WAS THERE DEATH BEFORE THE FALL?

One point of view concerning life before the Fall in the Garden of Eden insists that nothing alive suffered death during that time. Two of the strong proponents in this “No-Death” camp are Jason Lisle and Ken Ham. We should first of all state that this is, contrary to the attitude they sometimes express, a tertiary doctrinal issue at best and should not be used, one way or another, as a test of fellowship or a hallmark of Christian orthodoxy.

There are several possible approaches to refuting this viewpoint, but I would just like to zero in on just one of them. It involves the incontrovertible fact that plants needed to cease living in order to support animal life, according to Genesis 1:29-30.

“No-Death” proponents try to get around this difficulty by claiming that the death of a plant or invertebrate is quite different from the death of a “living” or “soulish” (nephesh) creature such as a vertebrate or human being. Their reasoning is two-fold: (1) Only the latter are said to be “living” beings and (2) It is never stated in the Bible that plants and invertebrates “die” (mwt), at least in not at all the same sense that “living” creatures die. For example, plants are said to wither (yabesh) instead.

Both of these contentions are wide open to the charge of being mere speculation if either (a) any scriptural references can be shown to include plants and invertebrates in the category of “living” beings or (b) there are any passages stating that plants or invertebrates die, using mwt, the same Hebrew word employed for vertebrate deaths. Here are some passages that may be pertinent in that respect, listed in the order in which they appear in the Bible.

Genesis 1:24-25

On the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind.” and then he enumerates the sub-categories of these “living creatures” as (1) cattle, (2) creeping things and (3) wild animals. The question at this point is: What constitutes creeping things?

Wenham says that it “refers to mice, reptiles, insects, and any other little creature that keep close to the ground.” Thus, clearly invertebrate land creatures are considered to be “living (nephesh) creatures.”

Genesis 6:17

A similar point arises in this passage regarding who or what will die in the Flood. The text says that the deaths will include “all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.” So even if it is said that plants do not breathe oxygen like animals do, the second explanatory phrase in v. 17 seems to indicate that this same “death” apparently includes invertebrates as well as vertebrates.

Genesis 7:22-23

We get a little further clarification in verse 22 as to the identity of “all flesh.” It is said to include birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings, “everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life.” And then in verse 23 the category of “creeping things” is added.

In this passage, we are introduced to another class of animals subsumed under the category of “all flesh” and “everything on earth which breathes.” That is the group of swarming (srs) creatures. According to Hill, “seres identifies primarily swarming aquatic creatures and insects.” Similarly, Wenham says that it includes more than just insects, but “they are small creatures that often occur in swarms and move to and fro in haphazard fashion. 'Swarmers' are to be found on land, in the sea, and in the air.”

Genesis 8:21-22

Finally, in this passage we see that those destroyed were “every living creature.” And we are even given a hint that the death of plants occurred during the Flood when God promises never again to disrupt the cycle of plant life.

Exodus 10:17

Following the plague of locust which left nothing green in the land of Egypt “no tree, no plant in the field,” Pharaoh says to Moses, “Do forgive my sin just this once, and pray to the LORD your God that at the least he remove this deadly thing [literally 'this death'] from me.” That could possibly refer to the death of plants, but other explanations are much more likely, as seen below:

Propp says, “Pharaoh speaks as if he alone were suffering in contrast with his previous mention of himself and his people (8:4; 9:27)...Pharaoh's overstatement proves prophetic. He does not suspect the true death about to strike Egypt.”

Knight: “Egypt is now left to starve...No wonder then that Pharaoh refers to the event as 'this death.'”

“Durham: “Pharaoh indeed has not been in such straits before. Not even had the terrible destruction of the hailstorm...stirred in him such panic, for once ended, the hailstorm left hope amidst destruction in the living men, animals, and crops. These locusts, however, were systematically and thoroughly cutting off Egypt's future. The only word for it is Pharaoh's chilling description: 'this death' a still further echo of the frightening prospect brought by the worst of the mighty acts to this point.”

Thus, we see that it is not just the fact that the plants had “died,” but that it meant “death” for all of Egypt.

Leviticus 11:10-11

After describing the clean animals of the sea which have fins and scales, this law says that “anything in the seas or the streams that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and among all the other living creatures that are in the waters – they are detestable to you.” Thus, the invertebrate shellfish, squids, octopi, etc. are also considered as “living creatures.”

Job 8:11-13

After giving examples of plants withering, Bildad concludes, “Such are the paths of all who forget God.” So even if mwt is not applied to plants here, “wither” (yabesh) is applied to both human beings and plants here in reference to their common deaths.

