Jesus stood in the midst of a group of his disciples and looked heavenward. He paused, searching for ways to express the prayer of His heart in words to the Father. In that brief moment of thoughtfulness no doubt several things passed through His mind. He knew that His time of suffering was quickly coming, that the cross was bidding Him come and die. Yet He also knew that when death claimed Him it would be a victory, not for death and the Devil, but a triumphant victory for eternal life. He knew that the tomb would be empty on Easter morning.
As His mind raced forward from the cross to the tomb to His resurrection, it continued on into the future events that He knew would come. He saw with absolute clarity the giving of the Holy Spirit; the tongues of fire descending upon the heads of His followers. He rejoiced at how the Spirit would guide them into a fuller understanding of His work and mission, and He knew that they would be released into the world, turning it upside down with the message that death had been conquered, God’s wrath had been appeased, and the door to Heaven was now open for any who might answer His inviting knock.
What else went through His mind in those few moments? I’m fairly certain that He also remembered fondly the uninterrupted bliss that He had enjoyed in unity with the Father and Spirit from eternity. How the three had conspired to bring into being a new world and populate it with rather oddly shaped two legged creatures called “humans,” of all things. I believe that Jesus Christ recalled with joy how He, as the Living, Triune God had breathed the breath of life into this frail collection of dust and ashes. How he had later put the man Adam to sleep and withdrew from him a rib so that He could fashion a suitable life-mate for the lonely, incomplete man. And I could also venture to say that He remembered with infinite sadness the day that the man and woman turned their backs on Him, despising His simple commands and plunging all of His good creation into sin, death, and chaos. He recalled the unifying purpose that He shared with the Father in formulating a plan to save these poor, simple “humans” from their own disobedience and sin.
But more than just a unifying purpose, our Lord Christ also gave thought to how He was truly one with the Father. How they shared much more than mere purpose, but they were actually eternally bound together in a mystery called the Trinity. In the Trinity the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally shared complete power, infinite knowledge, undying love, and the eternal glory rightly due to a majestic, holy God.
Do you ever take a quick peek around the table before you pray? I wonder if Jesus did on that day as He prepared His prayer. I wonder if He snuck a peek at the ragtag group of bumbling followers and thought of their desperate need for a unifying purpose. Did He again look down into the future, down through the triumphs and foibles of the church? Down through the schisms and heresies and the Crusades? Down through the martyrs, the Reformation, and potluck dinners to see people—weak, broken people, but redeemed people nonetheless—people unified under the banner of His name. People of every race and nation called by the name of Christ and sharing the responsibility in achieving the work which He sent them forth to do.
As He thought about these things, it wouldn’t surprise me if He considered that His followers might never realize the extent of their unity. In the same fashion that He was united with the Father, so His followers would be united to one another. Sharing more than purpose, they would truly be una sancta ecclesia, “one holy church,” a body of believers that would exist in all times and in all places that had been called by the Holy Spirit, enlightened with His gifts, and kept in the one true faith. His followers would share a unity that mere words could not describe, one that existed even across denominational boundaries. A unity that would bind them together despite what their eyes could see. No doubt His followers would only see a disorganized bunch of denominations and squabbling traditions . . . but Christ would see them as being a single body unified in Him, with Him as its head.
In those few moments before His prayer—brief seconds, really—I believe Christ thought how foreign this world was to Him. With the Father and the Spirit in Heaven He had known no limits, yet since the moment of His conception in Mary’s womb almighty, eternal God had been confined to a body of frail flesh and bone. How strange it was for almighty God to be dependent upon the milk of His mother! How unsettling was the sensation of pain as He fell down when learning to walk or when a misplaced hammer blow struck his young fingers as he worked beside Joseph in the carpentry shop! How frustrating it was for Him—the one Whom He had taught His diciples to pray to the Father, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”—how frustrating it was for His will upon earth to be thwarted so easily by hardened hearts and unhearing ears.
From eternity He had never experienced any difficulties in communicating with the Father or the Spirit, there had never been any misunderstood words between them. Yet here on earth even His closest followers, with whom He had spent nearly three years of patient, careful instruction and example, even His closest followers were only just now beginning to show signs of belief that He was who He said He was: the very Son of God, sent by the Father into a world that was not ready to accept Him, because He was not from it.
And His followers? They had been with Him all this time, and despite the fact that His teachings didn’t appear to have much effect, He knew that they were becoming more and more like Him all the time. As they walked from town to town, into one another’s homes and the grocery stores and the convenience stores, He saw how His other-worldliness had rubbed off on them. His followers—the ones called Christians—they were no longer truly of this world, either. Something had changed in them, His words had worked through them, the Father had set them apart from the world in which they lived and worked and breathed.
For people who had spent their lives hearing of how they needed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, it was strange for His followers to be dependent upon the saving grace of their God. Somehow, though neither their emotional nor physical pain ever diminished, it seemed to take upon a temporary, transitory quality. The knowledge that this life was not their complete existence, the knowledge that they lived out a dual citizenship, being both Heavenly citizens as well as residents of the planet earth; that seemed to have given pain a purpose. It had changed them somehow.
Where the people of the world would rail against the heavens against the injustice of life, His followers would suffer patiently through trials and temptations with a quiet, unwavering faith. Where the people of the world would amass wealth for themselves—cars, big-screen TV’s, and fully stocked pantries—and still crave more and more, His followers would set aside a regular portion of their income and time and offer them as a small token of gratitude for all that God had given them. Like Jesus Himself, His followers were not truly of this world, either.
As Jesus prepared to draw a breath and begin His prayer—it’s interesting the way time can cease when your mind is racing through matters of extreme importance—He thought of how His unity with the Father and his status of “alien” in this world had combined to send Him to Earth. There could be no doubt that He was a man on a mission, a huge, all-encompassing mission to redeem all of fallen humanity by being the very living grace of God in their lives.
Yes, He had been sent to teach people to be kind to one another. Yes, He had been sent to show people what it meant to demonstrate true, unconditional love even to those prickly kind of people who are most unlovable. He had been sent to show people a better path to live, one that would improve the conditions of life in this world.
But far beyond that, He realized His mission was to accomplish something greater than just being a good example to follow. He had been sent to go where His beloved humans could not go. His mission was to return to the perfect state of Eden and lived a life of full obedience to God. No deceit had been found on His lips; His hands had done no violence and neither was there any to be found in His heart. He had accomplished His mission of living the life that His children had turned away from so, so long ago. He had lived a perfect life for them.
But beyond that mission of a return to Eden, He also was to go further. His mission was to go into death itself. He had lived the life of Eden where His children could not, now He must suffer the death that their sins had warranted. Was it an easy mission? No . . . but a necessary one. Because even as He knew that He had lived life in their place, so He must die in their place, as well. But His death would bear a purpose, the purpose of bringing the very grace of God to a people who had forgotten that they even needed it. He was sent into a world that was not His own in order to save those who had once been His.
With less than an instant before He began His prayer, the thought that He came to save His beloved children made Him consider what their mission would be. Even as the Father had sent Him into this strange world on a mission of salvation, so He too would send His followers back into a world that was no longer their own.
How He wondered over that! In His mind’s eye He could see His followers entering the world from which He had saved them. He did not seek to remove them from the world, but in fact send them back into it as His envoys. He considered that His time in this world was drawing to a close, and so they must be His ambassadors that would continue to speak His words and in their mission bear witness to His mission.
Yes, He would send them. Each of them. He would send them back into the fishing boats and factories, the synagogues and office complexes, back to their families and their bar buddies. They would go forth, each of them being sent back into the world that was not their own, to a land where they were aliens and strangers, but a land where they were on a mission. They would not be taken from that world, but be kept in it, be guarded by the Father as they lived in it, and influence that world in His name. They would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, in Brooklyn and Adrian, and to the very ends of the earth.
Jesus stood in the midst of a group of his disciples and looked heavenward. And as He now opened His mouth to speak, He knew that all would work according to His Father’s plan, the plan He and the Father had arranged from eternity. The plan where His followers would be one in unity, where they would lives as aliens, other-worldly, and where each of them would be sent as His missionary. As they would be more like Him they too, would be holy, even as He is holy.
And so He began to pray . . .
John 17:11-19 Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name-- the name you gave me-- so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13 "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Sunday, May 21, 2006
The Resurrection
Does it make a difference whether we believe in the true, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ or not? Isn’t is possible that perhaps Jesus’ body wasn’t raised, but that He was raised in a spiritual sense? Wouldn’t that be just as meaningful?
Over the past few weeks we’ve been looking at the evidence of what I’ve been rather playfully been calling “crime scenes.” We’ve examined the evidence for the claims in Dan Brown’s book (and new movie) The DaVinci Code and have seen that the church hasn’t been involved in a massive cover-up of the truth, but has faithfully proclaimed the real story of Jesus Christ for millennia. We’ve looked at the discovery of the Gospel of Judas and talked about why we’re not going to modify the Bible to include it. But neither of those was a true crime scene. Today it’s a bit different. Today we truly have a crime scene. There’s a murder, a burial . . . but what about the body? That’s the question we need to answer.
But why ask that question at all? There have been plenty of church leaders over the years, and especially in the past century or so, that have said that the physical resurrection wasn’t important. What was important, they say, is that Jesus conquered death in a spiritual sense. So back to my first question; Does it make a difference whether we believe in the true, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . or not?
One of the great by-products of the last few weeks is that we could see—quite clearly—how important and reliable the Scriptures are. And there is no doubt that the Scriptures consider the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ to be of utmost importance. Listen to the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:12-17: “12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
So is a physical—and not just spiritual—resurrection important? You bet your life it is. So let’s get right to the evidence.
