reason.cck.org.uk

As we look at our 3rd article in the series on Jesus’ resurrection, we turn our attention to the first of  three key facts that we will examine.

Fact 1: The Empty Tomb

The first detail that we need to concern ourselves with is the empty tomb. I’m making the very non-controversial assumption, which is agreed among New Testament scholars today, that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact die on that cross at Golgotha.

The Burial

After Jesus had died, he was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the council of Israel). This is highly probable due to the fact that there would have been very little reason for the early gospel writers to have lied about this. This would have been an embarrassing truth for them; that one of the leaders of the pack who effectively arranged the murder of Jesus, then gave his own tomb for him to be buried in. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown said that it was ‘almost inexplicable’ for the early Christians to have made this up. This is significant in that it would mean that both Jews and the followers of Christ, alike, would have known where this tomb was.

We find multiple attestation of this fact in each of the gospel accounts (Mark 15:42-47, Matt 27:57-61, Luke 23:50-54, John 19:38-42) but we are not reliant on this. Actually, there is an even earlier account in 1 Cor 15:3-5, which attests to the burial, that can be dated to around 36AD (within 6 years of Jesus’ ministry) confirming the burial.

More could be made to support this issue, but I want to look at two further reasons why the empty tomb is so strongly agreed on by New Testament scholars today.

Women giving testimony?

Firstly, the inital observers of the empty tomb that Jesus had been in were women. In our culture we simply don’t understand the significance of this. In First century Jewish culture, women were not seen as equal to men and they were not even allowed to be called as witnesses in court. Even part of the daily prayers that men said were to give thanks that they were not born as a woman. Shocking!

Tim Keller writes: ‘There was no possible advantage to the church to recount that all the first witnesses were women. It could have only undermined their credibility of the testimony.’

In light of these facts, N.T. Wright comments that there must have been enormous pressure on the early Christians to change these facts, but the reality is that they didn’t! They maintained their historical integrity and gave an account of what really happened.

Jewish Belief

Secondly, one of the first things that the Jewish leaders claimed is that the disciples stole the body (Matt 28:12-15), which means that they pre-supposed that the body was missing and the tomb was empty. There was no attempt to say that the wrong tomb was checked, or it had been moved. For the non-believing Jews, there was no issue about the empty tomb. It was obvious that the body was gone, and so a new story had to be created to try and cover it up. They had no desire for the birth of a new religion whatsoever.

Summary

When we add all of these pieces of historical evidence together, it seems to verify the fact that Jesus’ grave was found empty on the Sunday after he had been crucified. This provides us with our first part of the jigsaw in looking at whether the resurrection of Jesus really happened. Join us next week when we look at the next piece of evidence, the post-mortem appearances!

Tweet This

We live in a society that considers every interpretation to be as valid as the next. ‘Your truth is not my truth’, or ‘your interpretation of the Bible is not my interpretation of the Bible’. Therefore, if all interpretations are valid how can Christians say that the Bible holds any truth that is universal?

Deconstruction

‘Deconstruction’ is a very broad description of a recent philosophical movement that has defined much of the way that we think today. It will be helpful in answering this question, first to look briefly at the philosophical ideas that have developed on ‘interpretation’. Some of the famous thinkers who have come to be bundled under the Deconstructionist umbrella are, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes (although a lot of his work was pre-Deconstructionist), and Ludwig Wittgenstein. They questioned the foundations of western philosophy. Instead of searching for the ultimate Truth, in life, text, art and so on, they asked: What is truth? Does it exist?

Jacques Derrida

Jacques Derrida built upon Nietzsche’s statement that ‘God is dead’; he criticised ‘logocentrism’ (a philosophical approach which places God at the centre of reality). This view has repercussions, not only for truth and morality, but also for the ability of language to be capable of representing the world around us. If God does not exist, then we as humans are self-referent, we make our own meaning. If so, the meanings of words are derived from their context and ‘reader’ (or ‘interpreter’), not from anything fixed outside of ourselves.

This philosophical position, if carried to its logical conclusions, breaks down the foundations of meaning, and therefore relationships also. If one human cannot communicate to another coherently, how can we know each other in any deep sense? Another valid question to ask is: Do we really live like this? If a philosophy works in theory, and not in practice, then its validity should be questioned.

