فريق اللاهوت الدفاعي

التصنيف: Matthew

Matthew

  • The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace

    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace

    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace

    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace
    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace

     by
    Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D.
    Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
    Dallas Theological Seminary
    wallace@bible.org 

    Preface

    The following is part of a short series of devotional items related to the birth of Christ. For some, such material is hardly devotional because it primarily focuses on history. But we must keep in mind that the Jesus we worship was truly born in time-space history. And that babe in the manger was truly crucified–and just as surely rose from the dead. The Bible is different from the sacred books of other religions because it invites historical investigation. And when it has met the test–as it surely always, inevitably does–it inculcates a greater devotion in the heart of the believer for the one we call the Son of God.

    The Year Jesus Was Born

    In the western hemisphere, we split time by the birth of Jesus Christ. But did he really even live? If so, when was he born?

    Sometime ago, I struck up a conversation with a man who claimed that God did not exist. He was an atheist. But not just a run-of-the-mill atheist, you understand. He also insisted that Jesus Christ never existed! This fellow was hard core.

    Now my atheist friend had incredible faith–blind faith, I might add. His religious fervor, in fact, would put many evangelists to shame. But the evidence that Jesus Christ invaded history is not just shut up to the testimony of the New Testament–as irrefutable as that might be! The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived–and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus–as well as first-century Gentile historians–such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus–all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, “The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar” (NT Documents, 119).

    Now it logically follows that if Jesus Christ lived (need it be said?), he must have been born. The Gospels tell us that his birth was shortly before Herod the Great died. Herod’s death can be fixed with certainty.

    Josephus records an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C. From other details supplied by Josephus, we can pinpoint Herod the Great’s demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.

    It might sound strange to suggest that Jesus Christ was born no later than 4 B.C. since B.C. means ‘before Christ.’ But our modern calendar which splits time between B.C. and A.D. was not invented until A.D. 525. At that time, Pope John the First asked a monk named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the western Church. Unfortunately, poor Dionysius missed the real B.C./A.D. division by at least four years!

    Now Matthew tells us that Herod killed Bethlehem’s babies two years old and under. The earliest Jesus could have been born, therefore, is 6 B.C. Through a variety of other time indicators, we can be relatively confident that the one called Messiah was born in either late 5 or early 4 B.C.

    My atheist friend scoffs at such flexibility. He says, “If you don’t know exactly when Jesus was born, how do you know that he really lived?” That is hardly a reasonable question! The other day I called my mother to wish her a happy birthday. “Mom, how many candles on this birthday cake?” I inquired. “I don’t know, son–I don’t keep track any more,” she sighed. After a few minutes of pleasant conversation, we hung up.

    Now, of course, I can’t be certain, but I do believe that that was my mother on the other end of the phone. She can’t remember how old she is (and she’s neither senile nor very old), but that doesn’t make her a figment of my imagination, does it? Because if she’s just a phantom, then for the last three minutes, you’ve been reading absolutely nothing!

    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace
    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace

    The Day Jesus Was Born

    This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?

    Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?

    The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ’s birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.

    But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ’s birth.

    In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to “some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night” (2:8).

    Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.

    Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.

    And God first revealed the Messiah’s birth to these shepherds–shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

    Now, of course, we can’t be absolutely certain of the day of Christ’s birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.

    We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ’s birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.

    But modern man has turned that around. A baby lying in a manger is harmless, non-threatening. But a man dying on a cross–a man who claims to be God–that man is a threat! He demands our allegiance! We cannot ignore him. We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no middle ground.

    This Christmas season, take a close look at a nativity scene once again. Remove your rose-colored glasses–smell the foul air, see the cold, shivering animals. They represent the Old Testament sacrificial system. They are emblems of death. But they are mere shadows of the Babe in their midst. He was born to die . . . that all who believe in him might live.

    The Visit of the Magi

    When Jesus Christ was born, men–known as magi–came from the east to worship him. Were they wise men . . . or astrologers?

    Matthew begins his second chapter with these words: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him.’”

    Who were these wise men from the east? Matthew tells us next to nothing about them–he doesn’t mention their names, nor how many there were–not even which country they came from. As mysteriously as they come on the scene, they disappear. . . 

    Though Matthew doesn’t tell us much, over-zealous Christians throughout church history have dogmatically filled in the blanks. By the 6th century A.D., these dark strangers were given thrones and names: Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar were the alleged names of these alleged kings.