Job 12:7-10

Job mentions the animals, plants, birds and fish and then lumps them all together as “every living [chai] thing.” In this case, a different Hebrew word is employed for “living,” but one that is used throughout the OT to describe God, human beings, and vertebrates.

Job 14:8

Job says that a tree will be cut down and its stump die (mwt) in the ground.

Ecclesiastes 10:1

“Dead flies make the perfumer's ointment give off a foul odor.” Thus, we are taught that apparently insects can die. But Longman points out, “Numerous issues surround the translation of dead flies (zebube mawet)...the Hebrew most naturally means 'flies of death,' indicating either 'poisonous flies'...or perhaps 'doomed flies'...Perhaps it is best simply to take the construct as attributing death to the flies.”

Isaiah 51:6

“Those who live on it [i.e. the earth] will die [mwt] like gnats.” In other words, insects and human beings die in the same manner.

Isaiah 66:24

If the worms who devour the damned never die [mwt], that may mean that the damned will suffer everlasting punishment and/or the worms will have such an ever-renewing source of the damned that they will live forever. In this context, it certainly does not merely state that no worm is capable of dying [mwt] but infers just the opposite.

Jonah 4:6-7

In this passage, God first appoints a plant to grow up and provide shelter for Jonah, and then he appoints a worm to eat up a plant. It is difficult to explain how supposedly soul-less creatures could have the ability to obey a command of God.

As we move on to NT passages, we might expect some further revelations as to what sort of life and death living things possess. But we must remember that the language here is Greek, not Hebrew, and so it may not be possible to make a direct statement regarding life and death before the Fall.

Luke 3:8

Jesus makes the outstanding proclamation in this verse that God is able to raise up children of Abraham even from non-living stones. This should certainly warn us against making any hard and fast statements regarding what is living, what is non-life, and what is dead. Apparently God's definitions are a bit broader than our narrow understanding.

Luke 4:3

Similarly, if Satan is correct in his understanding here, God is able to transcend the categories of the non-living and plant life by turning rocks into bread. And Jesus appears to agree with this understanding, although he doesn't fall for Satan's trap.

Luke 19:40

“Living” stones even show up a third time as Jesus is entering Jerusalem. As the multitudes praise Jesus in joyous welcome, he makes the comment to the critical Pharisees, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.” Of course, we can dismiss this as mere hyperbole, but it may possibly indicate that even inorganic matter is “alive” enough to respond to God in some manner or another.

John 12:24

In this interesting discussion, Jesus attempts to explain the necessity for His upcoming death. He uses the analogy of plant life and death when he says, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” That does not constitute any sort of absolute proof that plants die in the exact manner of human deaths, but we may take it as again indicative of the biblical propensity to equate the two throughout both Testaments.

James 1:10-11

James avers that the rich man will “wither” and “fade away” like the flower. This is contrary to the idea that only plants can wither; the same verb is used to describe the death of a plant and a man.

Jude 12

The author compares those who reject divine authority as “autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted.” The analogy again equates the death of human beings with the “death” of plants, trees in this case.

Revelation 8:9

In this plague, “a third of the living creatures in the sea died.” So here we see the recurrence of the OT phrase “living creatures” as well as the verb “die” applied to everything living in the sea, presumably including the many invertebrate animals there and possibly the plant life as well.

Conclusion

In summary, we can now say why the following comments can be safely made with plenty of scriptural support:

“As a result of God's creative activity, both animals and people are 'living creatures.' In this sense, all of animate nature is on similar standing.” (Brensinger)

“mwt ['die'] occurs hundreds of times with the notion of natural death whether of humans, animals, or plants.” (Merrill)

“The literal properties of plants as being alive, growing and fruitful make them a chief source of metaphors and similes for human life...The same qualities that make plants images of life also make them images of mutability. If plants can grow...they can also decline. If they live, they also die. No source of imagery for transience is more frequently used by biblical writers than plants.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 650)

Thus, there is no scriptural basis whatsoever for declaring that only vertebrates can truly be considered to live and die.

MOSES THE SINNER

When it comes to prominent characters in the Old Testament, rabbinical scholarship over the years has had the tendency to engage in hagiography, i.e. idealizing its subjects by stressing their good points and explaining away their deficiencies. This is especially true where the Patriarchs are concerned. The best corrective to such wasted efforts is to keep in mind that in the OT there is only one hero, God Himself.

Let us take a look at Moses' life for example. For one thing, it is hard to deny that he had a major problem with keeping his temper in check, even if it his outbursts were usually of the type that would be called righteous indignation. But even a little righteous indignation goes a long way since not one of us is inherently righteous.