For the sake of time and argument, let’s assume just one thing: let’s assume that Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross. Now if we wanted to make a big issue out of it, we could first determine that as a fact, but describing the entire procedure of the crucifixion and all the things that led up to it would take more time and it has the potential to get fairly graphic. So let’s just say that the Roman soldiers were very, very good at what they did, and we are 100% certain that Jesus did truly die on the cross. If that doesn’t seem like good investigative technique then I’d be happy to detail all that information at some later time. But for now we’re going to take His death as a given, okay?
Our first piece of evidence comes from an unlikely source: the Jewish leaders themselves. In all the world there’s nothing quite as satisfying as evidence that comes from a decidedly hostile source, from someone who has a vested interest in keeping your version of the story from coming out. In the Jewish leaders we have that kind of evidence.
Following the account of the resurrection, a few of the guards who had been guarding Jesus’ tomb went to the Jewish leaders and told them what had happened. And Matthew 28:11-15 tells us that the Jewish leaders assembled and conferred with one another, and in the end decided to give a large sum of money to the soldiers with instructions to say that they had fallen asleep and that the Disciples had come and stolen the body. Do you see the evidence they’ve just given us? They have just admitted that the body is missing!
Honestly, now, if the body wasn’t truly missing, why wouldn’t the Jewish leaders simply say, “You guys are insane! The body’s right here!” But by concocting this story of the guards falling asleep and the disciples stealing the body, they actually confirm a key piece of evidence for the resurrection: the fact that there is no body to be found anywhere. This piece of evidence from a hostile source provides us with a sort of back-handed confirmation for the very thing they were trying to disprove.
The second piece of evidence for the resurrection also comes from what seems like a strange place: the fact that the Gospels themselves do not agree on all the details of their accounts of the resurrection.
Dr. Michael Martin of Boston University has this to say about the Gospel accounts: “In Matthew, when Marty Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn the find the stone had already been rolled back.
“In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tome and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
“In Matthew the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In mark, the owmen present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, marth the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
“In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of th tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.”
Martin suggests that the apparent discrepancies show that the resurrection accounts are nothing more than made-up stories, that they are little more than legendary myths. But were a historian to study those same accounts he would, in fact, say otherwise.
Let me illustrate this point. What would happen if there were three suspects that a detective was interrogating, and each of these three suspects told the exact same story? The very fact that three different people told the exact same story would raise suspicion, and the detective would naturally conclude that all three of the suspects had gotten together beforehand and made sure they had their stories straight. That’s not reality. In the real world each witness has a slightly different point of view when telling their account of a single event.
The Gospels were told with distinct theological and literary emphasis, so it’s not surprising that they would each have slightly different details that would serve the greater purpose the writer had for his account, but they are remarkably cohesive on the core story, the story that lies underneath the details. Each of them tells the same core story—there was a death, a burial . . . and an empty tomb. For a historian or a detective, the fact that certain insignificant details are slightly different can be accounted for, but the fact that the core story is identical tells us that each Gospel writer is telling the truth. The differences in details are evidence for the resurrection, not against it!
The Gospel accounts of the resurrection point us to a third piece of evidence, and it too, is a strange one. Think of the Gospels, and then answer this question: Who witnessed the resurrection? Not Jesus later appearances . . . but the resurrection itself. The very moment when Jesus raised to life. Who witnessed that?
The answer is, of course, no one. The Gospels don’t mention a single person who saw the body of Jesus come to life, stand up, take of His wrappings, fold them, roll back the stone, amaze the guards, and leave. Now is that any way to tell a story? If the Gospel writers were making up stories to convince people of a resurrection, wouldn’t they have written in some witnesses?
The fact that the Gospels don’t is evidence that they are telling a true story. The Gospels give us an appallingly human account. The people act like normal, flawed human beings. If the stories were merely legends, they’d sound more like legends. The resurrection would occur in a public square with thousands of witnesses. The Apostles would have unwavering faith as they waited for Jesus to rise from the dead, and they would be the first people at the tomb, no doubt waiting eagerly with big “Welcome back!” signs.
But that’s not the way the Gospels read. There are no witnesses to the resurrection event itself; it’s all done before anyone gets there. A group of women—who’s testimony would have been regarded as unreliable and inadmissible in any court of the day—were the first ones to see the empty tomb and to tell others that Jesus had risen. Even the Disciples disbelieve the women’s report of Jesus’ triumphant resurrection . . . it seems to them nothing more than an idle tale as they hide away in a locked room. Anyone who’s had any experience with real people in real situations would say, “Yep . . . that’s exactly they way it really would have been.” The Gospels aren’t legends, they’re not stories like Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill, they have all the hallmarks of truth: real people acting like real people would.
This leads us to the final piece of evidence for today: the enduring testimony of the Disciples. What did they hold to, what did they preach and teach and confess as true for the rest of their lives?
The Disciples preached a crucified and risen Lord. Everywhere they went they proclaimed the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Each of them went to their graves with this truth in their heart and on their lips.
Would a man be willing to die for a story he made up? Despite all the evidence we’ve seen so far, if somehow the resurrection was just a story the Disciples made up to carry on the name and teachings of Jesus Christ, would they be willing to suffer and die for the sake of something they knew to be just a product of their own imagination?
Yet the disciples each suffered martyrdom (excepting John). Wouldn’t it be much more likely that, as the crowd descended upon them and the sword pointed at their hearts, that they would say, “Hey now, fellas! Hold on a minute! This weren’t nothin’ . . . just a little joke! No harm, no foul, right, fellas? Buddy?”
Instead, each of them went to their deaths, not once recanting the story of the Resurrection. According to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs: Andrew: crucified. Bartholomew: beaten then crucified. James son of Alphaeus—stoned. James son of Zebedee—beheaded. John—exiled to Patmos, died of old age. Judas (not Iscariot): stoned. Matthew: speared to death in Ethiopia. Peter: crucified upside down. Thomas: speared to death in India. Matthias: stoned. Philip: crucified. Simon: crucified.
They never recanted because the resurrection meant something to them; something more than life itself. They realized that this life is quickly passing . . . but eternity waits on the other side. And there is only One who can guarantee eternal life.
Peter says in 1 Peter 1:3-5, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
The evidence of the resurrection points to something more than just one man rising from the dead. Since that one man is Jesus Christ, His resurrection makes ours possible, as well! And not just ours, but for all those who have died in Jesus Christ! Your loved ones who have died in the faith . . . they have received an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. We who are yet alive . . . we are being kept, guarded by God Himself in Christ for the eternal salvation that awaits us.
Death is a reality in our world, but as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, “20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Christ has conquered death through His resurrection, and so in Him we will all be made alive. There is no need to fear death’s door . . . and there is no grieve as those who have no hope. 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 “. . . “"Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Over the past few weeks we’ve been looking at the evidence of what I’ve been rather playfully been calling “crime scenes.” We’ve examined the evidence for the claims in Dan Brown’s book (and new movie) The DaVinci Code and have seen that the church hasn’t been involved in a massive cover-up of the truth, but has faithfully proclaimed the real story of Jesus Christ for millennia. We’ve looked at the discovery of the Gospel of Judas and talked about why we’re not going to modify the Bible to include it. But neither of those was a true crime scene. Today it’s a bit different. Today we truly have a crime scene. There’s a murder, a burial . . . but what about the body? That’s the question we need to answer.
But why ask that question at all? There have been plenty of church leaders over the years, and especially in the past century or so, that have said that the physical resurrection wasn’t important. What was important, they say, is that Jesus conquered death in a spiritual sense. So back to my first question; Does it make a difference whether we believe in the true, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . or not?
One of the great by-products of the last few weeks is that we could see—quite clearly—how important and reliable the Scriptures are. And there is no doubt that the Scriptures consider the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ to be of utmost importance. Listen to the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:12-17: “12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
So is a physical—and not just spiritual—resurrection important? You bet your life it is. So let’s get right to the evidence.
For the sake of time and argument, let’s assume just one thing: let’s assume that Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross. Now if we wanted to make a big issue out of it, we could first determine that as a fact, but describing the entire procedure of the crucifixion and all the things that led up to it would take more time and it has the potential to get fairly graphic. So let’s just say that the Roman soldiers were very, very good at what they did, and we are 100% certain that Jesus did truly die on the cross. If that doesn’t seem like good investigative technique then I’d be happy to detail all that information at some later time. But for now we’re going to take His death as a given, okay?
Our first piece of evidence comes from an unlikely source: the Jewish leaders themselves. In all the world there’s nothing quite as satisfying as evidence that comes from a decidedly hostile source, from someone who has a vested interest in keeping your version of the story from coming out. In the Jewish leaders we have that kind of evidence.
Following the account of the resurrection, a few of the guards who had been guarding Jesus’ tomb went to the Jewish leaders and told them what had happened. And Matthew 28:11-15 tells us that the Jewish leaders assembled and conferred with one another, and in the end decided to give a large sum of money to the soldiers with instructions to say that they had fallen asleep and that the Disciples had come and stolen the body. Do you see the evidence they’ve just given us? They have just admitted that the body is missing!
Honestly, now, if the body wasn’t truly missing, why wouldn’t the Jewish leaders simply say, “You guys are insane! The body’s right here!” But by concocting this story of the guards falling asleep and the disciples stealing the body, they actually confirm a key piece of evidence for the resurrection: the fact that there is no body to be found anywhere. This piece of evidence from a hostile source provides us with a sort of back-handed confirmation for the very thing they were trying to disprove.