    But this has nothing to do with the biblical story: we really have no idea what their names were–nor even their number. There could have been 3 or 300 as far as we know! But one thing we do know for sure: they were not royalty. The ancient magi were reilgious and political advisors to eastern kings–but there wasn’t a drop of blue blood among them.

    But isn’t it true that the magi were astrologers? And didn’t God prescribe death to astrologers in the Old Testament? ‘Not always’ and ‘yes’ are the answers. In Deuteronomy 17, God commands his people to execute all astrologers by stoning. Jean Dixon wouldn’t stand a chance in such a theocracy! The fact that she–and others like her–are so comfortably tolerated–even well respected!–in modern America ought to show us that the U.S.A. is a post-Christian country–at best . . . 

    But what about these ancient magi? Were they astrologers? After all, they followed a star to Bethlehem.

    We might answer this in three ways: First, not all magi were astrologers, for Daniel the prophet was the chief of the magi in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. Through his influence, undoubtedly many of the magi carried on their religious and political duties as worshippers of the One true God.

    Second, there are some biblical scholars who believe that Isaiah predicted that a star would appear when the Messiah was born. If this interpretation is correct, then the magi who worshipped the newborn king were clearly following in Daniel’s train, for he almost surely taught them from Isaiah.

    Third, although a few believe that the ‘star’ they saw was a natural phenomenon–such as a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter–this cannot explain how the star stood right over Bethlehem. Clearly, the ‘star’ was completely of supernatural origin. If so, it probably had nothing to do with astrology.

    Therefore, the magi most likely did not subscribe to such superstitious folly. If so, they were truly wise men . . . 

    I saw a bumper sticker the other day, which read, “Wise men still seek him.” Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The Bible tells us that “no one seeks God, not even one.” But if he has led us to himself, then we have become wise. For it is true that “wise men still worship him.”

    The Boys from Bethlehem

    One of the most heinous atrocities in human history was the murder of Bethlehem’s babies by Herod the Great. But did it really happen?

    In the second chapter of Matthew’s gospel, we read that when Herod the Great heard of the Messiah’s birth, “he was troubled–and all Jerusalem with him.” Later, when the wise men did not report back to him, he became furious and ordered all the baby boys up to two years old in and around Bethlehem to be slaughtered!

    Three questions come to mind as we consider this cruel incident: First, how many babies did Herod actually kill? Second, how old was Jesus when this happened? And finally, why does no other ancient historian record this outrage? In other words, did it really happen?

    How many babies did Herod murder? Some scholars have suggested as many as 200! But most reject such a figure. Bethlehem was a small community–almost a suburb of Jerusalem. The village itself–and the surrounding countryside–would hardly have more than 30 male infants under two. Most scholars today place the number between 20 and 30.

    But that’s if only the boy babies were killed. Actually, the Greek text of Matthew 2:16 could mean ‘babies’–not just ‘boy babies.’ And psychologically, Herod’s henchmen might not have bothered to check the gender of their victims. The number might be as high as 50 or 60.

    Second, how old was Jesus when this occurred? According to the best chronological evidence, he could not have been more than three or four months old. He was more than likely born in the winter of 5 or 4 B.C.–Herod died in the early spring of 4 B.C. So why did Herod slay all children up to two years old? The answer to the third question might help to answer this one. . . 

    Third, why is this event not recorded outside the Bible? Specifically, why did Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, fail to mention it?

    Josephus tells us much about Herod. The best word to describe his reign is ‘overkill.’ He murdered his favorite wife’s father, drowned her brother–and even killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends, his barber, and 300 military leaders–all in a day’s work! Then he slew three of his sons, allegedly suspecting them of treason. Josephus tells us that “Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men” (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Killing babies was not out of character for this cruel king. And killing them up to two years old–to make sure he got the baby Jesus lines up with his insane jealousy for power.

    Josephus might have omitted the slaying of the babies for one of two reasons: first, he was no friend of Christianity and he left it out intentionally; or second, just before Herod died he locked up 3000 of the nation’s leading citizens and gave orders that they were to be executed at the hour of his death. He wanted to make sure that there would be mourning when he died. . . Israel was so preoccupied with this that the clandestine murder of a few babies might have gone unnoticed. . . 

    Herod thought that he had gained a victory over the king of the Jews. Yet this was a mere foreshadowing of the victory Satan thought he had when Jesus lay dead on a Roman cross. But the empty tomb proved that that dark Friday was Satan’s worst defeat!

