorance you are still not convinced that God has a plan for the Jews, Paul continues, “For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree” (Romans 11:24).

What would it be to allow ourselves to feel the weight of this burden, and at some level, take ownership of the past? It is all too easy to say, “God has this handled. If He wanted to change the outcome, He would have changed it,” or like Pontius Pilate, “wash our hands of the situation.”³ I believe God has chosen to use the mechanism known as the Church in His divine mission to renew all things.⁴ It is to this end that God will cause change.

We were wrong. We failed.

Where were we as the Church? Why wasn’t every Christian involved in the prevention of the Holocaust? Why wasn’t every Christian involved in saving Jews from impending death?⁵ These failures started early on in our history. We allowed for our theology to become so vile that we said, “God has replaced Israel with the Church,” in a heinous viewpoint known as replacement theology.⁶ This view was prominent amongst one of our great reformers, Martin Luther. Near the end of his life, he had such a disdain for the Jew that he wrote, “Jews are a serpent’s brood, and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them.”⁷ I believe the church allowed the magnitude of how God used Martin Luther to completely eclipse his sinful, increasingly anti-Semitic doctrines. Such anti-Semitic theology is completely unacceptable. But we allowed this to happen. And regardless of how much good was done, without condemning this view as the Church, and by remaining silent about this man’s actions, we partake in the great failure.

Never forget.

When we submit our weakness and failure to the Lord, we are able to usher in His strength. Consider the Apostle Paul when dealing with the thorn in his side.

“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). Pastor David Guzik said it best:

“Think about this man Paul. Was he a weak or strong man? The man who traveled the ancient world spreading the gospel of Jesus despite the fiercest persecutions, who endured shipwrecks and imprisonment, who preached to kings and slaves, who established strong churches and trained up their leaders was not a weak man. In light of his life and accomplishments, we would say that Paul was a very strong man. But he was only strong because he knew his weaknesses and looked outside himself for the strength of God’s grace. If we want lives of such strength, we also must understand and admit our weakness and look to God alone for the grace that will strengthen us for any task.”⁸

Our weakness reminds us that we are not ultimately in control. Our weakness reminds us that our own strength fails. Our weakness reminds us of how powerful our God is.

What will be the next great challenge for the Church to overcome? What great evil will arise that will need to be opposed or addressed? World War III? Death by refugee encampment? The seemingly endless abortions? Will we find in our weakness the strength of the Lord to do the unthinkable; to reach the unlovable and play our role in God’s plan to renew all things?

My grandfather hated mayonnaise. He hated it because the scent reminded him of the odor of burning Jews in the Holocaust. The smell was a constant reminder of atrocities that he could never forget. He was not allowed to forget. We are not allowed to forget. Never forget our great failure of allowing the tragedies of the Holocaust.

Oh, that we would remember the painful past long enough to eradicate its atrocities for a flourishing future!

_Notes:

_{¹ Szloboda, David T. “Patent Search.” Espacenet. Accessed January 29, 2020.
² Clairmont, Nicholas. “‘Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.’ Really?” Big Think. Big Think, July 31, 2013.
³ “Matthew 27.” ESV Bible. Accessed January 29, 2020.
⁴ Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 62.
⁵ While there were some prominent Christians who took action, the majority of the Church remained silent
⁶ GotQuestions.org. “What Is Replacement Theology / Supersessionism?” GotQuestions.org, January 15, 2010.
⁷ Howard, Bernard N. “Luther’s Jewish Problem.” The Gospel Coalition, October 19, 2017.
⁸ “2 Corinthians Chapter 12.” Enduring Word, May 9, 2019.}

When my wife and I set off to serve at Calvary Chapel Nice back in May 1997, we carried most of what we owned in a few overstuffed suitcases halfway across the world. Those were the glory days of lenient baggage allowances and quick access to departure gates. In one of our suitcases, too heavy to lug up a staircase by myself, was a book I still keep and flip through from time to time—The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel. Its premise, Did God have a plan for America?, is still of great interest, but what feeds my soul over the years is the historical accounts of hope, suffering and the first Thanksgiving.

In their account of the first Thanksgiving, Marshall and Manuel wrote that the Pilgrims wanted to celebrate all God had done for them and invite their native hosts to a feast in honor of the Great Provider. “Massasoit¹ was invited and unexpectedly arrived a day early—with ninety…counting their numbers, the Pilgrim’s had to pray hard from giving in to despair.”²

We can only imagine the anxiousness they felt as this army of unexpected guests entered their settlement. Hospitality is a blessed exercise of grace because as we plan to reach out, we may find ourselves completely overwhelmed by the need (John 6:5). But that’s when the Lord provides beyond what we think we need in those special moments of our faith being tested. God used the Natives to feed their English hosts. “Massasoit had commanded the braves to hunt for the occasion. They arrived with no less than five dressed deer and more than a dozen fat wild turkeys!” Experiencing this kind of miraculous provision changes a soul. It brings us to prayer and deep thankfulness as it did for the New England Colony.

“Surely one moment stood out in the Pilgrim’s memory—William Brewster’s prayer as they began the festival. They had so much for which to thank God: for providing all their needs, even when their faith had not been up to believing that He would do so; for the lives of the departed and for taking them home to be with Him.”³

The first year was a calamitous one. Many dear friends perished before they arrived in the New World. The year that followed produced more hardships than anticipated, dwindling the number of survivors every month. If they were to welcome even five more guests than planned to their Thanksgiving feast, it would have been a step of faith. Yet God gave them the grace to rejoice and experience His love in a new way.

I remember our first Thanksgiving in a foreign land, our generous hosts in Nice and the overwhelming gratefulness for all the Lord had brought us through. It was an evening that overcame the feeling of uncertainty we carried in facing a new year. Yet in our lives, we’ve seen time and time again how faithful the Lord is. It reminds me of another story just one year later as the new colony in Plymouth survived another year in the New World and called for a second feast of Thanksgiving. This time, they began a little differently, a solemn moment of remembrance as set before each one was “an empty plate in front of each person were five kernels of corn.”⁴ Remembering the penury they endured and the divine deliverance they experienced led them into a more profound celebration.

It’s technically not necessary to experience hardship to be thankful.

God tells us to give thanks (Psalm 50:14; Ephesians 5:20), and we know that He through His Spirit gives us what we need to obey (Philippians 2:13). Still, some people seem to be naturally inclined to thankfulness and yet others, swimming in blessing, only see the negative. How does this work? This is a question of the heart. One can experience the goodness of God, know He will provide based on all they have experienced and read, but still, through sin or doubt, give in to a grumbling spirit. This happened to the children of Israel in the desert (Numbers 17:6-14) and is part of the temptations that are common to all (1 Corinthians 10:13).

We would hope the Pilgrims would have kept the unity of the Spirit and continued in thankfulness as God increased their provision. Oddly enough, by November of their second year in Plymouth, a controversy had so divided the unity that had once given birth to our Thanksgiving Holiday, that Robert Cushman found it necessary to preach on the “Sin and Danger of Self-love.”⁵ Oh, the pastoral love and daring of the Puritans! What a good reminder of our humanity and constant need of grace, which leads to true gratefulness.