Moses' problems start out with a sin that most of us would consider the greatest one of all – the murder of a fellow human being (see Exodus 2:11-15). Several facts come out from this account of Moses' killing of the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew. It was not done on the spur of the moment in hot blood since we are specifically told that Moses first carefully looked around to make sure he was unobserved before killing the man. Thus, we could not really call it unpremeditated, an accident, self defense, or manslaughter. Secondly, he carefully concealed the body, hoping that no one would find it. Thirdly, when a fellow Hebrew revealed that the incident was known by others, Moses reacted out of sheer fear by running away before Pharaoh could arrest and execute him. This is despite the fact that it is doubtful Pharaoh would have done that to his own adopted grandson.

Certainly Satan felt this murder was a great enough sin that he argued with the archangel Michael about the fate of Moses' body after death. We only know about this incident from its mention in Jude 9. Jude is apparently quoting from a pseudepigraphal Jewish writing known as either the Assumption of Moses or the Testament of Moses. While these two may be the same document, some scholars feel they are two separate accounts. Unfortunately, the existing copies of this work (or works) are missing the final pages which would have contained this incident. But the early church fathers were in agreement that this served as the source of Jude's comments since he also quotes from this writing in verse 17.

In any case, the event should not be confused with the eternal fate of Moses' soul. As Neyrey says, Jude seems uninteresting in the state of Moses' soul at death, but rather focuses both on Michael's 'not daring' [to rebuke Satan] and especially on the Lord's eventual judgment.”

We pick up Moses' life in Exodus 3, where we learn that he has settled in to a comfortable life tending sheep and has married the daughter of Jethro, a priest of Midian. At least later in the life of Israel, such intermarriages were highly criticized as leading to heterodox religious practices and out-and-out apostasy. Just witness the spiritual downfall of Solomon and the drastic actions taken by Ezra after the return from Exile to purify the remnant who had returned to Jerusalem.

Then, Moses has his direct interview with God in the burning bush. But at this point, Moses' tendency to fear comes back and he begins making excuses as to why he is unsuitable for the role God has planned out for him. It is only when God reveals that “those who were seeking your life are dead” that Moses actually musters up enough nerve to travel back to Egypt to confront Pharaoh (Exodus 4:18-20).

At this point we run into the mysterious incident in which God actually tries to kill Moses, presumably because he had failed to circumcise his son as he should have. Some have deduced that perhaps Moses had given in to his pagan wife's objection to carry out that needed act (Exodus 4:24-26). If so, then it is an indication that, like Solomon afterward, he was willing to compromise his religious beliefs to keep peace in the family.

Several commentators have found verification of that scenario from Zipporah's harsh comments regarding Moses being “a bridegroom of blood to me.” It is as if she is saying, “If your strange god demands blood, then here it is!”

We could look on this event as being the third time Moses revealed that he was much more afraid of man (and woman) than he was of God.

For most of the rest of the time in the wilderness, Moses could not be accused of any grievous sort of sin, unless one wishes to count the time when he managed to break all ten commandments at the same time upon seeing the Israelites break only one, that of idolatry (Exodus 32:19). Of course, Moses only “broke” the commandments in a literal way, not a figurative one.

Then we come to the puzzling episode recorded in Numbers 20:1-13 in which God tells Moses to command a rock bring forth water for the people to drink from. Instead, in his anger at the people, Moses strikes the rock instead. For that seemingly minor infraction, God tells him that he will never be allowed into the Promised Land. The question is Why?

David Wright voices the opinion of many scholars: “Moses and Aaron apparently sin by not clearly attributing the miracle to God.” He points to verse 12 where God tells Moses that he did not “show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites.” In confirmation of that viewpoint is the key pronoun “we” in verse 10 when Moses asks the people: “Shall we bring water for you out of this rock?”

As an alternative explanation for Moses' inability to enter the Promised Land, there is the comment given in Deuteronomy 1:34-37, and repeated in 3:23-29, that God was angry with Moses on account of the first generation's unwillingness to enter and possess the land when they were told to. But why was Moses held accountable for that failure?

Craigie says, “The reason for Moses' exclusion from the promised land, in this context, seems to be directly related to his responsibility for the Israelites...his identification with the people as their leader meant that he also accepted with them the result of their failure.”

Levinson even goes a step further in talking about Moses “vicariously bearing the punishment due Israel for her sins.” Thus, in that way, Moses is seen as a type of Christ to come.