    Conclusion

    We’ve been looking at several aspects of the birth of Jesus Christ in this short study. Now, we want to put it all together.

    In the winter of 5 or 4 B.C., God invaded history by taking on the form of a man. He was born in a small town just south of Jerusalem. Bethlehem, which means ‘the house of bread,’ indeed became worthy of its name one lonely winter night. For there, in that town, was born the Bread of Life . . . 

    His mother placed the infant king in a manger–or feeding trough–because the guest room where they were to stay was occupied. The birth of this king was celebrated that night only by his mother, her husband, and a handful of shepherds.

    The shepherds had been in the fields around Bethlehem, guarding the lambs which would die at the next Passover. An angel appeared to them and gave them the birth announcement: “today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). In their simple faith, they rushed to see their newborn king.

    Shortly after the birth of the Messiah, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem and inquired of king Herod where the real king of the Jews was to be born. The theologians of Herod’s court knew the Scriptures well–in ‘Bethlehem’ they recited. Ironically, though they knew the Scriptures, they did not believe them! They did not even bother to travel the five or six miles to Bethlehem to see their Messiah.

    But Herod believed the Scriptures! That is why he sent a corps of butchers to Bethlehem to slaughter innocent children, in hopes of destroying this rival to his throne. But he was too late. The magi had come and gone and Jesus was by now safe in Egypt.

    And the magi believed the Scriptures. They had traveled several hundred miles to worship this Babe. They were guided to Bethlehem by a supernatural celestial phenomenon–and by the Scriptures. Apparently, their ancestors had been instructed by Daniel the prophet about the coming Messiah. . . When they saw the child, they fell down and worshiped him. This was God in the flesh. They could do no other.

    And they gave him gifts–gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This was an unusual present–by any standards. The gold, of course, we all can understand–but the frankincense and myrrh were odd. Perhaps they had read Isaiah’s prophecy that “nations will come to your light, and kings to your rising . . . They will bring gold and frankincense, and will bear good news. . . ” (Isa. 60:3, 6). This explains the frankincense, but not the myrrh.

    Now myrrh, like frankincense, was a perfume. But unlike frankincense, myrrh smelled of death. In the ancient world, it was used to embalm a corpse. Jesus himself would be embalmed with this very perfume (cf. John 19:39).

    If the magi were thinking of Jesus’ death when they brought the myrrh, they no doubt knew of it from Daniel’s prophecy (9:24-27). In the ninth chapter of Daniel we read that the ‘Messiah will be cut off’ and this ‘will make atonement for iniquity’ and ultimately ‘bring in everlasting righteousness’ (9:26, 24).

    Even at the birth of our Savior, the shadow of the cross is already falling over his face. . . 

    The theologians of Herod’s court did not believe the Scriptures. They were fools. Herod believed, but disobeyed. He was a madman. The simple shepherds and the majestic magi believed in this infant Savior–and it was reckoned to them as righteousness. May we follow in their train.

    The Birth of Jesus Christ | Daniel B. Wallace

  • How can three persons be God when there is only one God? MATTHEW 28:18–20

    How can three persons be God when there is only one God? MATTHEW 28:18–20

    MATTHEW 28:18–20—How can three persons be God when there is only one God?

    PROBLEM: Matthew speaks of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” all being part of one “name.” But these are three distinct persons. How can there be three persons in the Godhead when there is only “one God” (Deut 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:6)?

    SOLUTION: God is one in essence, but three in Persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three Whos. There is one It, but three I’s. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons. Or that God is only one nature, but that He also had three natures. But to declare, as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons is not a contradiction.

    Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (367). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • To whom did Christ appear first, the women or His disciples? MATTHEW 28:9

    To whom did Christ appear first, the women or His disciples? MATTHEW 28:9

    MATTHEW 28:9—To whom did Christ appear first, the women or His disciples?

    PROBLEM: Both Matthew and Mark list women as the first ones to see the resurrected Christ. Mark says, “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (16:9). But Paul lists Peter (Cephas) as the first one to see Christ after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5).

    SOLUTION: Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, then to the other women, and then to Peter. The order of the twelve appearances of Christ goes as follows:

    THE ORDER OF THE TWELVE APPEARANCES OF CHRIST

    PERSON(S)

    SAW

    HEARD

    TOUCHED

    OTHER EVIDENCE

    1.

    Mary
    (John 20:10–18)

    X

    X

    X

    Empty tomb

    2.