The second piece of evidence for the resurrection also comes from what seems like a strange place: the fact that the Gospels themselves do not agree on all the details of their accounts of the resurrection.
Dr. Michael Martin of Boston University has this to say about the Gospel accounts: “In Matthew, when Marty Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn the find the stone had already been rolled back.
“In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tome and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
“In Matthew the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In mark, the owmen present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, marth the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
“In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of th tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.”
Martin suggests that the apparent discrepancies show that the resurrection accounts are nothing more than made-up stories, that they are little more than legendary myths. But were a historian to study those same accounts he would, in fact, say otherwise.
Let me illustrate this point. What would happen if there were three suspects that a detective was interrogating, and each of these three suspects told the exact same story? The very fact that three different people told the exact same story would raise suspicion, and the detective would naturally conclude that all three of the suspects had gotten together beforehand and made sure they had their stories straight. That’s not reality. In the real world each witness has a slightly different point of view when telling their account of a single event.
The Gospels were told with distinct theological and literary emphasis, so it’s not surprising that they would each have slightly different details that would serve the greater purpose the writer had for his account, but they are remarkably cohesive on the core story, the story that lies underneath the details. Each of them tells the same core story—there was a death, a burial . . . and an empty tomb. For a historian or a detective, the fact that certain insignificant details are slightly different can be accounted for, but the fact that the core story is identical tells us that each Gospel writer is telling the truth. The differences in details are evidence for the resurrection, not against it!
The Gospel accounts of the resurrection point us to a third piece of evidence, and it too, is a strange one. Think of the Gospels, and then answer this question: Who witnessed the resurrection? Not Jesus later appearances . . . but the resurrection itself. The very moment when Jesus raised to life. Who witnessed that?
The answer is, of course, no one. The Gospels don’t mention a single person who saw the body of Jesus come to life, stand up, take of His wrappings, fold them, roll back the stone, amaze the guards, and leave. Now is that any way to tell a story? If the Gospel writers were making up stories to convince people of a resurrection, wouldn’t they have written in some witnesses?
The fact that the Gospels don’t is evidence that they are telling a true story. The Gospels give us an appallingly human account. The people act like normal, flawed human beings. If the stories were merely legends, they’d sound more like legends. The resurrection would occur in a public square with thousands of witnesses. The Apostles would have unwavering faith as they waited for Jesus to rise from the dead, and they would be the first people at the tomb, no doubt waiting eagerly with big “Welcome back!” signs.
But that’s not the way the Gospels read. There are no witnesses to the resurrection event itself; it’s all done before anyone gets there. A group of women—who’s testimony would have been regarded as unreliable and inadmissible in any court of the day—were the first ones to see the empty tomb and to tell others that Jesus had risen. Even the Disciples disbelieve the women’s report of Jesus’ triumphant resurrection . . . it seems to them nothing more than an idle tale as they hide away in a locked room. Anyone who’s had any experience with real people in real situations would say, “Yep . . . that’s exactly they way it really would have been.” The Gospels aren’t legends, they’re not stories like Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill, they have all the hallmarks of truth: real people acting like real people would.
This leads us to the final piece of evidence for today: the enduring testimony of the Disciples. What did they hold to, what did they preach and teach and confess as true for the rest of their lives?
The Disciples preached a crucified and risen Lord. Everywhere they went they proclaimed the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Each of them went to their graves with this truth in their heart and on their lips.
Would a man be willing to die for a story he made up? Despite all the evidence we’ve seen so far, if somehow the resurrection was just a story the Disciples made up to carry on the name and teachings of Jesus Christ, would they be willing to suffer and die for the sake of something they knew to be just a product of their own imagination?
Yet the disciples each suffered martyrdom (excepting John). Wouldn’t it be much more likely that, as the crowd descended upon them and the sword pointed at their hearts, that they would say, “Hey now, fellas! Hold on a minute! This weren’t nothin’ . . . just a little joke! No harm, no foul, right, fellas? Buddy?”
Instead, each of them went to their deaths, not once recanting the story of the Resurrection. According to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs: Andrew: crucified. Bartholomew: beaten then crucified. James son of Alphaeus—stoned. James son of Zebedee—beheaded. John—exiled to Patmos, died of old age. Judas (not Iscariot): stoned. Matthew: speared to death in Ethiopia. Peter: crucified upside down. Thomas: speared to death in India. Matthias: stoned. Philip: crucified. Simon: crucified.
They never recanted because the resurrection meant something to them; something more than life itself. They realized that this life is quickly passing . . . but eternity waits on the other side. And there is only One who can guarantee eternal life.
Peter says in 1 Peter 1:3-5, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
The evidence of the resurrection points to something more than just one man rising from the dead. Since that one man is Jesus Christ, His resurrection makes ours possible, as well! And not just ours, but for all those who have died in Jesus Christ! Your loved ones who have died in the faith . . . they have received an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. We who are yet alive . . . we are being kept, guarded by God Himself in Christ for the eternal salvation that awaits us.
Death is a reality in our world, but as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, “20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Christ has conquered death through His resurrection, and so in Him we will all be made alive. There is no need to fear death’s door . . . and there is no grieve as those who have no hope. 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 “. . . “"Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Sunday, May 14, 2006
The Gospel of Judas
Just over a month ago, on April 6th, 2006, National Geographic News released a story to the press. Here are some excerpts from it:
Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him
He is one of the most reviled men in history. But was Judas only obeying his master's wishes when he betrayed Jesus with a kiss? That's what a newly revealed ancient Christian text says. After being lost for nearly 1,700 years, the Gospel of Judas was recently restored, authenticated, and translated.
What Does It Mean?
Some biblical scholars are calling the Gospel of Judas the most significant archaeological discovery in 60 years. The only known surviving copy of the gospel was found in a codex, or ancient book, that dates back to the third or fourth century A.D.
The Bible's New Testament Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—depict Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, as a traitor. In biblical accounts Judas gives up Jesus Christ to his opponents, who later crucify the founder of Christianity. The Gospel of Judas, however, portrays him as acting at Jesus' request.
Rodolphe Kasser, a clergyman and former professor in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, says, “This lost gospel, providing information on Judas Iscariot—considered for 20 centuries and by hundreds of millions of believers as an antichrist of the worst kind—bears witness to something completely different from what was said [about Judas] in the Bible.”
Well, now. An authentic ancient document that says something “completely different” from what the Bible says. That makes many people in the Church feel somewhat . . . unsettled. It makes doubters scoff at the idea that we’re still gathering in church every Sunday, despite the “evidence” that’s been presented that demonstrates—in their mind, anyway—that Biblical Christianity is false. And it can make a seeker—someone who’s seeking out the real truth about God and Jesus and their life—it can make them turn aside from the one true faith and cause them to start looking in a different direction.
There is no doubt that the media is portraying this “gospel” a major find, and in a certain historical sense, it is truly amazing! We know that around the year 180 A.D. the ancient church father Irenaeus made mention of this Gospel of Judas. 180 A.D. . . . and then it appears to have completely vanished until this copy was found in a cave around the year 1978. The copy that was found is written in Egyptian Coptic, and is probably a 3rd or 4th century translation of the original document which would have certainly been written in Greek. The owners of the document—the National Geographic Society—have submitted it to carbon 14 dating (and I’m sure they have also analyzed the style of penmanship) and confirmed that it is indeed over 1600 years old. So yes, finding something this old and this rare is a truly remarkable historical discovery.
But the hype about this “gospel” isn’t primarily about whether or not it’s an amazing archeological discovery. No, the talk that you’ll hear about the Gospel of Judas is how it gives us a new understanding of the Christian faith.
A few quotes from the article: “I expect this gospel to be important mainly for the deeper insight it will give scholars into the thoughts and beliefs of certain Christians in the second century of the Christian era, namely the Gnostics,” said Stephen Emmel, a Coptic studies professor at the University of Münster in Germany.
Bart Ehrman is chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "This gospel," he said, "has a completely different understanding of God, the world, Christ, salvation, human existence—not to mention of Judas himself—than came to be embodied in the Christian creeds and canon.”
“"This ancient text helps the modern world rediscover something that the early Christians knew firsthand,” said Reverend Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois. “In the early centuries of the Christian era there were multiple sacred texts resulting from communities in various parts of the Mediterranean world trying to come to grips with the meaning of Jesus Christ for their lives.”
It’s something like The DaVinci Code. The media and certain scholars want you to believe that you’re missing out on something, that the Church hid certain knowledge from you. In short, they want you to believe that this new discovery will fundamentally alter the Christian faith. They believe the faith as we know it—as I preach it—is too confining, too restrictive. A broader, more inclusive faith . . . a diverse faith; that’s their goal. In order to achieve that goal, they are making it seem as though that early on there were actually many different types of Christianity.
The set of teachings that the media is portraying as a sect of Christianity is called Gnosticism. There were a number of different Gnostic writings in ancient times, and a lot of them had Biblical-sounding names. Names like the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, the Dialogue of the Savior. As The DaVinci Code suggests, there is even a Gospel of Mary. But what we’re going to find is that “Christianity” and “Gnosticism” are NOT variations on the same theme, they are NOT simply branches of the same tree, but the are, in fact, entirely different religious systems. Calling Gnosticism a sect—or branch—of Christianity is simply false. It’s not like comparing Lutherans and Baptists, for example; we’re both essentially Christian despite our differences in certain doctrines. It’s more like comparing Lutherans and Mormons; we use some of the same terminology, it might sound the same on a superficial level, but dig deeper and you will find that the are radically, fundamentally, diametrically in opposition to one another. We can quickly see the difference if we compare the big picture—the big story—of Christianity and Gnosticism.