Over 20 years have passed since my wife and I celebrated our first Thanksgiving on the Old Continent, and it’s one of my family’s favorites. Not just my immediate family, but our church family asks us every year if we can do it again. We can’t all meet on Thursday; most people work until 7 or 8 pm and it’s not a day one can ask off from work. Our tradition is a church meal after service. We clean our meeting hall and dress a huge table in the middle. Everyone brings something. It doesn’t look like your traditional American Thanksgiving meal because people come from all over the globe and bring food from their countries. But all who come thank God for His Providence.

We begin with a passage of Scripture, a short devotional message and sometimes take communion. Then we eat together, laugh and spend a moment publicly thanking the Lord for all He’s done. Around the table are people from every social class. There have been years when the homeless have come to celebrate with us. Generally, we have someone from every continent or at least from places I didn’t know existed before I moved to France. We sit and eat as a family, united in our Savior’s grace, and for a moment we share in the communion of the thankful. Over the years, I’ve learned that many churches all over France do this too. It’s not a new tradition, but it’s bringing together something the born again French love most: good food and fellowship to the glory of God.

Psalm 136:1 says:

“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.” There is no better way to spend this Thanksgiving, or for that matter, the rest of the year, than to allow this Word to fill our hearts and lead our minds to remember all the good the Lord has done for us.

Notes:

_{¹ The Pauquunaukit Wampanoag leader who sought an alliance with the colonies of New England and was able to maintain peace throughout his lifetime.
² Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory, Fleming Revel publications, 1977. 137-144.
³ Idem.
⁴ Idem.
⁵ Idem}.

Because scholars do not possess the original writings of the New Testament (known as autographs),¹ we must ask: How accurate are the manuscript copies (apographs)? For if the copies do not reflect the original writings of Scripture, we would have no idea what the original texts said. Because there were no copy machines available in ancient times, the tedious transmission process had to be accomplished by the scribe’s own hand. Hence, copies we recalled “manual-scripts” or manuscripts.

As modern scholars conduct a careful analysis of the manuscript copies, it is obvious that the New Testament text contains minor scribal “mistakes.” This has led some to erroneously assume the Bible is not inspired or inerrant in all that it states, claims, teaches and implies. This false assumption emerges from the notion that all New Testament copies produced through the centuries must be exact replicas of the original text. That is to say, with regard to the time when the New Testament was originally written until the time the printing press was invented, some have demanded that the scribes copy the text 100 percent accurately, or it cannot be considered inspired or inerrant. They conclude that because the scribes fell short of perfect transmission, an inspired and inerrant Bible is impossible. However, there are several reasons Christians believe the New Testament manuscripts were copied accurately (despite minor scribal mistakes) and why it can still be considered the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

To understand this issue better, we should familiarize ourselves with the process Bible scholars undertake in their effort to reconstruct the original text. Scholars diligently work like forensic scientists analyzing a crime scene, carefully examining the evidence left behind so they can reconstruct what originally happened. Similarly, by evaluating and comparing the textual evidence (known as textual criticism), scholars can then work backward to establish what was originally written. Our English Bible is the culmination of this textual investigation.

Examining the Textual Evidence

There are three main areas of textual evidence to consider when answering the question of whether the New Testament manuscripts were copied accurately: (1) the number of Greek manuscripts, (2) the dating of the manuscripts, and (3) the textual accuracy of the manuscript copies.

The Number of Greek Manuscripts

The New Testament possesses the greatest number of manuscripts of any book from the ancient world (prior to AD 350). To better understand the scope of the numbers involved, as of 2017, the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, located at the University of Munster in Germany, currently lists the official number at 5,856 partial and complete manuscript copies written in the Greek language.² These include handwritten copies of the New Testament papyri, parchment and lectionaries. If we add to this number more than 18,000 New Testament manuscripts written in other languages (translations) besides Greek, the overall count swells to nearly 24,000 New Testament manuscripts! Because the versions are in a different language from the original Greek, they are not as valuable as the Greek manuscripts in reconstructing the text. However, they are still important witnesses to the text’s reliability and transmission.

We can appreciate the robust number of New Testament manuscripts by comparing it with the number of manuscripts available for other works from the ancient world. For example, the second-most-supported work behind the New Testament is Homer’s well-known poem Iliad, with more than 1,900 manuscripts.³ Ancient literature was rarely translated into another language—with the New Testament being an important exception. From the very beginning, Christian missionaries, in their attempts to spread the gospel, translated the New Testament into the various languages of the people they encountered. These translations, some made as early as the middle of the second century, give us an important witness to the text of that time.

The greater number of manuscripts available gives scholars added confidence when it comes to reconstructing the original New Testament text, for it offers a textual “checks and balances” when comparing and contrasting the various manuscripts. For example, if one manuscript is missing a passage of Scripture, a scholar needs only to consult the numerous other copies. Alternatively, if any ancient work were to come down to us in only one copy, there would be nothing with which to compare that copy. In such a case, there would be no way of knowing whether the scribe was incompetent, for the text could not be checked against another copy.

Additional witnesses to the accuracy of the New Testament text, which are among the Greek manuscripts, are the lectionaries. The church followed the custom of the Jewish synagogue, which had a fixed portion of the law and the prophets read each Sabbath. In the same manner, Christians developed the practice of reading a fixed portion of the gospels and the New Testament letters every Sunday (and on holy days). These fixed portions are known as lectionaries. Surviving fragments of lectionaries come from as early as the sixth century AD, while complete manuscripts are dated from as early as the eighth century. Interestingly, the more than 2,400 copies of lectionaries that still exist reveal greater care in their transmission than other biblical manuscripts.

Because we possess so many manuscripts, scholars can have confidence the original biblical text has been well preserved. Consequently, translators never have to rely on blind guesses when determining what the text originally said. The text has come down to us in an accurate manner, with nothing lost in its transmission.

The Early Manuscript Dates

The amount of time that has passed between the original manuscripts and the earliest copies available is a crucial element of determining the accuracy of transmission. The time span between the date the work was originally completed and the earliest existing copy available to us is significant. Usually, the shorter the time span, the more dependable the copy. The longer the interval between the original and the copy, the more room there is for errors, embellishments, and distortions to creep in as the text is copied and recopied.

Fortunately, this time span for the New Testament manuscripts is relatively short, with the earliest manuscript copies currently ranging from 30-300 years from the original texts. In our modern culture, 30-300 years seems like a long time, but for historians of ancient literature, it is like yesterday!

The earliest New Testament manuscript fragment we possess today is the John Rylands Fragment (also called P52) contains a small portion of John 18. Most scholars date the fragment anywhere from AD 117–135, which, at its earliest, is only about 30 years removed from the original writing of the Gospel of John. The entire New Testament text is accounted for in manuscript form within 300 years of the original writing (cf. Chester Beatty Collection, Bodmer Collection, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).

Christians can truly appreciate the excellent position the New Testament occupies regarding the early dates. For the best writings of the ancient Greeks—such as Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Homer—the time span between the original writings and the earliest copies is often more than 1,000 years. In most cases, only 5 to 20 manuscripts support these ancient non-Christian works. In the case of Homer’s Iliad, the time span is about 400 years, and, as mentioned earlier, is supported by nearly 2,000 manuscripts.