Despite Moses' personal failures in his life and God rebuking him on several occasions, that does not equate to him being excluded from the heavenly kingdom. We see a hint of that in Deuteronomy 34:6 where the Hebrew text literally states that after Moses' death “He buried him,” clearly referring to God's personal action. And this attitude of God toward Moses is confirmed by his subsequent appearance with Elijah in a glorified form at the Mount of Transfiguration.

Paradoxically, rabbinical attempts to make light of Moses' failings in order to present him as the model Israelite without fault have the unintended effect of similarly making light of the extent of God's grace. But that same thing happens every single time that works-oriented Christians feel they can earn their way into heaven by living a sinless life.

THE UNITY OF EXODUS 1-2

There are two completely different ways to approach any portion of the Pentateuch: those critical scholars of the liberal camp who assume a very late date and a number of different sources for the composition of Exodus and the more evangelical understanding of the text as a unified whole originating with a single first-hand source. In addition, there are other commentators who do see a unity, but one having a very ancient prehistory.

Source Criticism

Without going into undue detail on the subject, here are first some positions taken by the critical scholars:

    Knight: “The book of Exodus is a theological essay in the form of narrative...These events are not necessarily factual.”

    W.H.C. Propp analyzes the book as a heroic fairy tale and finds similarities with Canaanite myths. He assumes that the book reached its final edited form sometime after the Babylonian Exile.

    Schipper: “Although there is currently no consensus on the classification of these different literary components in Ex 1, at least one insight is clear: Ex 1 can be divided into three layers—a priestly source, non-priestly passages, and post-priestly additions.”

As an example of this lack of consensus, here are the sources assigned to the various passages within Exodus 1-2 by three recent commentators. The sources are commonly known as P (Priestly), E (Elohim), J (Yahweh), and R (for the final redactor or editor):

    Propp: 1:1-5a (P or R); 1:5b-6 (R); 1:7 (P or R); 1:8-12 (J or perhaps E); 1:14 (P); 1:15-21 (E or perhaps J); 1:22-2:10 (J or E); 2:11-22 (J); 2:23a (unknown); 2:23b-25 (P)

    Durham: 1:1-7 (P); 1:8-12 (J); 1:13-14 (P); 1:15-22 (EJ); 2:1-22 (E or J); 23a (J); 23b-25 (P)

    Childs: 1:1-5 (P), 1:6 (J); 1:7 (P); 1:13-14 (P); 2:23b-25 (P)

Concerning the remainder of the verses, Childs says, “However, the division of the rest of the chapter between J and E has produced much diversity of opinion...The relation of [2:]11-22 to [2:]1-10 remains a problem since solid criteria on which to make a source judgment are lacking.”

Commenting on these and similar attempted source analyses in the literature, Rendsburg and Hoffmeier state: “It truly is remarkable that source critics are unable to agree on the division of the text and the assignment of the verses to whatever source(s). As another indication thereof, note that Richard Friedman assigns vv. 8–12 to the E source while Joel Baden attributes them to the J source. While these points by themselves do not constitute sufficient cause to dismiss the entire J-E-P enterprise (or other source-critical approaches), they nevertheless raise an eyebrow and suggest that an altogether different approach is worthy of consideration.”

And Cole summarizes the situation by saying, “By the end of the nineteenth century, the dominant critical hypothesis had...reduced Exodus to a mosaic of documents of different dates (but all long after Moses)...[This] old and tidy 'documentary hypothesis' has largely failed by its own success, with ever smaller and smaller units, or unconnected fragments postulated by scholars, instead of major and continuous written sources.”

Even if there were better agreement between these scholars in assigning individual verses to the proper sources, that alone would not prove that the information relayed was of a late date and therefore historically unreliable. To do that, one would have to (a) confidently date each of the sources themselves and (b) totally discount the presence of earlier reliable oral sources behind each source.

Word Studies

Therefore going hand in glove with the findings of Source Critics are the contention of philologists such as Schipper who claim to detect the presence of word forms and vocabulary in the Hebrew of Exodus (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) borrowed from Egyptian and other Near Eastern languages confidently dating to no earlier than the first millennium BC. Gary A. Rendsburg (Rutgers University) and James K. Hoffmeier (Trinity International University) have recently responded to Schipper's contention in a rather technical article two-part article published in the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections with particular attention to the linguistic evidence. They summarize their findings in the following words: “It is determined that: a) the transcription of ra-mz-zw as 'Rameses' coheres with the Semitic evidence of the 13th‒12th centuries BCE; b) the word 'corvée' is not a borrowing from Neo-Assyrian (or any other Akkadian dialect) but rather constitutes a pure West Semitic word; c) the word 'storages, storehouses' also is [indicative] of a good West Semitic derivation; d) the narrative of Exodus 1–2 should not be divided into separate sources, but rather should be read in a holistic manner; and e) the two chapters are dated on linguistic grounds to the earliest stratum of Biblical Hebrew narrative prose literature.”