    Mary & Women
    (Matt. 28:1–10)

    X

    X

    X

    Empty tomb

    3.

    Peter
    (1 Cor. 15:5)

    X

    X*

    Empty tomb, Clothes

    4.

    Two Disciples
    (Luke 24:13–35)

    X

    X

    Ate with Him

    5.

    Ten Apostles
    (Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23)

    X

    X

    X**

    Saw wounds, Ate food

    6.

    Eleven Apostles
    (John 20:24–31)

    X

    X

    X**

    Saw wounds

    7.

    Seven Apostles
    (John 21)

    X

    X

    Ate food

    8.

    All Apostles
    (Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–18)

    X

    X

    9.

    500 Brethren
    (1 Cor. 15:6)

    X

    X*

    10.

    James
    (1 Cor. 15:7)

    X

    X*

    11.

    All Apostles
    (Acts 1:4–8)

    X

    X

    Ate with Him

    12.

    Paul
    (Acts 9:1–9; 1 Cor. 15:8)

    X

    X

    Paul was not giving a complete list, but only the important one for his purpose. Since only men’s testimony was considered legal or official in the 1st century, it is understandable that the apostle would not list the women in his defense of the resurrection here.

    [1]

     

    * Implied

    ** Offered Himself to be touched

    ** Offered Himself to be touched

    * Implied

    * Implied

    [1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (365). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • Why does Matthew say there was only one angel at the tomb when John says there were two? MATTHEW 28:5

    Why does Matthew say there was only one angel at the tomb when John says there were two? MATTHEW 28:5

    MATTHEW 28:5—Why does Matthew say there was only one angel at the tomb when John says there were two?

    PROBLEM: Matthew 28:5 refers to the “angel” at the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection, and yet John says there were “two angels” there (John 20:12)?

    SOLUTION: Matthew does not say there was only one angel. John says there were two, and wherever there are two there is always one; it never fails! The critic has to add the word “only” to Matthew’s account in order to make it contradictory. But in this case, the problem is not with what the Bible actually says, but with what the critic adds to it.

    Matthew probably focuses on the one who spoke and “said to the women, `Do not be afraid’ ” (Matt. 28:5). John referred to how many angels they saw; “and she saw two angels” (John 20:12).

    [1]

     

    [1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (365). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • What did the centurion really say about Christ on the cross? MATTHEW 27:54 (cf. Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)

    What did the centurion really say about Christ on the cross? MATTHEW 27:54 (cf. Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)

    MATTHEW 27:54 (cf. Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)—What did the centurion really say about Christ on the cross?

    PROBLEM: Matthew records the centurion saying, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while Mark says substantially the same thing, adding only the word “man,” rendering it, “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Luke records the words of the centurion as follows: “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” What did he really say?

    SOLUTION: He may have said both. The centurion’s words need not be limited to one phrase or sentence. The centurion could have said both things. In accordance with his own emphasis on Christ as the perfect man, Luke may have chosen to use this phrase rather than the ones used by Matthew and Mark. There is no major difference between Matthew and Mark, for in Greek the word “man” is implied by the masculine singular use of the word “This.” It is also possible that Luke may have been paraphrasing or drawing an implication from what was actually said.

    Christian scholars do not claim to have the exact words of the speakers in every case, but only an accurate rendering of what they really said. First of all, it is generally agreed that they spoke in Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek. So the words we have in the Greek text on which the English is based are already a translation. Second, the Gospel writers, like writers today, sometimes summarized or paraphrased what was said. In this way, it is understandable that the renderings will be slightly different. But in this case, as in all other cases, the essence of what was originally said is faithfully produced in the original text. While we do not have the exact words, we do have the same meaning. Finally, when the sentences are totally different (but not contradictory), then we may reasonably assume that both things were said on that occasion and that one writer uses one and another writer the other. This is a common literary practice even today.

    Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (364). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • Did Jesus die on the cross or just swoon? MATTHEW 27:48

    Did Jesus die on the cross or just swoon? MATTHEW 27:48

    MATTHEW 27:48—Did Jesus die on the cross or just swoon?

    PROBLEM: Many skeptics, as well as Muslims, believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. Some say that He took a drug that put Him in a comalike state and that He later revived in the tomb. Yet the Bible says repeatedly that Christ died on the cross (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Thes. 4:14).