A comparison with other literary works from the ancient world reveals a growing number of New Testament documents and their early dates, as well as the increasing number of manuscripts from the ancient world.

Biblical Manuscripts Compared to Selected Ancient Sources⁴

John Warwick Montgomery comments on the strong bibliographical standing the New Testament enjoys when he says, “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of the classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”⁵

Another early witness to the accuracy of the New Testament text comes from the prolific writings (of more than one million quotations of Scripture) of the early church fathers. For example, seven letters have survived that were written by Ignatius (AD 70–110), and nearly every book of the Bible (except 2 John and Jude) was quoted by AD 110 by only three church fathers—Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp. In those seven letters, Ignatius quoted from 18 different books of the New Testament. Every time he cited Scripture we can observe the Greek text he was using. Consequently, the early fathers provide us with an excellent early witness to the text. For this reason, their prolific writings remain an important witness to the New Testament.

The number of quotations from the church fathers is so overwhelming that if every other source for the New Testament (Greek manuscripts and versions) were destroyed, the vast majority of the New Testament text could be reconstructed! Because of this, any impartial person cannot help but be impressed with their abundant testimony. To dismiss these areas of support would be self-defeating, for it would mean that every extrabiblical ancient work considered “reliable” by secular scholars—all of which are based on lesser evidence—would need to be brought into question.

Accurate Transmission and Variant Readings

When a manuscript(s) differs in wording from the base text, the result is known as a “variant reading.” Because of the innumerable times, the New Testament has been copied over the last 2,000 years, these variants have crept into the text. Some scholars estimate that 400,000 or more of these variants (errors) exist in the New Testament text. However, using the word error to describe these deviations from the original text can give the wrong idea and is often misleading. Technically speaking, any deviation from the base accepted text is an error, but the kinds of “errors” represented in the New Testament text are not errors of historical, geographical, spiritual, or scientific fact. Instead, they are rather trivial. Therefore, the term “variant(s)” has been employed by scholars to avoid this confusion, since misspellings, omissions, differing word orders, updated words (substitution), and additions are much different in nature than errors of fact that would threaten biblical inerrancy or the truth value of the message.

There is no doubt that the scribes who copied the texts introduced changes. These scribal changes can be broken down into two basic types: unintentional and intentional. The greatest numbers of variant readings found in the New Testament manuscripts are unintentional variants. They could creep into the text through fatigue or through faulty sight, hearing, writing, memory, or judgment on the part of the scribe. Despite these variants, Daniel Wallace of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts writes, “It is quite true that (virtually) no viable variants are major threats to inerrancy…”⁶

Other variations came about intentionally, as New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee notes.

These comprise a significant, although a much less numerous, group of errors than the unintentional changes. They derive for the most part from attempts by scribes to improve the text in various ways. Few indeed are the evidences that heretical or destructive variants have been deliberately introduced into the mss [manuscripts].⁷

Thus, the intentional variations, for the most part, were the work of scribes attempting to make the text more readable, not change the meaning. This is the important difference between updating the text (editing) and altering its meaning (redaction). The late Princetonian scholar and renown authority on New Testament textual criticism Bruce Metzger expands upon the intentional variations. He writes.

Other divergences in wording arose from deliberate attempts to smooth out grammatical or stylistic harshness or to eliminate real or imagined obscurities of meaning in the text. Sometimes a copyist would add what seemed to him to be a more appropriate word or form, perhaps derived from a parallel passage.⁸

The charge that is often made, without qualification—especially by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman—is that copyists radically changed the substance of the text. Again, the facts speak otherwise, as Michael Holmes explains: “Occasionally the text was altered for doctrinal reasons. Orthodox and heretics alike leveled this charge against their opponents, though the surviving evidence suggests the charge was more frequent than the reality.”⁹ The amount of intentional variation to the text was minimal. The text was carefully copied, and discerning Christians, who were dispersed throughout the entire Roman Empire, would have made it difficult for malicious changes to be introduced. There is simply no evidence of widespread altering of the text for doctrinal reasons. Furthermore, the variant readings, whether intentional or unintentional, exist in only a very limited portion of the New Testament.

Two of the greatest textual scholars who ever lived, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, had this to say concerning the amount of variation in the New Testament manuscripts: “If comparative trivialities, such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of an article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”¹⁰

B.B. Warfield made a similar assertion when he wrote, “[The New Testament] has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, ‘The real text of the sacred writers is competently exact.’”¹¹ Textual criticism experts Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont note the following situation in which we find the text of the New Testament:

For over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which text type might be favored by any critic. This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. Note…that most of the variant readings found in manuscripts of other text types are trivial or untranslatable. Only about 400-600 variant readings seriously affect the translational sense of any passage in the entire New Testament.¹²

Therefore, when all the variants of the New Testament are considered, we are dealing with only 400 to 600 variants that have any effect on the translation of the text.

What is more, church historian Phillip Schaff estimated that of the 400 variants that have affected the sense of the passages in the New Testament, only 50 of these are important.¹³ Facts like this led textual scholars Kurt and Barbara Aland to make the following observation concerning the text of the New Testament:

On the whole, it must be admitted that…New Testament specialists…not to mention laypersons, tend to be fascinated by differences and to forget how many of them are due to chance or normal scribal tendencies, and how rarely significant variants occur—yielding to the common danger of failing to see the forest for the trees.¹⁴

Whatever manuscript tradition we use as the basis for a given translation, the outcome will be substantially the same because the text is basically the same. Whether one prefers to use the Byzantine text-type, which is found in the greatest number of manuscripts, or the Alexandrian text-type, which has fewer but older manuscripts, the final result will be more or less the same. They all tell the same story! That is to say, the words (verba) may vary slightly, but the voice or meaning (vox) is the same. For example, consider the following illustration that describes the relationship between variant words and meaning:

1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS

2. THOU HAST WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS [Notice the King James bias here]

3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000 [Notice the Southern bias here]

Observe that of the 28 letters in line two, only five of them [in bold] are the same in line three. That is, about 19 percent of the letters are the same. Yet, despite the bias, the message is 100 percent identical! The lines are different in form but not in content. Likewise, even with the many differences in the New Testament variants, 100 percent of the message comes through.¹⁵

This is a powerful illustration of why we can acknowledge that our manuscript copies contain variants and yet, at the same time, we can state with confidence that the Bible is inerrant. In other words, the words may change slightly, but the meaning is still the same. The voice of God is heard loud and clear in the text! This is seen in the Gospel of Matthew, where the author cited and made allusions to the Old Testament more than 100 times. Even in places where loose paraphrases were used, we can still recognize those allusions as Scripture.