Turn the Tables

One of the major objections to ‘Deconstruction’ and the various theories that surround it, is that it claims that words do not have inherent meaning, but these theories are themselves presented in words. So, by their own measure, they should not be able to communicate any truth to us. For example, I could read the work of, say, Roland Barthes’ ‘Death of the Author’, in which he explains that meaning is derived from the reader and not the author of a text. Yet when I read his work, I have all interpretive power according to him. Therefore, he, and what he says as the author, should be ‘dead’ (un-meaningful), if his theory is correct. But this is not the case; he published his theories so that he could communicate his ideas. Therefore even though he argues that an author’s intended meaning is irrelevant, yet he himself authors the text that says so. So, the idea that interpretation of a text is purely the prerogative of the reader is not coherent.

Is every interpretation equally valid?

The first question to ask is: does our context and worldview affect our response to the Bible? I would say that, initially, yes, it does. We all have different ideas that we bring to a text when interpreting it. But is that all that happens? Do we not analyse critically? Let’s take history as an example. If I were to be true to Deconstructionist thought, then I could interpret history any way I saw fit. But this cannot be a feasible way of conducting analytical history, and indeed within a history department, it isn’t. Arguments would need to be backed up by evidence from the documents, ideas would need to cohere with the beliefs and social constructs of the era studied, and you would need to provide evidence that you were reading the text in a way that was in accord with the views of the author.

The Holocaust as history

The Holocaust is a well-attested historical event, even if there is still debate about the particulars. Yet there are several historians who deny that the Holocaust ever happened to the Jews particularly. However, this goes against a lot of evidence that suggests that the Jews were singled out as a race to be isolated and then exterminated. Is the interpretation that the Holocaust didn’t happen as valid as the interpretation that it did happen? No. Why? because the evidence points overwhelmingly to the systematic extermination of the Jews. So within history every interpretation is not as valid as the next, for some are more in accord with the evidence, and others are less so and more speculative. Biblical interpretation should be considered in a similar way.

So what about the Bible?

The Bible consists of 66 books, within which five different general genres of writing can be identified: history, law, poetry/lyrics, wisdom, and letters. As such, each genre should be interpreted in accord with its own type. Let us take the Gospels as an example; Luke opens with this statement:

‘In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things that you have been taught’ Luke 1:1-4

So who was the writer? Further reading in the Bible (this writer also wrote the book of Acts) and historical research shows that he was a doctor named Luke who travelled with a man named Paul. Paul’s activities are well documented in the New Testament, he wrote other parts of the New Testament the earliest being (at the latest) 20 years after Jesus’ death.

Now, other questions need to be asked, firstly, were there other eyewitness accounts as Luke claims? Secondly, do historical and archaeological references fit with the data available to us from that period? Thirdly, does the text make sense of the world as we know it? These are some questions any reader of the Bible might find helpful to research. There are many more questions that could, and should, be asked but for now will we consider the first. The next quote is taken from the end of John’s gospel:

‘This is the disciple (of Jesus) who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true’ John 21: 22-24

Therefore John’s gospel claims to be an eyewitness account. So, Luke’s statement that there were eyewitness’ who were writing down other accounts as well as his own seems to fit very well with the historical data.

Your responsibility

As a reader of the Biblical texts, it is reasonable that you be fair with the material. As above, I have very briefly outlined the eyewitness status of some of the gospels. Although there are many things that I could not cover in this article due to space, I’ve highlighted the fact that the content of the gospels is written as a report, and not in the form of myth. As such, when all testify to the death and resurrection of Christ, if someone were to interpret these passages as metaphorical, this interpretation would not fit with the style and context of the Gospels. Likewise, when Jesus says ‘I am the true vine’ (John 15:1) , this is not meant to imply that he is green and sprouting leaves. If a reader is responsible with the text, then it is clear that you cannot make the text say whatever you want. Therefore, this means that any interpretation which does not consider context, author, audience and genre, is not as valid as those that do.