The big story of Christianity is God’s love. Specifically, His redeeming love for mankind. The story goes like this: God creates the world, placing mankind as the very pinnacle of His creation. His creation is good and pleasing to Him. But there is a fall, and the world and God’s beloved creatures are thrown into sin, chaos, despair, and death. But God sets out to repair the damage to His creation, and is so intimately involved in redeeming mankind that He actually takes on flesh. He becomes a man, suffering and dying in order to bring about the redemption of all mankind and the restoration of all of creation. This story is one of active redemption.
The big story of Gnosticism, however, is knowledge of the Divine. In this story the world—all of creation, in fact—is wrong. It’s very existence is an evil that must be overcome. God—who is not a personal God but more of an impersonal force, an abstract concept—gives special, secret knowledge to a select few. With this knowledge they escape the evil of the physical world and live in a world of pure spirit. This story is not one of God’s action, but of man’s ascension. In Christianity God descends to our level to save us from ourselves. In Gnosticism man ascends to become the god that he somehow already is.
Now that we’ve got the basic background down, let’s examine the evidence for our CSI crime scene. The basic claim is that this Gospel of Judas should have just as much authority for us as does the Bible. The idea put forth is that because, like our Bible, the Gospel of Judas is an ancient document that speaks of Jesus and bears the name of a known Apostle that we should consider is just as important as the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It’s really a question of canonicity; a question of whether the Gospel of Judas—or the other Gnostic writings, for that matter—belong in the Bible or not.
Now, let’s explain the concept of “canon.” First off, it’s not a big gun! “Canon”—spelled with one “n” in the middle: c-a-n-o-n—is a word that means “ruler” or “measuring stick”. We use it to describe the authority that we give to the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. See, contrary to popular belief, the Bible didn’t just drop right out of the sky! Yes, in a manner of speaking there was a process of selection for Biblical writings, and yes, there were certain writings that were eliminated. Is that a cover-up, a suppression of equally valid texts? Let’s look at the evidence.
The Apostle John warns us in 1 John 4:1, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” That seems reasonable enough. We can’t just accept everything that comes down the pike as being the true Word of God, now, can we? The ancient church recognized this was true as well, and so there were four basic tests the ancient church applied to any writing to determine if it was an authoritative, inspired work of God.
The first test was Apostolic authority. Was a book written by an Apostle? Was it written by someone who was a close co-worker with an apostle? The Apostles were the ones who had personally spent time with Jesus. Look again at 1st John. 1 John 1:1 says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” John knew Jesus personally—he saw him with his own eyes, he touched him with his own hands, and he heard the Lord’s teachings straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. John would be someone that you could trust when he would write or teach about faith in Christ.
If the writing wasn’t directly from an apostle, it had to be someone with enough authority to be recognized by everybody. Mark—it was said that he wrote down Peter’s account of the sayings and doings of the Lord. Luke traveled with Paul on missionary journeys. James and Jude were brothers of Jesus Christ himself. Each of these men had recognized authority by the people of the early church.
And what about the Gospel of Judas? Well, it’s certainly got an apostolic name. But it is interesting to note that it never says that it’s the Gospel according to Judas. That is to say it never makes any claims that Judas himself wrote it. It merely says this: “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.” So we can’t prove that Judas wrote it. But that’s not unique to this book. If you look closely at the four Gospels in your Bible, you’ll also notice that not a single one of them specifically says anywhere who it was written by. If you know someone well, you can recognize them. When I call up my wife on the phone, I don’t have to announce, “Hello Stephanie, this is Vicar Troy Neujahr calling.” She just knows it’s me. In the same way, I assume that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were so well known that they didn’t need to tell everyone that it was them writing.
Based on that issue alone we can’t prove anything about the Gospel of Judas. It at least has the right name. So let’s dig deeper.
The second criteria for a writing to be authoritative was antiquity—how old it was. The basic idea was that an Apostle’s writing was authoritative, because that Apostle would have learned the teachings from Christ Himself. Now, obviously, if an Apostle or a close co-worker of an Apostle was writing, that writing would have had to occur during the lifetime of the Apostles; what is called the Apostolic Age. I mean, you can’t write something after you’re dead! Assume that each of the Apostles was roughly Jesus’ age and each of them you could reasonably expect to live until about 70A.D. or so—if they were to die of natural causes, which most of them didn’t. Then perhaps they’ve got some younger men they’re mentoring, you’re not going to have a huge difference in age, so maybe these young men live about another thirty years. That puts the end of the Apostolic Age around 100 A.D., give or take a few years.
Was the Gospel of Judas written during this Apostolic Age, or was it from a later time? On this we’ll consult the early church father St. Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, who was in turn a student of the Apostle John. Irenaeus refuted the Gospel of Judas in 180 A.D., saying, “They”—that’s the Gnostics—“declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with [Gnostic teachings], and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they [call] the Gospel of Judas.”
Using Irenaeus as a reference, our best estimates place the writing of the Gospel of Judas around the middle of the second century—about fifty years after what I’m calling the end of the Apostolic Age. That’s simply too late.
For example, there was an excellent book called the Shepherd of Hermas. Certain church fathers held this book in high regard—it was that good. But the Shepherd was written somewhere between 105 and 135, and it was felt that was simply too late to truly belong to the Apostolic Age. And if the Shepherd couldn’t make the cut as belonging to the Apostolic age, then I doubt the Gospel of Judas should be considered, either.
Now notice, this isn’t a matter of a church power play deciding what’s in and what’s out. This is simply a matter of ordinary people recognizing that the teachings of Jesus were passed down to the Apostles, who in turn passed them down to other believers. In other words, early believers learned to test the Spirits. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
This isn’t a new process, either. Even from the earliest times both Jesus and the Apostles who followed Him warned believers to watch out for false teachings. In one of the strongest passages in the Bible, the Apostle Paul says to the church of Galatia in Galatians 1:6-8, “6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”
The Apostle’s teachings could be trusted because they were Jesus’ teachings. If anyone taught something other than Christ’s teachings, they were simply considered untrue. This is the third test: the test of orthodoxy.
The word “orthodoxy” comes from two Greek words. Ortho, meaning “correct” and doxas, “to think.” Literally to have “orthodoxy” is to have correct thinking about a matter. Christ’s own teachings—the teachings He handed down to the Apostles, the teachings regarded by the people are authoritative—are the standard for orthodoxy.
Well, the Gospel of Judas could possibly have Apostolic authority. However, it does appear to be slightly past the Apostolic Age. How does the Gospel of Judas measure up to the test of correct teaching, of orthodoxy? Let’s take a look.
“One day he was with his disciples in Judea, and he found them gathered together and seated in pious observance. When he approached his disciples, gathered together and seated and offering a prayer of thanksgiving over the bread, he laughed.”
“The disciples said to him, ‘Master, why are you laughing at our prayer of thanksgiving? We have done what is right.’”
“He answered and said to them, ‘I am not laughing at you. You are not doing this because of your own will but because it is through this that your god will be praised.’”
Right off the bat the Gospel of Judas suggests that the Disciples had it wrong. They’re praying to God, but Jesus mocks them for their apparently misplaced faith. “Your god” . . . not the God, not even “your Father in Heaven” . . . but “your god.” That seems to imply that the disciples had a different God than what Jesus was teaching. Well, that sounds kind of odd, doesn’t it? Raises a red flag or two?
How about this? A little later Jesus is teaching some secret teachings to Judas, and it goes like this: “Jesus said, ‘Come, that I may teach you about secrets no person has ever seen. For there exists a great and boundless real, whose extent no generation of angels has seen, in which there is a great invisible Spirit. Which no eye of an angel has ever seen, no though of the heart has comprehended, and it was never called by any name.” Huh. Well, I know God is Spirit, but I thought for sure that He told Moses that His name was “I Am.” That’s out of place, too, isn’t it?
But let’s cut right to it. In the media you’ll hear all about how this book gives us a new view of Judas and Jesus . . . but they’ll never tell you everything that the book says, because we’ll laugh ourselves silly. Check this out: “Judas said to [Jesus], ‘I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.”
Or how about when this Jesus character describes the beginning of the human race? “Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angels has ever seen among all those called ‘God.’ . . . He made the incorruptible generation of Seth appear. . . . He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit, that their numbers should be five for each.”
This stuff just gets crazier and crazier! It continues on like this, speaking of the “Self-Generated” and the evil angel Yaldaboath that is actually responsible for creating the world. This isn’t the teaching of the Apostles! It’s not the teaching of Jesus!
But the biggest nail in the coffin is this: Not once—ever—does this supposed “gospel” refer to Jesus as the Christ. Oh, sure, it mentions Christ—but it says that there are twelve angels. And it says, “The first is Seth, who is called Christ.” But what is the authoritative teaching of the Apostles? What did John say? 1 John 4:2-3, “Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.” Based on the test of orthodoxy, can we acknowledge that this Gospel of Judas has Scriptural authority? NO!!
The Gospel of Judas may perhaps qualify for the test of Apostolic authority. It gets pushed slightly beyond acceptable boundaries for the test of antiquity. It goes way off the deep end when we consider the test of orthodoxy, and so of course it is no surprise whatsoever that it utterly and completely fails the final test, the test of catholicity.
“Catholic” is a word that is misunderstood. When we say the word “Catholic” we almost automatically think of the Roman Catholic Church; but that’s not what it means. “Catholic” simply means “universal.” The test of Catholicity measures whether or not the church—as a whole—accepted a book or not. Universal acceptance of a particular book meant that everyone—from the highest church leader to the person in the pew—everyone looked at that book and said, “Yep . . . that’s Scripture, all right!” The Gospel of Judas has never enjoyed universal acceptance.