Despite these variants, scholars have recognized the great accuracy with which the New Testament manuscripts were copied. Metzger claimed that the Hindu Mahabharata was copied at about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Iliad at about 95 percent accuracy.¹⁶ As noted in the illustration above, if 90-95 percent accuracy is achieved in the transmission process, it would be more than enough to communicate 100 percent of the original meaning of the text. Other notable Bible scholars, such as Ezra Abbot, figured the copies of the New Testament manuscripts are 99.75 percent accurate.¹⁷ Westcott and Hort calculated the New Testament’s accuracy at 98.33 percent by asserting that only one-sixteenth of variants rise above the level of trivialities.¹⁸ Greek scholar A.T. Robertson places the transmission rate at 99.9 percent accurate, believing only a thousandth part of the New Testament text was of any real concern.¹⁹ Even New Testament critic Ehrman, writes, in his Misquoting Jesus, “Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology.”²⁰

Confidence in the Research Results

Based on the various kinds of evidence, it is clear that great care was taken to accurately copy the Greek manuscripts. Thus, we can be confident that the text of the New Testament, as it stands today, is essentially the same text that was originally written by the authors of Scripture. Without any doubt, the quantity of New Testament manuscripts, the dates from the original manuscripts to the earliest copies available, and quality of the copies of the New Testament manuscripts all serve as undeniable and powerful witnesses to the accurate preservation of God’s inspired and inerrant Word.

Notes:

_{¹ This article first appeared in Joseph M. Holden, gen. ed., The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2019), 191-198.}

_{² See the tally by The Institute for New Testament Textual Research and to keep updated on the ever-growing tally see the searchable database.}

_{³ See Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (Munchen, Germany: K.G. Saur Verlag, 2001), 86ff, and the more recent work by Graeme D. Bird, Multitextuality in the Homeric Iliad: The Witness of the Ptolemiac Papyri (Washington DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2010).}

_{⁴ Josh McDowell and Clay Jones, “The Bibliographical Test Updated (2014)” in Christian Research Journal.}

_{⁵ John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), 29.}

_{⁶ Daniel B. Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation” accessed on July 27, 2017.}

_{⁷ J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 66.}

_{⁸ Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (German Bible Society, 1994), 3-4.}

_{⁹ David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds., New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1991), 103.}

_{¹⁰ B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan, 1957), 565.}

_{¹¹ Benjamin B. Warfield, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, seventh edition (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), 14.}

_{¹² Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine/Majority Text Form (Atlanta, GA: Original Word Publications, 1991), xvi -xvii.}

_{¹³ Phillip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, (New York, NY: Publisher Not Known, 1877), 177.}

_{¹⁴ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 28.}

_{¹⁵ Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries that Confirm the Reliability of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2013), 128.}

_{¹⁶ Bruce Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 146.}

_{¹⁷ B.B. Warfield, An Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886), 13-14.}

_{¹⁸ Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, and W.J. Hickie, The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: Macmillan Co., 1951), 2.2.}

_{¹⁹ A.T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925), 22.}

_{²⁰ Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York, NY: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 55.}

***

^{Don Stewart, MA is an internationally recognized Christian apologist and speaker. He graduated cum laude from Talbot Theological Seminary and the International Seminar in Theology and Law in Strasbourg, France, as well as from Biola University. Don is also a best-selling and award-winning author/co-author of over seventy books. His various writings have been translated into over thirty different languages and have sold over a million copies. Don has traveled around the world proclaiming and staunchly defending the Christian faith. He currently hosts Pastor’s Perspective on KWVE 107.9 FM Radio.}

At 6:50 pm CET on April 15, the roof of Notre Dame de Paris caught on fire.

The cathedral was quickly evacuated while over 400 firefighters were mobilized on the ground. Within the first hour, the main spire (symbol of God’s grace) succumbed to the flames as did the 1,000-year-old beams framing the roof. Unable to use helicopters or airplanes for fear of destroying the structure, firefighters worked all through the night to save the structures, the bell towers and what treasures they could. As I write this, the fire was just officially put out, nearly 16 hours after it began.

At this present writing, there are no casualties, and an active investigation has begun.

The cathedral was under scaffolding as renovation work was underway, but all the workers had finished their day at 5:30 pm, over an hour before the fire began. The reactions on social media were almost immediate, including former French president François Holland and American President Donald Trump. There have been many words, hopeful, political, conflictual and some desperate. My favorite so far has come from the professional footballer from the Paris Saint-Germain team Neymar tweeted Pray for France¹

Though there are tragedies all over the globe right now, some more wretched and costly in human lives, it’s not easy to know how to respond. This tragedy has shaken the faith of many, even in the first hours, we heard even the news anchors asking deep questions on air. The first step for me personally was wrapping my head around it. This really happened. Our church meets in a rented room a stone throw from the cathedral. I saw it so often it became a part of the background as I was more concentrated on traffic, but then there were those moments, often in a traffic jam, I would look up and be amazed all over again by the majesty of the building. We’ve done outreach there; I’ve given historical tours there, brought family and friends while never tiring of the architecture, wood panels that pictured the Gospel story or the stained glass windows. The arch-bishop of Paris, Monseigneur Michel Aupetit, consoled the French people, reminding them that the soul of France has not been touched and this place will continue to be one of faith.² As I write, there are plans in motion to rebuild the cathedral.

All this being said, how should we as protestants react?

I believe our first response should be compassion. Though we do not follow decrees of the Vatican, we can express our solidarity in our commune heritage. Notre Dame de Paris was built over the years 1163-1345. At that time, there were no Protestants; it was just the church. Though the cathedral was dedicated to the Virgin Mary by Monseigneur Maurice de Sully, ³ the interior contained art that clearly depicted the Gospel story; the outside was decorated in a reminder of the Kings of Judah and the Judgement of Christ. Though we are stunned by the physical loss of a historical monument, we know that our faith is not based on such things.

“As you come to Him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5).

I believe our next reaction after the shock has passed, is to pray. Neymar was right. For our Catholic friends all over the world, this is devastating, especially during Holy Week. We can be a comfort; we can pray, pray for them. We can remind them that in a few days we will both celebrate the day Jesus rose from the dead. Therein lies a greater hope, one that can never be shaken, burned or destroyed by anything on this earth or in any spiritual realm because Jesus is Lord of all. It’s with this in mind, that I would invite you to pray for France, pray for your Catholic neighbors, and be ready to offer a word of consolation and hope in our Risen Lord.

Notes:

¹ Neymar Jr. Twitter

² “L’archevêque de Paris Monseigneur Michel Aupetit affirme que ‘Notre-Dame de Paris a failli s’effondrer'”

³ “Avant l’actuelle Cathédrale Notre-Dame”

At the end of one of the episodes of the TV miniseries, Band of Brothers, as Easy Company was marching into the Ardennes Forest, for what turned out to be “The Battle of the Bulge,” the soldiers passing warned Easy that they were about to be surrounded by the enemy. Easy Company’s CO, Captain Winters, replied, “We’re Airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded.”

The next month in the dead of winter was a grueling test of endurance as American troops went without winter clothing, subsistence rations, limited ammunition and constant shelling that decimated their ranks. No one who endured the month-long siege came out unscathed, physically and emotionally.

I recently remembered Captain Winters’ comment while listening to a news commentary podcast lamenting Christianity’s expulsion from the public square.

Christians are supposed to be surrounded. Jesus said as much.