Further reading

1. Orr-Ewing, Amy, Why trust the Bible?, Intervarsity Press, 2005, Chapter 1.

2. Fisher, Milton., ‘Literature in Bible Times’, The Origin of the Bible, ed., Bruce, F.F, Packer, J.I., Comfort, P., Henry, Carl. F. H., Tyndale House Publishers, 1992.

3. Ryken, Leland., ‘The Bible as Literature’, The Origin of the Bible, ed., Bruce, F.F, Packer, J.I., Comfort, P., Henry, Carl. F. H., Tyndale House Publishers, 1992.

5. Audio lecture: ‘The Bible: meaningless language?’ Part 2: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/the-bible-meaningless-language-part-2.htm

4. Audio lecture: ‘The Bible: meaningless language?’ Part 1: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/the-bible-meaningless-language-part-1.htm

Tweet This

Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. – Titus 2:9-10

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ – Ephesians 6:5

Passages like these may lead someone to the conclusion that the Bible is pro-slavery, and therefore should not be acknowledged or listened to, never mind followed:  A book that promotes such an appalling, violent, dehumanizing and often racist concept as slavery has no place in our society.

But to come to this conclusion, that the Bible supports slavery, is quite wrong.  These passages do not say this and they need to be understood in their proper context.  I want to explain that God and His Word, the Bible, are very much opposed to slavery.

New Testament slavery

Before we go any further, it is important to point out that the slavery mentioned in these passages is unlikely to be the same thing as what may come to mind when we hear the term.  When we think of slavery, most of us think of slave ships leaving Africa, or the trafficking of young women for the sex trade.  The slavery of 1st century Asia Minor, the context of these passages, is quite different.

Many slaves in this period were able to attain respectable positions in society and some had the opportunity to buy their freedom after a certain period of serving their master. In considering slavery we should not maintain a narrow view but realize that, in this context, it is not as cruel or degrading as we might think.  My point here is not to condone slavery, it should not be condoned and is very wrong, but to show that slavery and the lifestyle of slaves is wide ranging.

The Bible is anti-slavery

Let me explain three ways in which the Bible is anti-slavery.  Slavery is rooted in the idea that there is inequality between human beings.  One person owning another person immediately creates a position of superiority.  Often this is manifested in racial terms; one ethnic group dominates another and makes them their slaves.

This idea is at odds with the equality and dignity of life that the Bible promotes from cover to cover.  Human beings are all made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and so have equal worth and identity.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that certain people are superior to others.  All are made by God and are valued by Him.

Secondly, the Bible repeatedly stresses that God loves justice (Psalm 11:7, 33:5, 99:4).  The inequality and injustice that we see in the world are the effects of man turning away from the way God made the world to be.

Thirdly, in 1 Timothy 1:10, slave traders are condemned alongside murderers, liars and perverts.

The purpose of Paul’s letters

With this in mind, we might be wondering, “Why do these passages not speak out against slavery then?”  This is a very good question.

One of the reasons that someone might conclude that these passages are pro-slavery is because the author, Paul, speaks about slavery without condemning it.  If he does not condemn it, then he must be condoning it, right?  However, this is not the case.  We must understand the purpose that Paul has in writing these things.  Both Titus and Ephesians are letters he wrote in order to instruct new Christians on how to live to serve and enjoy God.

Had Paul been a politician, God would surely have called him to speak out about injustice and establish new ways in which society should operate that reflected God’s heart.  In some ways Paul does this in his letters anyway.  In Colossians 3:11 he contradicts the common ideas and social inequalities of the time, saying that everyone, regardless of ethnicity or status, is equal.  This would have been a radical and controversial statement.

But actually his primary purpose is not to transform the social systems, but to change individuals’ lives with the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

Therefore, in these letters he is giving instruction to slaves, slave masters, husbands, wives and all people, whatever their status in society, to live according to the truth of the Gospel and to worship and serve God.  Paul is not condoning or strengthening unjust social divisions but is instructing everyone on how to live in spite of them.  Therefore, we cannot say that Paul is supporting slavery.  He is simply telling people how to make the best of a bad situation:  how to live for God in a world that is not perfect.

Should we follow the Bible?