Structural Criticism

If in contrast to the above atomization of the text, one treats it as a unified whole, then the first two chapters of Exodus look suspiciously like a section unto itself with the general organization:

a. frame (1:1-6)

b. Israel enters slavery, Moses' youth (1:7-2:22)

a'. frame (2:23-25)

The two framing sections do indeed have verbal parallels to one another in that both mention Jacob and the death of a key personage. But since there appears to be more than one discrete story in Unit b, these verses should be examined in more detail. The result of this examination is the parallel structure shown below:

                                                Figure 1: The Literary Structure of Exodus 1-2

Introduction: Joseph dies (1:1-7)

A. Egyptians afflict Jews (1:8-14)

B. Attempt to Kill Jewish Children Fails (1:15-22)

C. Moses Drawn out of Water by Pharaoh's Daughter (2:1-9)

D. Moses becomes her Son (2:10)

A'. Egyptians afflict Jews (2:11-14)

B'. Attempt to Kill Moses Fails (2:15a)

C'. Moses draws Water for Jethro's Daughter (2:15b-21)

D'. Moses has a Son (2:22)

Conclusion: the King of Egypt dies (2:23-25)

This structure emphasizes Yahweh's personal overseeing of all the events in Moses' life. The parallelism shows this to be true in the relatively mundane events of A'-D' as well as in the more spectacular way in which his life was preserved at birth. Moses' close identification with his people is, of course, directly portrayed in Exodus 2:11-14. However, the same point is made in a more subtle manner by the parallelism between units B and B'. An interesting contrast between the two cycles in this section occurs in the varied usages of the key word “fear” in these passages. In the first cycle, the midwives are twice said to fear God (1:17, 21). By contrast, Moses feared for his life in 2:14. The play on these two definitions occurs again in the central passage of the book, Exodus 19-24.

Additional evidence for the two-cycle arrangement of this section is found in Greenberg's observation that the verses in the first cycle contain seven appearances of the word “child” plus one use of the plural “children” while the second cycle contains seven occurrences of “man” plus one of the plural “men.”

Thus, a holistic way of reading the text has been demonstrated to be the best way to understand it.

HIDDEN SELF-PORTRAITS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 The authors of the NT sometimes have a way of alluding to themselves in their writings in a rather indirect manner. Witness the following examples:

Matthew

All that we really know about Matthew's life is that he was a tax-collector when called by Jesus. But we can readily discern his preoccupation with monetary matters by comparing the following statistics regarding his use of vocabulary germane to that profession compared to the other four Evangelists:

Word                                                 Matthew         Mark         Luke          John

silver (argurion)                                  6x

gold (chrusos)                                     5x

tribute money (nomisma)                    1x

stater                                                   1x

penny (denari)                                    6x                  3x              3x              2x

talent (talanton)                                 15x

tax (kenson)                                        3x                                    1x

pay back (apodidemi)                        7x                                     2x

pay (teleo)                                          1x

farthing (assarion)                             1x                                     1x

quadrens (kodra)                               1x                    1x

Mark

There are two mysterious men who appear in this Gospel account: one before the Last Supper who shows the Apostles where that meal is to be held (14:12-16) and another young man who has followed Jesus and the Eleven from that meal into the Garden of Gethsemane and flees when Jesus is arrested (14:51). The first of these incidents is also narrated in Matthew 26:17-19 and Luke 22:7-13, but the most logical deduction for Mark being the sole evangelist to mention the second rather embarrassing situation is that he himself was the scantily clad young man who lost his linen cloth, and possible also the man who showed the Apostles where the upper room was located.

Adding to the likelihood of this possibility is the fact that the when the Apostles were later in hiding after the crucifixion, they were in the home of John Mark's mother. And Mark may have also been recalling this failure of his in light of his similar desertion of Paul while on the mission field (see Acts 15:38).

Luke

Some authors have attempted to detect the author in the use of specific medical terminology that would be appropriate to the Beloved Physician, but more recent studies throw doubt on that sort of reasoning. However, in Acts Luke does show up as a first-hand participant in some of the events, as pointed out in the “we” sections of the book, which do match up fairly nicely with what we are told in Paul's letter concerning his travels and missionary companions.