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

“In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

For the first three centuries of its existence, the Church faced persecution, yet thrived. During the Middle Ages, the Church emerged from the catacombs to rise in prestige till it became a kingmaker, commanding armies and vast wealth. It also became horribly corrupt.

Yes, there were seasons and places where the Church maintained a modicum of faithfulness. But by and large, when Christianity is the favored worldview of the society it finds itself in, accommodation and compromise tends to blunt its edge as an advocate for the Gospel. Church leaders play politics and vie for power. Local congregations compete with each other rather than work together for the good of the Kingdom. When culture is hostile to the Faith, churches have to pull together to survive.

It’s no secret contemporary American and European society has shifted from a historical Christian worldview to a thorough-going secular worldview, increasingly hostile to Christianity.

While it’s easy to lament this turn and the harmful results we’re already seeing, followers of Jesus must remember this is where the Church started, in a hostile culture that hated it. In the end, hate always bows to love.

Roses are red. Violets are blue.
Stuff about Valentine,
We wish we knew.

All we can say for sure is that there was indeed a pastor named Valentine who became a martyr around AD 270. Beyond that, it’s legend and conjecture. But where facts are thin, people feel free to provide their own. That seems to be the case with Valentine and the day associated with him.

The Legend

The legend connected with Valentine casts him as a champion of marriage at a time when it was banned. Though there’s little evidence to support it, it’s claimed the Roman Emperor Claudius needed to boost enrollment in the legions to reinforce Rome’s hegemony in the North and East. When enlistment lagged, Claudius banned marriage, blaming young Italian men’s desire for a wife and family as competition to a military career. Bishop Valentine ignored the ban and agreed to marry couples who came to him secretly.

Discovered and arrested, Valentine appeared before the Emperor himself. Claudius was impressed with Valentine’s courage and learning, and tried to convert him to Paganism. Valentine returned the favor, attempting to convert Claudius to Christianity. That was a little too much for Claudius to bear. Defying the Emperor on principle in support of an ancient and respected tradition like marriage was one thing. Telling him his religion was wrong and that he ought to convert to what Romans considered a novelty was altogether different. Valentine was sentenced to death.

While in prison awaiting execution, so the legend goes, the elderly bishop befriended the jailor’s blind daughter. Though it lasted just a few days, their friendship was genuine and a source of great joy to the daughter. When Valentine prayed for her, her blindness was cured. That led to the conversion of the jailor and his entire household.

The last night in his cell, Valentine composed a letter of encouragement to the daughter, urging her to continue in the faith. He signed it, “Your Valentine.” The next day, February 14, he was led from his cell to the executioner’s block along the Flaminian Way and beheaded. He was buried nearby.

As typical for some martyrs, his tomb became a shrine, the day of his martyrdom became a memorial, Saint Valentine’s Day.

Martyrs were heroes to the Church of the early centuries. When being a Christian was risky, the stalwart faith of those who refused to renounce Christ at peril of death became a comfort to the pressed and an example to aspire to. If their lives, prior to execution, maybe hadn’t been all that exciting, their story was embellished to make it more compelling.

There was indeed a Bishop Valentine executed around AD 270. Why? Well, beyond the fact he was a pastor who refused to renounce Christ, we don’t know. The story of his interview with Claudius and his friendship with the jailor’s daughter may be true. They were attributed to him as early as a couple hundred years after his death.

How Valentine became associated with romantic love seems to date to the late 5th Century when Pope Gelasius co-opted a fading Roman fashion known as Lupercalia, the pagan festival of love which was held near St. Valentine’s Day. Part of the Lupercalia celebrations included young women putting their names in a box. Young men would then draw out a name and the young couple would pair off for a time of amorous attention. The Church rightly frowned on such youthful indulgence and sought to curb Lupercalia’s immorality by replacing it with a more wholesome expression of romantic love via love letters and thoughtful gifts.

Then along came greeting card companies, and the rest is history.

What to Learn

Pope Gelasius’ replacing a pagan festival with a more wholesome celebration was a frequent practice of the post-apostolic Imperial Church. Substituting themes consistent with the Gospel for pagan practices was a way for the Church to communicate with the culture in which it found itself. The idea was, “Why omit these special days people enjoy from the calendar? Their lives are already hard enough. The holidays allow a little joy into an otherwise grinding existence. Why not turn those days instead to communicate the goodness and grace of God?”

Many Christians today are concerned when they discover the pagan origins of some of their annual holidays. They worry about dishonoring God if they observe something that began so far from God. It may help to realize the Church intentionally turned the old days into new days. They saw something like St. Valentine’s Day replacing Lupercalia as the triumph of the Gospel over Paganism, the victory of light over darkness.

In the current social context made fragile by growing tension between men and women, with all the talk about “toxic masculinity” and the #metoo movement, a Biblical view of love and romance is desperately needed. Rather than casting off St. Valentine’s Day as a silly day rooted in immoral paganism, we can use it for the purpose it was first set apart – to cherish the beauty and power of romantic love – realized most perfectly in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Where did the Pope come from? How did he become so important? These are questions many people ask today. While the history of the Papacy in Rome is long and complex, as with most things it did not start out that way.

In a previous article we saw that, as society transformed under Emperor Constantine and his successors, the Church, led by its bishops, became a prominent social and religious institution throughout the Roman Empire. Over the next two centuries, circumstances developed that would give the Church political influence as well.

This is seen most clearly in the evolution of the office of the Bishop of Rome.

Although some of Rome’s political influence diminished when Constantine moved the center of the Empire to Constantinople, the Eternal City never fully lost its religious force. Rome was always held in high esteem among the churches due to its size, resources and good works; so since Rome’s church was important, Rome’s Bishop naturally held a prominent role among church leaders. In fact, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, this role began to expand.

At the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., Emperor Theodosius boldly pronounced Constantinople the seat of religious as well as political authority. Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, protested that church influence should not be based on political influence; just because the city of Constantinople now held political preeminence, it did not mean that its Church should have equal power by default.

Rather, Damasus argued a supposedly more “spiritual” premise to determine church primacy—the “Petrine Theory.” This theory claimed that Jesus gave authority to the Apostle Peter when He said in Matthew 16:18-19, “On this rock I will build my church…. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Because Peter ministered in Rome and was martyred there, this authority was then passed down to the Bishop of Rome and his descendants; therefore, Rome’s Bishop deserved preeminence among the churches. It is likely that Damasus’ claim originated with second century church father Irenaeus, who referred to “…the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul….It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority.”¹

A misguided Theodosius concurred with Damasus’ claim, and in the Edict of Thessalonica he upheld the authority of the Roman Church, thereby validating the Petrine Theory. For centuries to come, this specious notion was employed liberally by the Roman Church as the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople continued over the years.

In hindsight, it seems clear that the Petrine Theory was a spiritual cloak for fleshly, political motives.

Ultimately, Damasus wanted to make sure the Roman Church stayed predominant. This wasn’t about the glory of God; it was about the glory of the Roman Church! Perhaps Damasus would have been well advised to consider the Apostle John’s rebuke of those who “like to have the preeminence among them” (3 John 9). And yet because of this turn of events, Rome did indeed continue to grow in preeminence. For example, in 401 A.D. Innocent I made a rule that no important decisions could be made by the western churches without the consent of the Bishop of Rome!