Let me conclude by saying that more than just opposing slavery in principle, the Bible actively encourages us to combat social injustice.  In Luke 4, Jesus states that it His purpose on earth to “preach good news to the poor” and “release the oppressed”.  Here he is addressing both spiritual and physical oppression.  The Bible repeatedly calls Christians to love all people and seek the welfare of others, especially those who are weak and marginalized in society.  Jesus explains in Matthew 25:40 that this type of action is a mark of the Kingdom of God.

One man who responded to this call with world-changing impact was William Wilberforce.  Motivated by his Christian convictions he led the parliamentary campaign for the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire.  After years of tireless campaigning, in 1807 saw the Slave Trade Act passed which abolished the slave trade.  However he did not stop there and, three days before his death in 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed, ending slavery in the British Empire outright.  The film Amazing Grace, released in 2007 to mark the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act, chronicles his life and campaigns.

Like Wilberforce, all Christians have a responsibility to contend for the equality, dignity and preciousness of human life as representatives of God’s Kingdom.  This is in direct contradiction to slavery and we follow the Bible’s instruction so that these values are preserved in our society.

Tweet This

What would the case be for Freddie? What would the case be for you or I?
In the Old Testament, God reveals himself to his people Israel. He reveals his standards in books such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy (these standards are referred to collectively as ‘The Law’ and summarised in the 10 Commandments.) These standards are reflective of His holiness (‘God-ness’, ‘Other-than-man-ness’,) and were to be binding upon His people. In effect, God sets the bar for having dealings with Him incredibly high and many things that we as a society consider permissible by consensus would be punishable by corporal or capital punishment under ‘The Law’. In fact, there would be few, if any, of us who wouldn’t be condemned for aspects of our behaviour if the Law were properly enacted upon us. We are, by nature, rebellious.

Jesus and The Law
This didn’t change with the arrival of Jesus Christ. He was accused by the religious teachers of His day of teaching people to disobey God’s Law but by he proclaimed (recorded in Matthew 5:17-19) the following:
a) that he had come to fulfill the Law completely – no one had ever done this
b) that the Law was eternal and would never be revoked in any way
c) that anyone who broke even the smallest part of the Law had no business with God and that only those who kept it completely, did. If anything, by His teaching, Jesus raised the already high bar even higher! (For examples see Matthew 5:21-48)

The Problem
Okay, if you’ve followed up to this point, you should have detected an obvious problem:
a) None of us are perfect (Romans 3:23)
b) God is nothing but perfect! (2 Samuel 22:31, 1 John 1:5)
c) It is impossible for perfection to be in harmony with imperfection (Amos 3:3)
d) So it follows : No one can ever be in relationship with God – what a terrible state of affairs!

The Solution
So what is the purpose of the Law? It seems that it is impossible to keep. Is it to be obeyed? The fact is, the Law was given for this purpose: to reveal our dire situation in relation to God (Romans 5:20), to cause us to be distraught about this and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24.)

Remember what I mentioned above: Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law; to do what we could not do on our behalf, namely to live a perfect life, to die in our place and allow us to be in relationship with God the Father through Jesus’ own achievements in His life, death and resurrection. Speaking of God’s free acceptance shown to we who are completely unworthy John 1:17 says “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” and 2 Corinthians 5:21 , speaking of Jesus taking our punishment in exchange for His righteousness, says “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Tweet This

How do you read the Bible or even where can you really start from to get a better understanding?
When you are taking your first steps in exploring God’s Word it can be very helpful to have a guide. There are two basic categories of resources that will be helpful to you
a) books that give you an overview of how the Bible ‘works’ technically
b) books that help you dig into the Word and meet with God through it.

Overviews and Study Bibles
One of the most helpful books in this category is The Lion Handbook to the Bible – it is full of helpful information, very concisely written and gives you a great way into scripture. If you like to have everything in one book, a study Bible can be a great investment: These are basically Bibles with plenty of helpful information on the origins of each Biblical book, the writers, the times, maps of the places where Biblical events took place and a plethora of other useful study information. Some good examples of these are The Open Bible, The NIV Study Bible and the new ESV Study Bible.