If a book had Apostolic authority, if it was written during the Apostolic age, and if it was determined to have correct, orthodox teaching, then believers copied it and passed it along to other believers. So I’d be willing to wager that a book that was universally accepted would have numerous copies floating around.
The New Testament is the best attested of all ancient literature. The people of the ancient church found the twenty-seven books of the New Testament so helpful for their life in Christ that they copied and copied and copied it, and so today we have a collection of over 24, 600 pieces of the copies the people of the early church made. Some are just small fragments, some are whole pages, and a few are even entire books. We’ve got pieces of copies from the first century all the way to the 8th and 9th centuries and beyond. Christians of each era found these twenty-seven books to be reliable and helpful.
So then . . . how helpful and reliable was the Gospel of Judas considered to be? How many pieces do we have from copies the early church made? Hmmmm . . . . one. ONE. And it was buried for 1600 years! Sounds like folks back then thought it was pretty important, huh? No, of course not! The book was read by enough people to get noticed, and then it fell into disuse because the junk theology it proposes was debunked as being un-Christian.
But there’s more. Very early in church history we see the practice of binding certain manuscripts together in a sort of book. It was a fairly early practice to bind together and distribute the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But never once have we found a Gnostic gospel bound together with the authoritative ones. Do you see the importance of that? Never once, for instance, would you find Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas bound together. It just doesn’t happen. The reason is because even the earliest church didn’t view these writings as being equal! The people of the church have never placed these Gnostic gospels on par with Scripture. Why should the media expect that we’ll do it now?
For no other reason than just because it’s a 1600 year old writing, the Gospel of Judas is indeed a fantastic historical find, I’ll admit that. But it doesn’t change anything for our faith. It doesn’t present any new challenges; it doesn’t even do any new heresies. It’s old hat. People will want you to believe it’s going to change everything, but the fact is that the reason it was ignored for so many years to begin with is because it does not tell us anything we need to know about life and salvation in Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:1-4, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.”
John 20:31, “31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him
He is one of the most reviled men in history. But was Judas only obeying his master's wishes when he betrayed Jesus with a kiss? That's what a newly revealed ancient Christian text says. After being lost for nearly 1,700 years, the Gospel of Judas was recently restored, authenticated, and translated.
What Does It Mean?
Some biblical scholars are calling the Gospel of Judas the most significant archaeological discovery in 60 years. The only known surviving copy of the gospel was found in a codex, or ancient book, that dates back to the third or fourth century A.D.
The Bible's New Testament Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—depict Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, as a traitor. In biblical accounts Judas gives up Jesus Christ to his opponents, who later crucify the founder of Christianity. The Gospel of Judas, however, portrays him as acting at Jesus' request.
Rodolphe Kasser, a clergyman and former professor in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, says, “This lost gospel, providing information on Judas Iscariot—considered for 20 centuries and by hundreds of millions of believers as an antichrist of the worst kind—bears witness to something completely different from what was said [about Judas] in the Bible.”
Well, now. An authentic ancient document that says something “completely different” from what the Bible says. That makes many people in the Church feel somewhat . . . unsettled. It makes doubters scoff at the idea that we’re still gathering in church every Sunday, despite the “evidence” that’s been presented that demonstrates—in their mind, anyway—that Biblical Christianity is false. And it can make a seeker—someone who’s seeking out the real truth about God and Jesus and their life—it can make them turn aside from the one true faith and cause them to start looking in a different direction.
There is no doubt that the media is portraying this “gospel” a major find, and in a certain historical sense, it is truly amazing! We know that around the year 180 A.D. the ancient church father Irenaeus made mention of this Gospel of Judas. 180 A.D. . . . and then it appears to have completely vanished until this copy was found in a cave around the year 1978. The copy that was found is written in Egyptian Coptic, and is probably a 3rd or 4th century translation of the original document which would have certainly been written in Greek. The owners of the document—the National Geographic Society—have submitted it to carbon 14 dating (and I’m sure they have also analyzed the style of penmanship) and confirmed that it is indeed over 1600 years old. So yes, finding something this old and this rare is a truly remarkable historical discovery.
But the hype about this “gospel” isn’t primarily about whether or not it’s an amazing archeological discovery. No, the talk that you’ll hear about the Gospel of Judas is how it gives us a new understanding of the Christian faith.
A few quotes from the article: “I expect this gospel to be important mainly for the deeper insight it will give scholars into the thoughts and beliefs of certain Christians in the second century of the Christian era, namely the Gnostics,” said Stephen Emmel, a Coptic studies professor at the University of Münster in Germany.
Bart Ehrman is chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "This gospel," he said, "has a completely different understanding of God, the world, Christ, salvation, human existence—not to mention of Judas himself—than came to be embodied in the Christian creeds and canon.”
“"This ancient text helps the modern world rediscover something that the early Christians knew firsthand,” said Reverend Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois. “In the early centuries of the Christian era there were multiple sacred texts resulting from communities in various parts of the Mediterranean world trying to come to grips with the meaning of Jesus Christ for their lives.”
It’s something like The DaVinci Code. The media and certain scholars want you to believe that you’re missing out on something, that the Church hid certain knowledge from you. In short, they want you to believe that this new discovery will fundamentally alter the Christian faith. They believe the faith as we know it—as I preach it—is too confining, too restrictive. A broader, more inclusive faith . . . a diverse faith; that’s their goal. In order to achieve that goal, they are making it seem as though that early on there were actually many different types of Christianity.
The set of teachings that the media is portraying as a sect of Christianity is called Gnosticism. There were a number of different Gnostic writings in ancient times, and a lot of them had Biblical-sounding names. Names like the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, the Dialogue of the Savior. As The DaVinci Code suggests, there is even a Gospel of Mary. But what we’re going to find is that “Christianity” and “Gnosticism” are NOT variations on the same theme, they are NOT simply branches of the same tree, but the are, in fact, entirely different religious systems. Calling Gnosticism a sect—or branch—of Christianity is simply false. It’s not like comparing Lutherans and Baptists, for example; we’re both essentially Christian despite our differences in certain doctrines. It’s more like comparing Lutherans and Mormons; we use some of the same terminology, it might sound the same on a superficial level, but dig deeper and you will find that the are radically, fundamentally, diametrically in opposition to one another. We can quickly see the difference if we compare the big picture—the big story—of Christianity and Gnosticism.
The big story of Christianity is God’s love. Specifically, His redeeming love for mankind. The story goes like this: God creates the world, placing mankind as the very pinnacle of His creation. His creation is good and pleasing to Him. But there is a fall, and the world and God’s beloved creatures are thrown into sin, chaos, despair, and death. But God sets out to repair the damage to His creation, and is so intimately involved in redeeming mankind that He actually takes on flesh. He becomes a man, suffering and dying in order to bring about the redemption of all mankind and the restoration of all of creation. This story is one of active redemption.
The big story of Gnosticism, however, is knowledge of the Divine. In this story the world—all of creation, in fact—is wrong. It’s very existence is an evil that must be overcome. God—who is not a personal God but more of an impersonal force, an abstract concept—gives special, secret knowledge to a select few. With this knowledge they escape the evil of the physical world and live in a world of pure spirit. This story is not one of God’s action, but of man’s ascension. In Christianity God descends to our level to save us from ourselves. In Gnosticism man ascends to become the god that he somehow already is.
Now that we’ve got the basic background down, let’s examine the evidence for our CSI crime scene. The basic claim is that this Gospel of Judas should have just as much authority for us as does the Bible. The idea put forth is that because, like our Bible, the Gospel of Judas is an ancient document that speaks of Jesus and bears the name of a known Apostle that we should consider is just as important as the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It’s really a question of canonicity; a question of whether the Gospel of Judas—or the other Gnostic writings, for that matter—belong in the Bible or not.
Now, let’s explain the concept of “canon.” First off, it’s not a big gun! “Canon”—spelled with one “n” in the middle: c-a-n-o-n—is a word that means “ruler” or “measuring stick”. We use it to describe the authority that we give to the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. See, contrary to popular belief, the Bible didn’t just drop right out of the sky! Yes, in a manner of speaking there was a process of selection for Biblical writings, and yes, there were certain writings that were eliminated. Is that a cover-up, a suppression of equally valid texts? Let’s look at the evidence.
The Apostle John warns us in 1 John 4:1, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” That seems reasonable enough. We can’t just accept everything that comes down the pike as being the true Word of God, now, can we? The ancient church recognized this was true as well, and so there were four basic tests the ancient church applied to any writing to determine if it was an authoritative, inspired work of God.
The first test was Apostolic authority. Was a book written by an Apostle? Was it written by someone who was a close co-worker with an apostle? The Apostles were the ones who had personally spent time with Jesus. Look again at 1st John. 1 John 1:1 says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” John knew Jesus personally—he saw him with his own eyes, he touched him with his own hands, and he heard the Lord’s teachings straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. John would be someone that you could trust when he would write or teach about faith in Christ.
If the writing wasn’t directly from an apostle, it had to be someone with enough authority to be recognized by everybody. Mark—it was said that he wrote down Peter’s account of the sayings and doings of the Lord. Luke traveled with Paul on missionary journeys. James and Jude were brothers of Jesus Christ himself. Each of these men had recognized authority by the people of the early church.