As the Roman Bishop established spiritual authority, he would soon have opportunity to claim political authority as well. Surprisingly, this came about as a result of a series of invasions of Rome beginning in 410 A.D. Although they signified the demise of the Western Empire, these attacks gave opportunity for a new leader to rise from the midst of the chaos and unite the religious and political power of the Roman Church into one figurehead—Leo I, the man who truly defined the role of the Roman Papacy. As Shelley states, Leo “provided for the first time the Biblical and theological bases of the papal claim. That is why it is misleading to speak of the papacy before his time.”²

Leo was a proud and influential nobleman who spoke out vehemently against heresy and was considered a strong defender of the faith. However, Leo also enjoyed power and control. He aggressively asserted Rome’s influence based on the arguments of the Petrine Theory. Bennett notes, “Leo believed Peter and Paul had been sent to Rome so that the knowledge of God could radiate from…the center of the civilized world.”³ He began to lay an authoritative foundation for his office, and in 445 A.D. he declared his supremacy as the leader of Christendom, stating, “As the primacy of the apostolic see is based on the title of the blessed Peter, no illicit steps may be taken against this see to usurp its authority.” From there, he took advantage of the unstable political atmosphere to extend his leadership.

In 452 A.D. Attila the Hun attacked an already vulnerable Western Empire. As he marched on Rome, Leo went out to meet him and convinced him to withdraw his position, for which Rome’s citizens were profoundly grateful. Yet three years later, Gaiseric the Vandal marched on Rome. The Romans panicked and murdered the Emperor, so once again Leo stepped in and convinced Gaiseric to withdraw after looting the city. These events catapulted Leo to the status of hero in Rome. The Romans were thankful and proud of their “Papa” or “Pope,” a familiar Latin term meaning “daddy.” Indeed, they began to view him not just as a spiritual father, but political as well. Therefore it is not surprising that “Leo’s leadership in these political crises helped begin the long process by which the Bishop of Rome became the most powerful Western figure in the Middle Ages.”⁴

We know this figure today as the Pope.

From humble beginnings, good works and rapid church growth emerged an intricate system of politics and religion still active in the twenty-first century known as the Roman Catholic Church, headed by it’s official leader, the Pope. What began as a simple position of service developed into a powerful, authoritative office whose influence extended throughout the world. The development of this complex institution is itself a commentary on the challenge of maintaining simplicity as the Body of Christ. No wonder Paul warned the Corinthians not to be “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3, NKJV). It is in the simplicity of the Gospel message, not a religious office or political position, that we find “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, NKJV).

Notes:

¹ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3. Although Irenaeus claimed that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church, other historians believe it was founded by unknown Christians (see Church History in Plain Language by Shelley, p. 31 and A History of Christianity by Latourette, p. 66). This seems most consistent with Scripture, as Paul wrote in Romans 1:8 that the Roman Church’s faith was already being “spoken of throughout the whole world” before his arrival.

² Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language

³ William Bennett, Tried by Fire: The Story of Christianity’s First Thousand Years

⁴ Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, 131 Christians Everyone Should Know

International relations. What a mess. What a picture of unregenerate human relations on a diplomatic scale. And yet nations have gone to great lengths to keep the peace with sometimes honorable results. We celebrate national holidays, remembering those who died in wars. Wars, which are often the result of failed international policies and the cycle goes on. Then there are those attempts at diplomacy like the one that occurred between the kings Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France during the Renaissance known as the “Field of the Gold Cloth.”

Tensions were rising between the two nations. Ah, the English and the French. Mais oui! But as their respective monarchs were somewhat related and as they were enjoying a time in history, when people were supposed to be more reasonable, it was decided the two would meet in a neutral location—just outside of Calais.

Both kings were fiercely proud of their culture and wealth.

They erected an entire village out of tents for each country. The tents were made of the finest materials including golden thread to show off the monarch’s power and opulence. They organized games, balls and feasts, each side trying to impress the other. The mood was light but competitive, proud and strategic. The finest athletes from each camp competed for their kingdom’s honor but in no way were the two sovereigns to compete directly with each other. This was an event to discourage war, to build ties of brotherhood and marry off their children.¹

Then it happened. One king in his zeal for his own glory stuck his proverbial chest out too far. A challenge was issued and national honor suddenly was at stake. The Showtime series, The Tudors, gives an interpretation of this challenge.²

Yes this really happened. They didn’t look like current day male models, but they really did wrestle. What inspired me about this page of history wasn’t just the mental image I got of our own world leaders wrestling for peace, although I did have a good laugh. No what inspires me is the aftermath. Upon his return, the embittered Henry VIII took a detour to visit rival Charles V and struck a deal in a more humble setting.³ This treaty, and not the Field of Cloth, would change European history.

In the end, all the pomp and self-promotion did nothing to promote peace between England and France.

Looking at matters from our perspective of history, it stands to reason that if two people insist upon outdoing each other to become friends, they will inevitably clash. In light of the Gospel, we see an even darker side to their behavior.

Jesus was the One who knew no sin to become sin for us that we might receive His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). The exact opposite of self-promotion. Seen in this way, our efforts at self-glorification, even if they are unconscious, are contrary to the way we’re called to walk (Micah 6:8).

Are we as Christians guilty of the same error? As sinners, yes. Christian self-promotion can go from displays of how humble we are, how much we are praying for someone, to how many people we’ve personally led to the Lord. Quite honestly, it doesn’t tend to bring brothers and sisters together. That being said, there is nothing wrong with sports, games or friendly competitions between believers where each side is doing their best. That’s enjoying life and being a good teammate. The trash talk before or after the game, well, that might be another story as our two wrestling kings have already proven.

In the same way, in the professional world, one may have to remind their boss of what they are doing especially when reviews and pay raises are at stake. Artists will have to promote their work, and anyone looking for a job should make their résumé stand out. But this is not the same as reminding friends how incredibly awesome your life is and not taking the time to hear if others might be crying around you.

In response to this, some have chosen self-deprecation as a false form of humility. Notice that Charles V, was in no way self-deprecating. He was wisely humble. Humility is seeing ourselves for who we are. It begins by looking through God’s truth. In the light of His Word we see that we are sinners to the core. The prophet Jeremiah even speaks of our heart being so darkened that we can’t discern it ourselves (Jeremiah 17:19). We recognize that even the good things we do are often motivated by unworthy desires. In a word, we are sinners. But the truth also tells us we are saved by grace (Romans 3:23-24).

Through rebirth, we become children of God.

This means we belong to Him in the dearest way. We don’t have to prove ourselves; He has already accepted us and welcomes us to come find His affection to warm our soul. We are now identified in Him, not by what we do, but by who we’ve become and one day, who He will make us to be. In this way through His Spirit, He makes the coward brave, the former thief honest, the angry person peaceful and even humbles the proud to boot.

The beauty to this approach is its inevitable pull to glorify God. Jesus-promotion is an entirely different attitude all together. It brings people together and recenters their conversation and vision on the One who is truly worthy of all praise.