Devotional
There are a lot of ‘Daily Reading’ guides available that help you apply the Bible practically to your life whilst helping you develop a regular pattern of devotion. Two great ones available at present are Closer to God and The Word For Today. There are also daily readings that you can subscribe to online and the email you a short lesson each day, one example being Heartlight. One of my favourites when I first started out with the Bible was an old book called Through the Year with Watchmen Nee – It’s great and I still read it now!

Tweet This

The danger of this question is the emotive response that it may provoke. I think it’s important to argue for morality on the basis of God’s Word rather than on subjective feelings.
 
In response to the question, yes, the whole human population has spawned from Adam and Eve because Cain married his sister as did his other brother Seth. (Gen 4:28)
 
The Bible is very clear that all other people are descended from Adam (Acts 17:26), and Adam is called ‘the first man’ in 1 Cor. 15:45. Eve was so named because she was ‘the mother of all living’ (Gen. 3:20). If Cain married a woman not descended from Adam and Eve, it would imply that God made her as He did Eve (from Adam’s rib). But the Bible simply does not say this and if this were true then she would have been a sinless woman not descended from Adam and therefore she would have never died and would be alive and well today to tell us exactly what happened!
 
Even Abraham testified that he married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and this was a marriage blessed by God, and led to the Messiah. It wasn’t till the time of Moses that God forbade the Israelites from brother-sister marriage (Lev. 18–20).
 
Mutation & Genes

There is a logical explanation for why God waited till Moses to outlaw this practice, when he didn’t with Abraham. Originally, there would have been no risk of this causing harmful deformity in the offspring. There is a problem today, because all of us have inherited copying mistakes in our genes, called mutations, which are usually harmful. Mutations are one effect of God’s curse on the entire creation because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19, Romans 8:20–22).
 
Fortunately, we carry two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent (called alleles). Usually we inherit mutations in different places, so usually the mutated gene’s effect is fully or partly masked by the ‘good’ gene. But if close relatives marry, then there is a one-in-four chance of a child inheriting mutant alleles in the same place (locus) from both parents. This one-in-four chance applies to each mutation, of which there are thousands, so the chance of some deformity is great.
 
But Adam and Eve were created ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) — the Hebrew ‘meod tov’, in the context of a finished creation which God had already called ‘good’ after most creation days, indicates physical perfection without any blemishes. So they would not have had copying mistakes, so brother-sister intermarriage would not have had the problem it has today. Harmful mutations would take many generations to accumulate to levels where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring. 
 
But as many centuries passed, many harmful, degenerative mutations accumulated in the human gene pool. This is probably a major reason for God giving laws to the Israelites through Moses against intermarriage between close relatives (Leviticus 18–20). Today, there would be even more chance of deformity/disease in the offspring of such a union than in Moses’ time —consequently, even first cousin marriages are outlawed in many countries.

Tweet This

I’m making an assumption in answering this question that it refers to the following passage, specifically the text in bold:
 
Mathew 24: 32-35: “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth; this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”
 
I have given this passage in its context in order that we best understand what Jesus is saying at this point. It is within the context of a talk on the end times, when God will come back and judge the world (the end times). Specifically he is answering questions about when this will be and how will we know when it is here. The general answers to these questions that he gives are: no-one but God knows when and it’ll be very obvious to everyone when it comes!
 
The problem that we could have with this passage is that Jesus says this generation will not die before the end times come. If Jesus means the group of people present and they’re all dead and this hasn’t happened therefore Jesus is wrong.

In answer we should look at the Greek word that Jesus spoke that we translate as ‘generation.’ The Greek word is ‘genea,’ the translation given in ‘The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance’ is as follows: “generation, one’s own kind or race, descendant; fig., age, period of time (as in ‘to all generations’)”
 
From this it is clear that Jesus is making a point of saying that we are in the last period of time before God brings sin to and end, that it is just a matter of time before God brings his final perfect justice to this earth. This is completely fitting with all the Jesus is saying in the preceding and following paragraphs and so doesn’t give us a reason for concern.
 
If, however, this is not the passage that the question refers to then please ask the question again in a more specific manor and we will give another appropriate response.

Tweet This