But the most interesting possibility is that Luke was the anonymous author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Assuming that letter was written by someone appearing elsewhere in the New Testament, Luke should be considered as a prime candidate for several reasons.

First is the historically strong association of the letter with Paul or one of his close companions. Next is very polished Greek style of writing also characterizing Luke's known writings. Also, David L. Allen, in his 400-page book Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, has pointed to numerous examples in which Hebrews shares unique Greek vocabulary and stylistic characteristics with Luke-Acts.

The fixation on the number “ten” seen in the structure of the Letter to the Hebrews has echoes in the ten appearances of “tabernacle” (all in the last half of the letter), lego in the present tense active voice and “Abraham.” Of the three key words in the book identified by Bengel, one (pistos, “faithful”) appears five times as does its root verb peitho. There are ten references to a new or better covenant in the book. Counting 7:8 as a possibility, Psalm 110 is alluded to ten times in Hebrews. Also, the Greek words for “tithe” and “receive tithes” appear in the NT only in this letter. Turning to Luke’s known writings, the use of number “ten” in his Gospel accounts for almost half the occurrences of this particular number in the whole NT. Including the multiple “ten thousand” in Lk. 14:31, “ten” appears exactly ten times in Luke’s Gospel. The combined work Luke-Acts contains 10 of the 17 appearances in the New Testament of “free/freedom,” indicating, in Allen's words, a “considerable theological weight” assigned by Luke to this concept. The key verb “evangelize”appears exactly ten times in Acts.

Turning to the overall structure of the Epistle (described in my post “Hebrews: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), there are only two books in the NT besides Hebrews that are structured using major divisions which each contain that same number of subdivisions. These are Galatians and the Gospel of Luke.

A more problematic argument for associating Luke with this epistle stems from the observation that both the prologue and conclusion of Hebrews can, with little difficulty, be seen as five-part chiasms, thus making the total number of sub-sections in Hebrews equal ninety, the exact number of sub-sections present in Luke's Gospel. The number ninety is also significant to Luke in that the key word akouo (to hear) appears ninety times in Acts.

John

In his gospel account we see the classic case of an author revealing his identity mainly by his absence in the story. The Apostle John is mentioned 20 times in the Synoptic Gospels and not once by name in the Gospel of John. Similarly, John's brother James is referred to 17 times in the Synoptics but not at all in John's Gospel.

From the above statistics, it seems obvious that the “Beloved Disciples” who is mentioned in passages such as John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7 and 21:20 is his way of referring to himself anonymously. And this penchant for the word “love” appears throughout John's Gospel and Epistles. Witness the following statistics:

The verb agapeo: 22x in the Synoptics; 36x in John's Gospel; and 24x in John's Epistles.

The noun agape: 3x in the Synoptics; 6x in John's Gospel; and 18x in John's Epistles.

The verb phileo: 5x in the Synoptics; 11x in John's Gospel.

As for the Book of Revelation, there is some controversy among scholars as to which John was the author. But ancient church tradition attributes it to the Apostle John, written in his old age while in exile. Since John was likely the youngest of the Twelve Apostles and John 21:20-23 appears to allude to false rumors that Christ would come again before he died, that would all fit in with the great possibility that John was the last of the Twelve to die.

But as to John hiding any autobiographical information about himself in Revelation, I can only think of one possibility. One of the strangest episodes in Revelation is found in 22:8-9 in which the author bows down to worship an angel and is told not to do so. This is odd since in 19:10 the exact same thing had happened earlier. Once possibility is that this represents one of several repetitions in the book of the same event.

But my own unfounded speculation is as follows: Earlier on, John was one of the three privileged people to witness Jesus' Transfiguration, and yet none of the three apostles appears to have taken that event for the divine appearing that it was. And then at Christ's Resurrection in front of the Eleven Apostles, we learn that some bowed and worshiped Jesus, but others did not (see Matthew 28:17). Perhaps John was one of those who refused to bow in worship on that occasion and had regretted it to the point where now in his old age he was trying to “undo” that lapse by worshiping even those heavenly beings who did not merit such adoration.

Paul

In quite a contrast to the other authors of the NT, Paul takes no great pains to hide himself in his writings. Instead, he constantly alludes to his varied experiences in his epistles. However, there is one obscure passage in which Paul appears to draw a veil over something tremendous that had happened to him by ascribing it to someone that he knew instead. I am talking about II Corinthians 12:1-5 in which he describes “a person in Christ” being caught up to the third heaven and having seen things that could not be revealed. He concludes this account with the strange comment: “On behalf of such a one I will not boast.”