Notes:

¹ Connaissance Des Arts. “François Ier Et Henri VIII : Les Traités Diplomatiques Du Camp Du Drap D’or.” YouTube. March 30, 2015. Accessed July 25, 2018

² Zarl. “The Tudors – Francis I vs. Henry VIII.” YouTube. November 24, 2010. Accessed July 25, 2018.

^{CalvaryChapel.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with every outside source attached amongst the diverse pieces of content. By providing these pieces, we hope to help you stay informed of important events, conversations and ideas taking place in the world that are relevant to the Christian faith.}

One of the earliest and most important discoveries relating to the historicity of Jesus and members of his family is the limestone bone-box (called an ossuary) made known to the public in October, 2002. Ossuaries were used by Israel from about the second century BC until the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Over ten thousand such ossuaries have been discovered but only about one hundred contain inscriptions. Of these, only two have an identification similar to the one etched in the now famous and somewhat controversial “James Ossuary.” The entire Aramaic inscription reads, “Jacob (James), son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua).

If, in fact, the inscription in its entirety is recognized as authentic (which we believe to be the case), we have clear first-century AD testimony of Jesus, his father Joseph, and brother James. James (Ya’akov) is given in the Gospel accounts as a brother of Jesus (Mt. 13:55), but he is also one of the most important figures in the New Testament. The book of Acts reveals that he was the pastor of the Jerusalem church, moderator of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, and penned the epistle of James. James is also spoken of a number of times in the writings of Josephus. He was put to death by certain Jewish leaders in AD 62, so if the James Ossuary is the one in which his bones were placed, then the dating of the bone-box would be approximately AD 62-63, allowing time for the reburial of the bones after the decomposition of the flesh, according to Jewish practices.

In December 2004, the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) and the State of Israel brought an indictment against an antiquities dealer and owner of the James Ossuary, Oded Golan, claiming that the second part of the inscription (the portion which reads “brother of Jesus”) to be a forgery. This indictment seems to have came to nothing after five years of court proceedings that concluded in March 2010 with 116 hearings, 138 witnesses, 52 expert witnesses, over 400 exhibits, and more than 12,000 pages of court transcripts!¹ According to Golan’s written summary of the trial (supported by the 474 page Hebrew language opinion handed down by Jerusalem District Court Judge Aharon Farkash on March 14, 2012), many high-level scholars with expertise in ancient epigraphy, paleography, bio-geology, and other crucial disciplines relating to examining the inscription have testified that there is no reason to doubt that the “brother of Jesus” was engraved by the same hand in the first century AD. In view of this, it is very likely that we may have a very early and important historical witness to Jesus and His family.² A summary of the arguments for and against the authenticity of the inscription is listed below.

Arguments Against Its Authenticity

1. The ossuary was not discovered in situ, within a secure archaeological context, but rather obtained through the antiquities trade.

2. Though the bone-box itself and the first half of the inscription are not contested, arguments that the second half of the inscription (brother of Jesus) was recently engraved (forged) and was not completed by the same hand have been posited due to the absence of natural occurring patina.³ (Patina is a thin layer of biogenic material expected to be present on most, if not all, ancient artifacts to some degree. It is caused by the continuous secretions and activities of micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi, algae, and yeast on the stone and inside some of its grooves. If the same consistency of patina is equally distributed on the ossuary and found within the engraved grooves, it would suggest the authenticity of the inscription. The absence of patina within the disputed portion of the inscription would suggest a forgery or modern engraving of letters.)

3. The foundation of the IAA’s case against Oded Golan was based on an eyewitness (Joe Zias, an anthropologist formerly employed by the IAA) that claimed to have previously seen the ossuary without the “brother of Jesus” portion of the inscription.

Arguments for Its Authenticity⁴

1. The size of the ossuary indicates that the bones belonged to an adult male, thus being consistent with James.

2. In 2004, while the ossuary was in IAA possession, the police (Mazap) made a silicon impression (cast) of the inscription that contaminated and mutilated the inscription. When the silicon was removed it also removed the natural occurring patina, but despite this action traces of the patina were still present in several of the letter grooves, indicating that the inscription is indeed ancient.

3. The name on the ossuary (James) reveals that the person was a male.

4. Ossuaries were only used by Jews only in the area of Jerusalem and from the end of the first-century B.C. until A.D. 70, the same time period that Josephus tells of the death of James at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders.

5. Of all those ossuaries bearing an inscription almost all speak of the deceased occupant’s father, but occasionally has the person’s brother, sister, or other close relative, if that person was well-known. The rare presence of a sibling’s name (Jesus) would indicate that Jesus was a very prominent figure.

6. Specialist and archaeologist, Prof. Kloner, dates the ossuary to between A.D. 45 – 70, and is thus consistent with the death of James in A.D. 62 according to Josephus.

7. Though the names Joseph, James, and Jesus are common names in the first-century, the combination of “James, son of Joseph” is rare and unique to this ossuary, meaning that it is highly probable that the bone-box belongs to James, Jesus’ brother even without the second half of the inscription mentioning this.

8. Prof. Camil Fuchs, head of the Statistic department at Tel Aviv University researched deceased males in Jerusalem in the first-century A.D. He concluded based on conservative estimates a growing Jerusalem population estimate (between A.D. 6-70), minus all women, minus children who will not reach manhood by time of James’ death, minus non-Jews, and considering the fame of Jesus as a brother to warrant the inscription, time of death, and literacy, that with 95% assurance there existed at the time in Jerusalem 1.71 people named James with a father Joseph and brother named Jesus!⁵

9. Golan affirms that he purchased the ossuary from an antiquities dealer who said it was found in the Silwan (Kidron Valley area) in Jerusalem. James the Just, pastor of the Jerusalem church⁶ and half-brother of Jesus⁷ was stoned and thrown from the pinnacle of the temple according to Josephus. According to Christian tradition, he was buried in a rock-cut tomb in the Kidron Valley, and one year later, in accordance with Jewish tradition, his bones were interned in an ossuary.⁸

10. Expert witnesses have confirmed that the inscription in its totality was inscribed by the same hand in the first-century, though this was a much disputed item (especially by Yuval Goren and Avner Ayalon) until experts were put under oath at trial.

11. Experts have confirmed the presence of microbial patina on the ossuary and both parts of the inscription “James, the son of Joseph” and “brother of Jesus,” demonstrating the unity and antiquity of the inscription. In addition, this patina is generally deemed ancient, without the possibility of it occurring naturally in less than 50-100 years, making a recent forgery impossible. The world’s leading expert in bio-geology and the patination process, Wolfgang Krumbeim of Oldenburg University in Germany, affirmed the patina on the ossuary and inscription most likely reflects a development process of thousands of years. He added that there is no known process of accelerating the development of patina. In addition, he concluded that the patina covering the inscription letters are no less authentic than the patina covering the surface of the ossuary (which the IAA says is authentic). Other researchers from the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto confirmed that the patina within the letter grooves is consistent with the patina on the surface of the ossuary, thus legitimizing the entire inscription’s antiquity.