    SOLUTION: Jesus never fainted or swooned, nor was He drugged on the cross. In fact, He refused the drug customarily offered to the victim before crucifixion to help deaden pain (Matt. 27:34), and He accepted only “vinegar” later (v. 48) to quench His thirst. Jesus’ actual physical death on the cross is supported by overwhelming evidence.

    First of all, the OT predicted that Christ would die (Isa. 53:5–10; Ps. 22:16; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 12:10). And Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messiah (cf. Matt. 4:14–16; 5:17–18; 8:17; John 4:25–26; 5:39).

    Second, Jesus announced many times during His ministry that He was going to die (John 2:19–21; 10:10–11; Matt. 12:40; Mark 8:31). Typical is Matthew 17:22–23 that says, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.”

    Third, all the predictions of His resurrection, both in the OT (cf. Ps. 16:10; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2) and in the NT (cf. John 2:19–21; Matt. 12:40; 17:22–23), are based on the fact that He would die. Only a dead body can be resurrected.

    Fourth, the nature and extent of Jesus’ injuries indicate that He must have died. He had no sleep the night before He was crucified. He was beaten several times and whipped. And He collapsed on the way to His crucifixion carrying His cross. This in itself, to say nothing of the crucifixion to follow, was totally exhausting and life-draining.

    Fifth, the nature of the crucifixion assures death. Jesus was on the cross from 9 o’clock in the morning until just before sunset. He bled from wounded hands and feet plus from the thorns that pierced His head. There would be a tremendous loss of blood from doing this for more than six hours. Plus, crucifixion demands that one constantly pull himself up in order to breathe, thus sending excruciating pain from the nails. Doing this all day would kill nearly anyone even if they were previously in good health.

    Sixth, the piercing of Jesus’ side with the spear, from which came “blood and water” (John 19:34), is proof that He had physically died before the piercing. When this has happened, it is a medical proof that the person has already died (see point eleven below).

    Seventh, Jesus said He was in the act of dying on the cross when He declared “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). And “having said this, He breathed His last” (v. 46). John renders this, “He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30). His death cry was heard by those who stood by (vv. 47–49).

    Eighth, the Roman soldiers, accustomed to crucifixion and death, pronounced Jesus dead. Although it was a common practice to break the legs of the victim to speed death (so that the person can no longer lift himself and breathe), they did not even break Jesus’ legs (John 19:33).

    Ninth, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus was dead before he gave the corpse to Joseph to be buried. “Summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph” (Mark 15:44–45).

    Tenth, Jesus was wrapped in about 75 pounds of cloth and spices and placed in a sealed tomb for three days (John 19:39–40; Matt. 27:60). If He was not dead by then, which He clearly was, He would have died from lack of food, water, and medical treatment.

    Eleventh, medical authorities who have examined the circumstances and nature of Christ’s death have concluded that He actually died on the cross. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Society (March 21, 1986) concluded:

    Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge (p. 1463).

    [1]

     

    [1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (362). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • Did both robbers revile Christ, or did only one do this? MATTHEW 27:44

    Did both robbers revile Christ, or did only one do this? MATTHEW 27:44

    MATTHEW 27:44—Did both robbers revile Christ, or did only one do this?

    PROBLEM: Matthew says here, “even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him.” However, according to Luke, only one reviled Him (Luke 23:39) while the other one believed in Him, asking, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42).

    SOLUTION: This difficulty is easily resolved on the supposition that at first both reviled the Lord, but that later one repented. Perhaps, he was so impressed hearing Jesus forgive those who crucified Him (Luke 23:34) that he was convinced that Jesus was the Savior and asked to be part of His coming kingdom (v. 42).

    [1]

     

    [1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (362). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • Why are all the Gospel accounts of the inscription on the cross different? MATTHEW 27:37 (cf. Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19)

    Why are all the Gospel accounts of the inscription on the cross different? MATTHEW 27:37 (cf. Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19)

    MATTHEW 27:37 (cf. Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19)—Why are all the Gospel accounts of the inscription on the cross different?

    PROBLEM: The wording of the accusation above Christ’s head on the cross is rendered differently in each Gospel account.

    Matthew: “This is Jesus the king of the Jews” (27:37).

    Mark: “The king of the Jews” (15:26).

    Luke: “This is the king of the Jews” (23:38).

    John: “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” (19:19).

    SOLUTION: While there is a difference in what is omitted, the important phrase, “the king of the Jews,” is identical in all four Gospels. The differences can be accounted for in different ways.