And what about the Gospel of Judas? Well, it’s certainly got an apostolic name. But it is interesting to note that it never says that it’s the Gospel according to Judas. That is to say it never makes any claims that Judas himself wrote it. It merely says this: “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.” So we can’t prove that Judas wrote it. But that’s not unique to this book. If you look closely at the four Gospels in your Bible, you’ll also notice that not a single one of them specifically says anywhere who it was written by. If you know someone well, you can recognize them. When I call up my wife on the phone, I don’t have to announce, “Hello Stephanie, this is Vicar Troy Neujahr calling.” She just knows it’s me. In the same way, I assume that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were so well known that they didn’t need to tell everyone that it was them writing.
Based on that issue alone we can’t prove anything about the Gospel of Judas. It at least has the right name. So let’s dig deeper.
The second criteria for a writing to be authoritative was antiquity—how old it was. The basic idea was that an Apostle’s writing was authoritative, because that Apostle would have learned the teachings from Christ Himself. Now, obviously, if an Apostle or a close co-worker of an Apostle was writing, that writing would have had to occur during the lifetime of the Apostles; what is called the Apostolic Age. I mean, you can’t write something after you’re dead! Assume that each of the Apostles was roughly Jesus’ age and each of them you could reasonably expect to live until about 70A.D. or so—if they were to die of natural causes, which most of them didn’t. Then perhaps they’ve got some younger men they’re mentoring, you’re not going to have a huge difference in age, so maybe these young men live about another thirty years. That puts the end of the Apostolic Age around 100 A.D., give or take a few years.
Was the Gospel of Judas written during this Apostolic Age, or was it from a later time? On this we’ll consult the early church father St. Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, who was in turn a student of the Apostle John. Irenaeus refuted the Gospel of Judas in 180 A.D., saying, “They”—that’s the Gnostics—“declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with [Gnostic teachings], and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they [call] the Gospel of Judas.”
Using Irenaeus as a reference, our best estimates place the writing of the Gospel of Judas around the middle of the second century—about fifty years after what I’m calling the end of the Apostolic Age. That’s simply too late.
For example, there was an excellent book called the Shepherd of Hermas. Certain church fathers held this book in high regard—it was that good. But the Shepherd was written somewhere between 105 and 135, and it was felt that was simply too late to truly belong to the Apostolic Age. And if the Shepherd couldn’t make the cut as belonging to the Apostolic age, then I doubt the Gospel of Judas should be considered, either.
Now notice, this isn’t a matter of a church power play deciding what’s in and what’s out. This is simply a matter of ordinary people recognizing that the teachings of Jesus were passed down to the Apostles, who in turn passed them down to other believers. In other words, early believers learned to test the Spirits. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
This isn’t a new process, either. Even from the earliest times both Jesus and the Apostles who followed Him warned believers to watch out for false teachings. In one of the strongest passages in the Bible, the Apostle Paul says to the church of Galatia in Galatians 1:6-8, “6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”
The Apostle’s teachings could be trusted because they were Jesus’ teachings. If anyone taught something other than Christ’s teachings, they were simply considered untrue. This is the third test: the test of orthodoxy.
The word “orthodoxy” comes from two Greek words. Ortho, meaning “correct” and doxas, “to think.” Literally to have “orthodoxy” is to have correct thinking about a matter. Christ’s own teachings—the teachings He handed down to the Apostles, the teachings regarded by the people are authoritative—are the standard for orthodoxy.
Well, the Gospel of Judas could possibly have Apostolic authority. However, it does appear to be slightly past the Apostolic Age. How does the Gospel of Judas measure up to the test of correct teaching, of orthodoxy? Let’s take a look.
“One day he was with his disciples in Judea, and he found them gathered together and seated in pious observance. When he approached his disciples, gathered together and seated and offering a prayer of thanksgiving over the bread, he laughed.”
“The disciples said to him, ‘Master, why are you laughing at our prayer of thanksgiving? We have done what is right.’”
“He answered and said to them, ‘I am not laughing at you. You are not doing this because of your own will but because it is through this that your god will be praised.’”
Right off the bat the Gospel of Judas suggests that the Disciples had it wrong. They’re praying to God, but Jesus mocks them for their apparently misplaced faith. “Your god” . . . not the God, not even “your Father in Heaven” . . . but “your god.” That seems to imply that the disciples had a different God than what Jesus was teaching. Well, that sounds kind of odd, doesn’t it? Raises a red flag or two?
How about this? A little later Jesus is teaching some secret teachings to Judas, and it goes like this: “Jesus said, ‘Come, that I may teach you about secrets no person has ever seen. For there exists a great and boundless real, whose extent no generation of angels has seen, in which there is a great invisible Spirit. Which no eye of an angel has ever seen, no though of the heart has comprehended, and it was never called by any name.” Huh. Well, I know God is Spirit, but I thought for sure that He told Moses that His name was “I Am.” That’s out of place, too, isn’t it?
But let’s cut right to it. In the media you’ll hear all about how this book gives us a new view of Judas and Jesus . . . but they’ll never tell you everything that the book says, because we’ll laugh ourselves silly. Check this out: “Judas said to [Jesus], ‘I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.”
Or how about when this Jesus character describes the beginning of the human race? “Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angels has ever seen among all those called ‘God.’ . . . He made the incorruptible generation of Seth appear. . . . He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit, that their numbers should be five for each.”
This stuff just gets crazier and crazier! It continues on like this, speaking of the “Self-Generated” and the evil angel Yaldaboath that is actually responsible for creating the world. This isn’t the teaching of the Apostles! It’s not the teaching of Jesus!
But the biggest nail in the coffin is this: Not once—ever—does this supposed “gospel” refer to Jesus as the Christ. Oh, sure, it mentions Christ—but it says that there are twelve angels. And it says, “The first is Seth, who is called Christ.” But what is the authoritative teaching of the Apostles? What did John say? 1 John 4:2-3, “Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.” Based on the test of orthodoxy, can we acknowledge that this Gospel of Judas has Scriptural authority? NO!!
The Gospel of Judas may perhaps qualify for the test of Apostolic authority. It gets pushed slightly beyond acceptable boundaries for the test of antiquity. It goes way off the deep end when we consider the test of orthodoxy, and so of course it is no surprise whatsoever that it utterly and completely fails the final test, the test of catholicity.
“Catholic” is a word that is misunderstood. When we say the word “Catholic” we almost automatically think of the Roman Catholic Church; but that’s not what it means. “Catholic” simply means “universal.” The test of Catholicity measures whether or not the church—as a whole—accepted a book or not. Universal acceptance of a particular book meant that everyone—from the highest church leader to the person in the pew—everyone looked at that book and said, “Yep . . . that’s Scripture, all right!” The Gospel of Judas has never enjoyed universal acceptance.
If a book had Apostolic authority, if it was written during the Apostolic age, and if it was determined to have correct, orthodox teaching, then believers copied it and passed it along to other believers. So I’d be willing to wager that a book that was universally accepted would have numerous copies floating around.
The New Testament is the best attested of all ancient literature. The people of the ancient church found the twenty-seven books of the New Testament so helpful for their life in Christ that they copied and copied and copied it, and so today we have a collection of over 24, 600 pieces of the copies the people of the early church made. Some are just small fragments, some are whole pages, and a few are even entire books. We’ve got pieces of copies from the first century all the way to the 8th and 9th centuries and beyond. Christians of each era found these twenty-seven books to be reliable and helpful.
So then . . . how helpful and reliable was the Gospel of Judas considered to be? How many pieces do we have from copies the early church made? Hmmmm . . . . one. ONE. And it was buried for 1600 years! Sounds like folks back then thought it was pretty important, huh? No, of course not! The book was read by enough people to get noticed, and then it fell into disuse because the junk theology it proposes was debunked as being un-Christian.
But there’s more. Very early in church history we see the practice of binding certain manuscripts together in a sort of book. It was a fairly early practice to bind together and distribute the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But never once have we found a Gnostic gospel bound together with the authoritative ones. Do you see the importance of that? Never once, for instance, would you find Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas bound together. It just doesn’t happen. The reason is because even the earliest church didn’t view these writings as being equal! The people of the church have never placed these Gnostic gospels on par with Scripture. Why should the media expect that we’ll do it now?
For no other reason than just because it’s a 1600 year old writing, the Gospel of Judas is indeed a fantastic historical find, I’ll admit that. But it doesn’t change anything for our faith. It doesn’t present any new challenges; it doesn’t even do any new heresies. It’s old hat. People will want you to believe it’s going to change everything, but the fact is that the reason it was ignored for so many years to begin with is because it does not tell us anything we need to know about life and salvation in Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:1-4, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.”
John 20:31, “31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Christ and the DaVinci Code
In less than two week’s time, a new movie will be released to the viewing public. This movie is based upon a best-selling novel that is full of Biblical imagery, tells a fast-paced, exciting story, and shows us much about our faith. No, it’s not the second installment of the Chronicles of Narnia, it’s not The Purpose-Driven Movie, it is, of course, The DaVinci Code.
This book has generated an amazing amount of discussion! The jacket of the book claims it is a “#1 worldwide bestseller”, and that it is “now a major motion picture.” The movie stars the mega-star Tom Hanks. Churches everywhere are having month-long sermon series just on this book! Lutheran Church of the Lakes just up the road has dedicated seven weeks of Monday night open discussion groups about this book! What in the world causes all this fus about a little novel? What is all the talk about?
Have any of you read The DaVinci Code? I figured I’d better check it out, so I bought this little paperback for a few bucks at Meijer. And you know what? It’s a real page-turner. For the first couple hundred pages or so it moves right along, drawing you into the story. The occasional references to the Church and its history helped make it even more interesting for me—considering my education and profession.