12. According to expert paleographers (Andre Lemaire and Ada Yardeni) who authenticated (and dated) the inscription based on the shape and stance of the letters, the Aramaic is fully consistent with first-century style and practice.⁹ No credible challenge to their findings has yet to be published.

13. Adding the words, “brother of Jesus” is exceptional among the ossuaries found in Jerusalem.¹⁰ During the trial, it was revealed that what eyewitness (Joe Zias, who does not read Aramaic) thought he saw (i.e. James Ossuary) was actually a different (but similar) ossuary with three Aramaic inscribed names (Joseph, Judah, Hadas) known as the “Joseph Ossuary.”¹¹ Prior to rendering the final verdict by Judge Farkash, apparently Zias said to Hershel Shanks that he was “joking” when told that the “brother of Jesus” portion of the inscription was missing from the ossuary!¹²

So extensive and strong is the support for the authenticity of the ossuary and its inscription, according to Golan, Dan Bahat (the prosecutor), said in his closing arguments that the State would probably dismiss the charges that the ossuary inscription is a forgery.¹³ In fact, many of the IAA witnesses who initially claimed that the inscription was a forgery appeared to have changed their minds after closer analysis and scientific testing.¹⁴ What is more, many prosecution witnesses (witnesses for the IAA/State who argue that the inscription is a forgery) confirmed the authenticity of the inscription based upon careful analysis of the patina and the engraved inscription. The following chart offers a survey of several expert witnesses and their conclusions about the ossuary inscription.

Golan summarizes the outcome of extensive scientific tests performed on the ossuary and its inscription when he writes,

Neither the prosecution nor the IAA presented even a single witness who was an expert on ancient stone items, or patina on antiquities and who ruled out the authenticity of the inscription or any part of it. On the contrary, the findings of all the tests, including those of prosecution witnesses Goren and Ayalon, support the argument that the entire inscription is ancient, the inscription was engraved by a single person, and that several letter grooves contains traces of detergent/s that covers the natural varnish patina that developed there over centuries, and was partially cleaned (mainly the first section), many years ago.¹⁶

The apologetic and historical implications following from this ossuary are far-reaching since it informs us that: 1) James, Joseph, and Jesus have historical corroboration as individuals and a family in the first-century; 2) early Christians, like James, may have been buried according to Jewish custom; 3) Aramaic was used by early Christians; and that 4) early Christianity emerged from its Jewish roots, making it extremely difficult to divorce Christianity from its Jewishness. As such, the inscription’s primary apologetic value rests in the notion that after the most intense interdisciplinary expert scrutiny according to the rules of law, the James Ossuary is destined to be the most authenticated/scrutinized artifact in history. We now can appreciate the ossuary as an authentic artifact that provides the earliest direct archaeological link to Jesus and his family!

Copyright Joseph M. Holden, 2011, 2018. All Rights Reserved.

Sources

¹ Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions – Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses,” (March, 2011), 1. The trial was brought to an end on March 14, 2012, when Jerusalem District Court Judge, Aharon Farkash, cleared the defendants (Oded Golan, Robert Deutsch, et al.) of all forgery charges (see Judge Farkash’s 474 page opinion in the case). The clearing of the forgery charges shows that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the inscription was a forgery. As a result, there is no reason to doubt that the inscription in its entirety is an authentic description of Jesus and His family. This conclusion is supported by the dozens of expert witness named below and the script analysis offered by Andre Lemaire (Sarbonne) and Ada Yardeni (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) which gave them no reason to doubt the authenticity of the inscription. There is yet to be offered a reputable paleographical challenge to their conclusions on the matter. See James Brother of Jesus: The Forgery Trial of the Century with Hershel Shanks, editor, Biblical Archaeology Review (BAS, 2012).

² Only Protestants would consider James to be the half-brother of Jesus through Joseph and Mary, since both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy believe that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Roman Catholics consider James and the other brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels to be cousins of Jesus through the supposed brother of Joseph. On the other hand, the Eastern Church believes that James and the other siblings were stepbrothers and stepsisters of Jesus born to Joseph from a former wife.

³ After testing the ossuary, clay specialist, Professor Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University, initially championed the idea that ancient patina was missing from the second half of the inscription and that the forger must have used some other bonding substance or was a result from cleaning the inscription. However, subsequent examination of the inscription by Orna Cohen of the prosecution team revealed ancient patina in the word “Jesus’, thus discrediting Goren’s testimony and led Goren to reverse his initial conclusions.

⁴ Based on court transcripts and expert testimony summarized by Oden Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions – Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses,” (March, 2011); also see arguments for authenticity put forth in Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family. New York: Harper Collins, 2003

⁵ Hershel Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Proved Ancient and Authentic” in A Biblical Archaeology Press Release (Washington D.C., June 13, 2012); Hershel Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” in BAR 38:04, July/August 2012.

⁶ Confirmed by his role at the council of Jerusalem and the words of Eusebius.

⁷ The evidence appears clear that James was truly the half-brother of Jesus and son of Mary. The perputal virginity of Mary was not taught at the earlier periods of the church and even was rejected by Augustine. The word for brother in Greek is ἀδελφός (adelphos), while the word for cousin is ἀνεψσιός (anepsios). BDAG, 78. Louw and Nida, 118, say, “The interpretation of ἀδελφός in such passages as Mt 12.46; Mk 3.31; and Jn 2.12 as meaning ‘cousins’ (on the basis of a corresponding Hebrew term, which is used in certain cases to designate masculine relative of various degrees) is not attested in Greek nor affirm in the Greek-English lexicon edited by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. Such an interpretation depends primarily on ecclesiastical tradition.” The relationship is confirmed by the second-century father Hegesippius where he distinguishes James and Jude as brothers. Moreover Jude in his letter says that he is the brother (ἀδελφός) of James. Matt 1:25 is plain that the lack of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary was only until the birth of Jesus. It was morally proper for Jewish husbands and wives to have sexual relations and bear children, in contrast to some of the extreme ideas of celibacy practiced in some segments of the patristic period. The church historian Eusebius says that James was the head of the Jerusalem church and was brother of Jesus.

⁸ Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary,” (March, 2011), 13-15.

⁹ Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” in BAR 38:04, July/August 2012.

¹⁰ Paul L. Maier, “The James Ossuary,” Issues, Etc. https://www.mtio.com/articles/b… (last visited November 13, 2011).

¹¹ Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” in BAR 38:04, July/August 2012; also see the record of the defense’s cross-examination of Joe Zias in the Hebrew court transcript at: https://bib-arch.org/pdf/trial-…

¹² See Strata: “Joe Zias: ‘Hershel Shanks Has No Sense of Humor’” in BAR 38:03, May/June 2012.

¹³ Golan, The Authenticity of the James Ossuary, 13, (page 11462 of the Hebrew language court transcript).

¹⁴ This can be seen on several fronts such as comparing earlier and later court documents, and comparing the later Golan, The Authenticity of the James Ossuary (2011) with earlier accounts of IAA witnesses recorded in Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family. New York: Harper Collins, 2003.

¹⁵ Chart is based on the summary of court proceedings offered by Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary,” (March, 2011), 1-15.

¹⁶ Golan, The Authenticity of the James Ossuary, 10.

]]> 38497