Most commentators feel he is describing his own experiences but does not want to boast about being the one so honored by God with these revelations.

James

Any discerning reader of James' Epistle will be struck at how differently it reads from the other letters in the New Testament. In ways, it almost seems like an OT document with its lack of theological content. On the other hand, many of the teachings in this epistle may seem to be strangely familiar as if we have read them before elsewhere. And that is no accident, as several commentators have noted:

    Blue: “James did not actually quote the Lord's words, but he obviously had internalized His teachings and reproduced them with spiritual depth.”

    Hort says that “this style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels.”

    Adamson responds to the above by saying, “We ourselves believe that this is at least mainly due not merely to James's early sharing some of the oral and written evidence to which those Gospels sooner or later were indebted, but to his own personal witness of the life and teachings of Jesus – a conclusion in harmony with the fact that the groundwork of the Epistle is the same as that of the Sermon on the Mount.”

    Schmid: “James not only agrees in numerous passages with Matthew's Gospel, which appear to be but the echo of the discourses of Jesus...the Sermon on the Mount... its whole spirit may be looked upon as the model of the Epistle of James.”

    Kistemaker: “James seems to give the impression that he is familiar with the oral gospel of Jesus...In his epistle, James echoes the tone and tenor of Jesus' preaching recorded in the Gospels. The parallel between the Sermon on the Mount and verses, clauses, phrases, and words in the letter of James is remarkable.”

Actually, one interesting way to look at the Sermon on the Mount is as a commentary of sorts on Jesus' words recorded there. As an aid to such a study, I have compiled an extensive list of parallels from several sources, and the results may be seen in the post titled “James and the Sermon on the Mount.”

All of this goes to demonstrate that James has completely revealed his identity as Jesus' “brother” by his unique familiarity with the mindset of the Lord.

Peter

There are only two short letters in the NT attributed to Peter, and there are grave doubts regarding his involvement with the first of these (addressed in the next section below). But when I began to systematically compare I and II Peter with what we know concerning his life and speeches in Acts, it became obvious to me that Peter's fingerprints are all over these two books. But rather than rehearse all those examples, I will just refer you to an earlier post on that subject titled “1 and 2 Peter: Study Outline.” There you can find all of the parallels I was able to identify between the teachings in these two epistles and both Peter's life and speeches.

Silvanus

You may be wondering what this name is doing on the list. It all stems from the many negative comments made by scholars, such as those quoted below, regarding the authorship of I Peter.

    “It is unthinkable that Peter as a fisherman from Galilee had command of the Greek language to the degree reflected in the letter, according to our stylistic analysis.” (L. Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter).

    “The person responsible for the poor Greek of 2 Peter could not have written 1 Peter and vice versa.” (P. H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter)

    “Such a letter could not have been written by him, the illiterate fisherman, if he had lived to be over a hundred.” (F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter)

But when I began to compare the literary structures of all the NT books when I found that three of the books stood apart from the rest in having a unique type of organization. They were I Peter and I and II Thessalonians, and they all took this form: Introduction – ABA'ABA' – Conclusion

This begins to make sense when one considers the opening words of I and II Thessalonians: “Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians.” Then turning to I Peter 5:12, we read, “Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter...” Some scholars have taken this last verse to mean that Silvanus (also called Silas) was just the carrier of Peter's letter, but the similarities in organization of the three letters makes it clear that he served as a trained amanuensis, or secretary, to polish Peter's grammar and style. That effectively explains away the objection to the traditional authorship of I Peter and also makes it quite likely that Silvanus can be considered as the co-author of the letters to the Thessalonians.

Jude

Although most liberal scholars are reluctant to claim that the author of this short book is the brother of Jesus, other commentators are quite comfortable with that identification. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of information to go on in making a judgment and Jude is a common name of the time, but Jude may have revealed himself as Jesus' brother in two ways.

First, we have the prologue to consider in which the author says that he is the servant of Christ and the brother of James. As Michael Green says, “The unadorned name James can only mean one person, and one only in the apostolic church – James the Lord's brother, the leader of the church in Jerusalem...it is a mark of his modesty that he was prepared to accept the position of playing second fiddle to James, his more celebrated brother.”

The biggest barrier to acceptance of the author as Jesus' brother is the style of writing, which some scholars have attributed to Alexandrian influences. But, as Towner explains, “Of course Greek culture and language had thoroughly penetrated Palestine of the first century, but this does not completely explain how a rural dweller, such as Jude must have been could have acquired the command of Hellenistic Greek suggested by the letter. If the Jude to whom this letter is attributed was the author...the answer might come in the missionary travels of Jude as a young man. His vocabulary is considerable, which travel and experience outside of Aramaic-speaking Palestine could account for, though his style is not as highly polished.”