For our purposes, there are three main characters in Brown’s book. The leading man is Robert Langdon, professor of Religious Symobology at Harvard. His forte is identifying and understanding the religious symbolism we see in history and even surrounding us in popular culture. But his particular area of expertise is what he calls the sacred feminine. In other words, Robert Langdon is an expert on the symbolism associated with goddess worship. Professor Langdon is wanted for the murder of the curator of the world-famous Louvre art museum in Paris, but he is innocent.
The leading lady, now, is a French cryptographer by the name of Sophie Neveu. She is an expert at deciphering codes, and very quickly gets wrapped up in protecting Langdon from the false charges against him. The murdered man was her grandfather.
The third main character doesn’t appear until about mid-way through the story, but his appearance marks the serious development of the plot. Leigh Teabing is a British national who has made the search for the Holy Grail his life’s work.
The basic story of The DaVinci Code revolves around these three people as they simultaneously try to avoid being captured by the French police for the supposed involvement in the murder of Sophie’s grandfather (they’re innocent, remember) while at the same time frantically pursuing a set of intriguing, complex clues left that he left just moments before his death. Those clues, the book promises, will lead them to an astounding discovery that will give absolute proof that Christianity as we know it is full of half-truths and outright lies and that the ancient church deliberately concealed the real truth in an effort to gain power for themselves.
So what’s the big deal? What’s the fuss? It’s just fiction, it’s just a story, after all. Sure, it’s a fun little read, sure, it says some stuff that doesn’t agree with the Bible, but so do a lot of other things! So why have a sermon on this book? What’s the fuss about?
Well, there wouldn’t be much fuss at all, if the author had let the book stay in the realm of fiction. We could dismiss all the claims against the one, true faith with a wave, saying, “Well, that’s a cute little book . . . but we have the truth.” But Dan Brown, the author, couldn’t let it just be a work of fiction. He had to claim something more. This is how the book opens up—before the story even begins, Brown himself says on the first page, “FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Brown claims everything in this book is accurate, it’s just that he has made up some characters to bring the story to life. In other words, Brown believes—and wants you to believe—that everything else he has to say about the church covering up the truth and feeding you a life is the absolute truth. In fact, Brown has said on national television that if he were to write this same story as a non-fiction book that he doesn’t think there would be any difference.
The DaVinci Code doesn’t break any new ground. The heresies it promotes are centuries old. No new ground, just a new package. Sure, it’s a fun little read . . . but hardly a new revelation---except for the people who know very little (if any at all) of the true Jesus Christ. Those people are in danger of seeing this and swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. We need to be prepared to give those people some good answers for the hope that we have—and will continue to have—in the true, risen, Lord Jesus Christ.
Now I personally hate spoilers—I don’t like to be told the ending of a book or movie before I get a chance to see it for myself. So I’m not going to tell you everything about this book. Without giving away everything, we’re going to hit the major points that Brown proposes and give some good answers to them. Let’s dig right in.
Has the Church throughout the ages been involved in a major cover-up of the truth? At one point and exasperated Teabing blurts out, “ . . . almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.” Is the story of Jesus Christ the greatest story ever told . . . or the greatest story ever sold? And what is The DaVinci Code’s proof?
Constantine was the Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306–337 A.D. He is the man who is responsible for making Christianity a legalized religion—as a matter of fact, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Dan Brown claims that Constantine is responsible for creating the Bible as we know it and, in the process, inventing our understanding of Jesus Christ. Teabing says, “Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. . . . Constantine commissioned and funded a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.” Is this true?
No, no it’s not. The “earlier gospels” that Brown is referring to—the ones that were outlawed and burned—those are what we call the Gnostic gospels. Gnosticism was a twist on Biblical Christianity, a heresy that involved involved occult lore, magic watchwords, and secret names. The “gospels” that Brown refers to—the gospels of Phillip, Mary Magdalene, and Peter—they were all written in the 2nd century. They were written over 100 years—or more—after the death of Jesus!
Now take that and compare it to 2 Peter 1:16. There Peter says, “16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry. Either eyewitnesses or close co-workers of eyewitnesses.
Jesus died around 33 A.D. Now how long could an eyewitness have lived after Jesus’ death? Or let me put it another way: Good estimates for the for Gospel of Mark, for example, place it from 55 A.D. to 65 A.D. That’s just 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. Which is earlier? The Gnostic gospels . . . or the real ones?
But let’s go even further. Did Constantine “commission and fund a new Bible,” as Brown claims? Yes! He certainly did! Fifty new Bibles, as a matter of fact! Constantine personally ordered and paid for fifty Bibles to be hand copied (the only way Bibles were done in those days) so that they could be placed in each of the churches in Constantinople. . . . but that’s not what Brown meant, is it?
Brown is referring to the Council of Nicaea, which Constantine called in 325 A.D. Constantine determined the place and time, summoned the bishops, he paid for all the expenses, and gave the decisions of the bishops binding force.
The main purpose of the Council was to debate the rise of a particular heresy, called Arianism, which claimed that Jesus Christ was not co-equal with the Father. It was NOT to decide if Jesus was truly Divine or not, but just whether He was truly co-equal with the Father! An off-shoot of that discussion was the church deciding which books could be considered reliable, which books could rightly be considered inspired by God. And yes, at that Council, it was decided that the sixty-six books we know and recognize as the Old and New Testaments was finally decided.
But what Brown doesn’t tell you is that while the books of the Bible were certainly finalized at the Council of Nicaea, the issue was in fact pretty much settled by that point! s largely decided much before then. We have piece of evidence called the Muratorian Fragment that clearly shows we had a virtually complete collection of acknowledged Scriptures by the middle of the 2nd century. Brown says that Constantine decided upon what books made up the Scriptures in 325 A.D.? Ha! That issue was decided upon by 150 A.D., nearly two centuries earlier! I think the proper word to use at this point would be Boo yah!
So if Gospels that we have are, in fact, the earlier gospels and if the Council of Nicaea wasn’t the sole deciding factor on what constituted the Scriptures, is it fair to say that Constantine “upgraded Jesus’ status” to being God?
No. Jesus Himself claimed to be God. Remember the story where the paralyzed man’s friends let him down through the roof, and Jesus said to him, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” And the scribes were sitting nearby, and they wondered, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And Jesus, in effect, said, “That’s right . . . that’s the point!” and healed the man and sent him on his way.
The Apostles claimed Jesus is God. After the resurrection, the disciples were gathered together, and Thomas was with them this time. And although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!””
But even the early church fathers of the 1st and second century—the ones who learned the faith from the Apostles and passed it on to others—they claimed Jesus was God, as well! Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus . . . they all claimed Jesus to be true God! From the moment Christ’s ministry began to the time of Constantine, true, faithful believers confessed Jesus Christ as true God and true man. And yet Dan Brown says that Constantine was the one that upgraded Jesus’ status. Brown claims that Constatine’s Council of Nicaea decided by a vote—and a close one at that—that Jesus was Divine.
A brief word about that vote. Remember that the purpose of the Council wasn’t to decide if Jesus was Divine or not, it was to decide if He was truly co-equal with the Father. In other words, whether Jesus’ in His Divinity shared all the majesty, glory, and honor that was rightly due the Father. There was a vote on that. The “close vote” that Brown mentions? It was 300 to 2.
One last point from The DaVinci Code. Brown claims that the church’s big cover-up is that Jesus . . . was . . . married! To Mary Magdalene! Where in the world does he get this idea? Well, in terms of heresies, it’s a fairly recent one. Whereas Brown claims this was the truth that was covered up at Nicaea, in reality the first mention we ever hear of this notion doesn’t occur until the ninth century. It’s an idea that’s based, in part, upon one of those later Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Phillip, which is an actual ancient document discovered in the 1940’s.
Teabing has Sophie read a portion of this “gospel.” Now, other than the fact that Brown mistakenly says it’s written in Aramaic instead of Greek, and despite the fact that somehow Sophie, who isn’t trained in ancient languages, can read a photocopy of the ancient text, she somehow flawlessly reads this passage: “And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?”
Well, that’s pretty impressive, huh? But it’s not really in there! What typically happens with ancient documents is that the parchment is crumbled and the ink has faded. Reading them becomes very, very difficult because entire words and lines are missing. The actual reading of that passage from this supposed “gospel” goes like this: “And the companion of . . . Mary Magdalene . . . her more than the disciples . . . . . . . . kiss her . . . .” and so on.
But even if the places where Brown fills in the missing words are correct, and even if any of the events in the gospel of Phillip were accurate (which scholars say they aren’t), it still never mentions—not once—that Jesus and Mary were married.
In the end Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code leave us with a Jesus that never did miracles, that was never the Son of God, that died a pointless death that He never rose from. That’s not the kind of Jesus that I need . . . that’s not the kind of Jesus that you need . . . and that’s not the kind of Jesus that our friends need. What we need is the real Jesus.
The real Jesus is found in the Bible, not in The DaVinci Code. In the Scriptures we find a Jesus who loves and laughs, who hurts and heals. He never fails to show how great His love is for us, and yet He never holds back the awful truth that our sin is killing us. The things He has to say aren’t just secrets for a select few, but they are God’s truths for all of mankind. It’s the truth that the Church hasn’t covered up at all, but in fact has proclaimed it faithfully for centuries: John 3:16 “16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
And that is something that doesn’t need to be decoded in order to be understood.
This book has generated an amazing amount of discussion! The jacket of the book claims it is a “#1 worldwide bestseller”, and that it is “now a major motion picture.” The movie stars the mega-star Tom Hanks. Churches everywhere are having month-long sermon series just on this book! Lutheran Church of the Lakes just up the road has dedicated seven weeks of Monday night open discussion groups about this book! What in the world causes all this fus about a little novel? What is all the talk about?