    First, John 19:20 says, “Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.” So then, there are at least three different languages in which the sign above Christ’s head was written. Some of the differences may come from it being rendered in different languages.

    Further, it is possible that each Gospel only gives part of the complete statement as follows:

    Matthew: “This is Jesus [of Nazareth] the king of the Jews.”

    Mark: “[This is Jesus of Nazareth] the king of the Jews.”

    Luke: “This is [Jesus of Nazareth] the king of the Jews.”

    John: “[This is] Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.”

    Thus, the whole statement may have read “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.” In this case, each Gospel is giving the essential part (“the king of the Jews”), but no Gospel is giving the whole inscription. But neither is any Gospel contradicting what the other Gospels say. The accounts are divergent and mutually complementary, not contradictory.

    Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (361). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • Did Judas die by hanging or by falling on rocks? MATTHEW 27:5 (cf. Acts 1:18)

    Did Judas die by hanging or by falling on rocks? MATTHEW 27:5 (cf. Acts 1:18)

    MATTHEW 27:5 (cf. Acts 1:18)—Did Judas die by hanging or by falling on rocks?

    PROBLEM: Matthew declares that Judas hanged himself. However, the Book of Acts says that he fell and his body burst open.

    SOLUTION: These accounts are not contradictory, but mutually complementary. Judas hung himself exactly as Matthew affirms that he did. The account in Acts simply adds that Judas fell, and his body opened up at the middle and his intestines gushed out. This is the very thing one would expect of someone who hanged himself from a tree over a cliff and fell on sharp rocks below.

    Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (361). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

  • Is Jesus advocating pacifism and denouncing capital punishment in this passage? MATTHEW 26:52

    Is Jesus advocating pacifism and denouncing capital punishment in this passage? MATTHEW 26:52

    MATTHEW 26:52—Is Jesus advocating pacifism and denouncing capital punishment in this passage?

    PROBLEM: When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter took out his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Jesus told Peter to put back the sword because those who take up the sword will die by the sword. Some use this verse to support pacifism and to oppose capital punishment, which the Bible affirms elsewhere (Gen. 9:6).

    SOLUTION: Total pacifism is not taught in this Scripture. Indeed, Abraham was blessed by the Most High God (Gen 14:19) after engaging in a war against the unjust aggression of the kings who had captured his nephew Lot. In Luke 3:14, soldiers come to inquire of John the Baptist about what they should do. John never told them to leave the army. Likewise, Cornelius, in Acts 10, was a centurion. He was called a devout man (v. 2), and the Scriptures say that the Lord heard the prayers of Cornelius (v. 4). When Cornelius becomes a Christian, Peter does not tell him to leave the army. Also, in Luke 22:36–38, Christ says that the one who has no sword should sell his robe and buy one. The apostles responded saying that they had two swords. Jesus responded saying that “it was enough.” In other words, they did not need to get rid of their swords. The Apostle Paul accepted the protection of the Roman army to save his life from unjust aggressors (Acts 23). Indeed, he reminded the Roman Christians that God had given the sword to the king who did not bear it in vain (Rom. 13:1–4). When Jesus returns to earth, He will come with the armies of heaven and will war against the kings of the earth (Rev. 19:11–19). So, from the beginning to the end, the Bible is filled with examples of the justification of war against evil aggressors.

    What, then, did Jesus mean when He commanded Peter to put away his sword? Peter was making two mistakes in using his sword. First, while the Bible permits the sword by the government for civil purposes (Rom. 13:1–4), it does not endorse its use for spiritual ends. It is to be used by the state, not by the church. Second, Peter’s use was aggressive, not purely defensive. His life was not being unjustly threatened. That is, it was not clearly an act of self-defense (Ex. 22:2). Jesus appears to have endorsed the use of the sword in civil self-defense (Luke 22:36), as did the Apostle Paul (Acts 23).

    Likewise, capital punishment is not forbidden in Scripture, but rather was established by God. Genesis 9:6 affirms that whoever sheds man’s blood, the blood of the killer will also be shed. Numbers 35:31 makes a similar statement. In the NT, Jesus recognized that Rome had capital authority and submitted to it (John 19:11). The Apostle Paul informed the Romans that governing authorities are ministers of God and that they still possessed the God-given sword of capital authority (13:1, 4). So Jesus in no way did away with the just use of the sword by civil authorities. He simply noted that those who live lives of aggression often die by the same means.

    [1]

     

    [1]Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (360). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.