Have any of you read The DaVinci Code? I figured I’d better check it out, so I bought this little paperback for a few bucks at Meijer. And you know what? It’s a real page-turner. For the first couple hundred pages or so it moves right along, drawing you into the story. The occasional references to the Church and its history helped make it even more interesting for me—considering my education and profession.
For our purposes, there are three main characters in Brown’s book. The leading man is Robert Langdon, professor of Religious Symobology at Harvard. His forte is identifying and understanding the religious symbolism we see in history and even surrounding us in popular culture. But his particular area of expertise is what he calls the sacred feminine. In other words, Robert Langdon is an expert on the symbolism associated with goddess worship. Professor Langdon is wanted for the murder of the curator of the world-famous Louvre art museum in Paris, but he is innocent.
The leading lady, now, is a French cryptographer by the name of Sophie Neveu. She is an expert at deciphering codes, and very quickly gets wrapped up in protecting Langdon from the false charges against him. The murdered man was her grandfather.
The third main character doesn’t appear until about mid-way through the story, but his appearance marks the serious development of the plot. Leigh Teabing is a British national who has made the search for the Holy Grail his life’s work.
The basic story of The DaVinci Code revolves around these three people as they simultaneously try to avoid being captured by the French police for the supposed involvement in the murder of Sophie’s grandfather (they’re innocent, remember) while at the same time frantically pursuing a set of intriguing, complex clues left that he left just moments before his death. Those clues, the book promises, will lead them to an astounding discovery that will give absolute proof that Christianity as we know it is full of half-truths and outright lies and that the ancient church deliberately concealed the real truth in an effort to gain power for themselves.
So what’s the big deal? What’s the fuss? It’s just fiction, it’s just a story, after all. Sure, it’s a fun little read, sure, it says some stuff that doesn’t agree with the Bible, but so do a lot of other things! So why have a sermon on this book? What’s the fuss about?
Well, there wouldn’t be much fuss at all, if the author had let the book stay in the realm of fiction. We could dismiss all the claims against the one, true faith with a wave, saying, “Well, that’s a cute little book . . . but we have the truth.” But Dan Brown, the author, couldn’t let it just be a work of fiction. He had to claim something more. This is how the book opens up—before the story even begins, Brown himself says on the first page, “FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Brown claims everything in this book is accurate, it’s just that he has made up some characters to bring the story to life. In other words, Brown believes—and wants you to believe—that everything else he has to say about the church covering up the truth and feeding you a life is the absolute truth. In fact, Brown has said on national television that if he were to write this same story as a non-fiction book that he doesn’t think there would be any difference.
The DaVinci Code doesn’t break any new ground. The heresies it promotes are centuries old. No new ground, just a new package. Sure, it’s a fun little read . . . but hardly a new revelation---except for the people who know very little (if any at all) of the true Jesus Christ. Those people are in danger of seeing this and swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. We need to be prepared to give those people some good answers for the hope that we have—and will continue to have—in the true, risen, Lord Jesus Christ.
Now I personally hate spoilers—I don’t like to be told the ending of a book or movie before I get a chance to see it for myself. So I’m not going to tell you everything about this book. Without giving away everything, we’re going to hit the major points that Brown proposes and give some good answers to them. Let’s dig right in.
Has the Church throughout the ages been involved in a major cover-up of the truth? At one point and exasperated Teabing blurts out, “ . . . almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.” Is the story of Jesus Christ the greatest story ever told . . . or the greatest story ever sold? And what is The DaVinci Code’s proof?
Constantine was the Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306–337 A.D. He is the man who is responsible for making Christianity a legalized religion—as a matter of fact, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Dan Brown claims that Constantine is responsible for creating the Bible as we know it and, in the process, inventing our understanding of Jesus Christ. Teabing says, “Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. . . . Constantine commissioned and funded a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.” Is this true?
No, no it’s not. The “earlier gospels” that Brown is referring to—the ones that were outlawed and burned—those are what we call the Gnostic gospels. Gnosticism was a twist on Biblical Christianity, a heresy that involved involved occult lore, magic watchwords, and secret names. The “gospels” that Brown refers to—the gospels of Phillip, Mary Magdalene, and Peter—they were all written in the 2nd century. They were written over 100 years—or more—after the death of Jesus!
Now take that and compare it to 2 Peter 1:16. There Peter says, “16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry. Either eyewitnesses or close co-workers of eyewitnesses.
Jesus died around 33 A.D. Now how long could an eyewitness have lived after Jesus’ death? Or let me put it another way: Good estimates for the for Gospel of Mark, for example, place it from 55 A.D. to 65 A.D. That’s just 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. Which is earlier? The Gnostic gospels . . . or the real ones?
But let’s go even further. Did Constantine “commission and fund a new Bible,” as Brown claims? Yes! He certainly did! Fifty new Bibles, as a matter of fact! Constantine personally ordered and paid for fifty Bibles to be hand copied (the only way Bibles were done in those days) so that they could be placed in each of the churches in Constantinople. . . . but that’s not what Brown meant, is it?
Brown is referring to the Council of Nicaea, which Constantine called in 325 A.D. Constantine determined the place and time, summoned the bishops, he paid for all the expenses, and gave the decisions of the bishops binding force.
The main purpose of the Council was to debate the rise of a particular heresy, called Arianism, which claimed that Jesus Christ was not co-equal with the Father. It was NOT to decide if Jesus was truly Divine or not, but just whether He was truly co-equal with the Father! An off-shoot of that discussion was the church deciding which books could be considered reliable, which books could rightly be considered inspired by God. And yes, at that Council, it was decided that the sixty-six books we know and recognize as the Old and New Testaments was finally decided.
But what Brown doesn’t tell you is that while the books of the Bible were certainly finalized at the Council of Nicaea, the issue was in fact pretty much settled by that point! s largely decided much before then. We have piece of evidence called the Muratorian Fragment that clearly shows we had a virtually complete collection of acknowledged Scriptures by the middle of the 2nd century. Brown says that Constantine decided upon what books made up the Scriptures in 325 A.D.? Ha! That issue was decided upon by 150 A.D., nearly two centuries earlier! I think the proper word to use at this point would be Boo yah!
So if Gospels that we have are, in fact, the earlier gospels and if the Council of Nicaea wasn’t the sole deciding factor on what constituted the Scriptures, is it fair to say that Constantine “upgraded Jesus’ status” to being God?
No. Jesus Himself claimed to be God. Remember the story where the paralyzed man’s friends let him down through the roof, and Jesus said to him, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” And the scribes were sitting nearby, and they wondered, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And Jesus, in effect, said, “That’s right . . . that’s the point!” and healed the man and sent him on his way.
The Apostles claimed Jesus is God. After the resurrection, the disciples were gathered together, and Thomas was with them this time. And although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!””
But even the early church fathers of the 1st and second century—the ones who learned the faith from the Apostles and passed it on to others—they claimed Jesus was God, as well! Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus . . . they all claimed Jesus to be true God! From the moment Christ’s ministry began to the time of Constantine, true, faithful believers confessed Jesus Christ as true God and true man. And yet Dan Brown says that Constantine was the one that upgraded Jesus’ status. Brown claims that Constatine’s Council of Nicaea decided by a vote—and a close one at that—that Jesus was Divine.
A brief word about that vote. Remember that the purpose of the Council wasn’t to decide if Jesus was Divine or not, it was to decide if He was truly co-equal with the Father. In other words, whether Jesus’ in His Divinity shared all the majesty, glory, and honor that was rightly due the Father. There was a vote on that. The “close vote” that Brown mentions? It was 300 to 2.
One last point from The DaVinci Code. Brown claims that the church’s big cover-up is that Jesus . . . was . . . married! To Mary Magdalene! Where in the world does he get this idea? Well, in terms of heresies, it’s a fairly recent one. Whereas Brown claims this was the truth that was covered up at Nicaea, in reality the first mention we ever hear of this notion doesn’t occur until the ninth century. It’s an idea that’s based, in part, upon one of those later Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Phillip, which is an actual ancient document discovered in the 1940’s.
Teabing has Sophie read a portion of this “gospel.” Now, other than the fact that Brown mistakenly says it’s written in Aramaic instead of Greek, and despite the fact that somehow Sophie, who isn’t trained in ancient languages, can read a photocopy of the ancient text, she somehow flawlessly reads this passage: “And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?”
Well, that’s pretty impressive, huh? But it’s not really in there! What typically happens with ancient documents is that the parchment is crumbled and the ink has faded. Reading them becomes very, very difficult because entire words and lines are missing. The actual reading of that passage from this supposed “gospel” goes like this: “And the companion of . . . Mary Magdalene . . . her more than the disciples . . . . . . . . kiss her . . . .” and so on.
But even if the places where Brown fills in the missing words are correct, and even if any of the events in the gospel of Phillip were accurate (which scholars say they aren’t), it still never mentions—not once—that Jesus and Mary were married.
In the end Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code leave us with a Jesus that never did miracles, that was never the Son of God, that died a pointless death that He never rose from. That’s not the kind of Jesus that I need . . . that’s not the kind of Jesus that you need . . . and that’s not the kind of Jesus that our friends need. What we need is the real Jesus.
The real Jesus is found in the Bible, not in The DaVinci Code. In the Scriptures we find a Jesus who loves and laughs, who hurts and heals. He never fails to show how great His love is for us, and yet He never holds back the awful truth that our sin is killing us. The things He has to say aren’t just secrets for a select few, but they are God’s truths for all of mankind. It’s the truth that the Church hasn’t covered up at all, but in fact has proclaimed it faithfully for centuries: John 3:16 “16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
And that is something that doesn’t need to be decoded in order to be understood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)