THE "BEST" CHRISTMAS MOVIES REVIEWED

For the holiday season I decided to review the top Christmas flicks of all time according to Entertainment Today, mainly from the viewpoint of the underlying moral of each. Of the top 20, these (given in descending order) are the only ones I have actually seen or remember anything about. I find it interesting that these movies represent all sorts of different genres from rom-com to action to cartoon to horror. The bottom line is that a good Christmas movie does not necessarily translate to a good Christian movie.

It's a Wonderful Life

This is listed as #1 on the list, but for the life of me I can't see why. Except for a few minutes at the start and end of the movie, it is one of the most downbeat stories you can imagine. The intended moral seems to be that if we just all put a little more trust in the goodness of one another, everything will work out alright in the end. Not exactly a biblical principle. Whatever was intended, the only real moral I could detect is that you shouldn't trust a drunken relative with money. Also, God could have done a little better job in choosing an angel for an important job. My wife and I agree that this is one movie we will never watch again.

A Christmas Story

I must admit that this is one of my guilty pleasures to watch, and it is one of my son-in-law's favorite movie. But the only morals one could possibly get out of it are (1) don't play with guns or you will shoot your eye out and (2) don't choose the time when you are playing baby Jesus in a Christmas play to satisfy your sexual curiosity.

A Charlie Brown Christmas

This is the only movie on the whole list which could be called in any meaningful way a true Christmas movie. Linus reciting the Christmas story right out of Luke's Gospel remains the heart of the whole story and puts all the glitz and commercialization of the holiday back in its place. When my wife and I were first married and didn't have a lot of surplus cash, we even went out on Christmas Eve once and
“adopted” one of the only remaining Christmas trees on the lot – practically a duplicate of the Charlie Brown tree, shedding needles and all.

Elf

This is really a charming and heart-warming movie with the ever-popular theme of a hardened person turning his life around at Christmas time. And Will Farrell is perfect as the naïve and overgrown “elf.” But one would have to look hard for a biblical theme appropriate to the season.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Another perennial Christmas story in which the bad guy suddenly repents on Christmas Day. In this case, his change of mind is apparently brought about by the sight of the Who's of Whoville jopyfully singing some incomprehensible lyrics even though their presents have all been stolen from them. And then the Grinch's heart grows to abnormal size as he struggles to save his own dog, which he has been unmercifully treating up to that time. So once again, love conquers all at Christmas Day, even if it is left a bit vague as to whom that love is properly directed.

Bad Santa

The less said concerning this disaster of a “Christmas” movie the better.

The Muppet Christmas Carol

For the most part, this movie stays rather close to the original Dickens' story, and Michael Caine does a masterful acting job considering that most of his co-stars are Muppets. I didn't quite buy Gonzo in the role as the author Dickens, but he and his rat accomplice do offer a lot of comedy relief. As with the original, the underlying moral appears to be that love and good will conquer all, especially after you have scared the main character half to death with ghostly visitors all night long. And apparently, Scrooge becomes so good-hearted after his transformation that he is willing to give a large check to the charity that has been taking care of the many people Scrooge kicked out of their homes when they were overdue on their exorbitant payments. What a prince!

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

The moral of this perennial favorite is that you shouldn't pick on someone who looks different from you or has a disfiguring birth defect. He may end up being your leader at work one day.

Home Alone

I will admit that I enjoyed this movie for its “male humor” although a little of Macaulay Culkin goes a long way. However, the villains are great enough to make up for this deficit. The message of the movie is that if you find yourself in an unloving family who has deserted you on Christmas, the best way to get even with all adults is to torture and maim any of them who come into your clutches.

Trading Places

It is a real stretch to consider this a Christmas flick other than one brief scene in which a Santa costume is featured. But if you like revenge movies, this is a good one with the heroes getting even with two utterly despicable old men by becoming even more devious than they are. So much for a Christmas message.

White Christmas

Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye are paired up with two female singers for a sentimental story about some GI's helping their old commander who is unsuccessfully attempting to start up a vacation hotel in the mountains. Fortunately, the plot doesn't really get in the way of some good singing and dancing. As for the moral, it is rather a wishy-washy one of one good turn deserving another.

Miracle on 34^th Street

I would have to rank this one as second just after “A Charlie Brown Christmas” as a truly Christmas movie, as long as one translates the concept of believing in Santa Claus into the idea of believing in the divinity of Christ. With that shift in perspective, it is a great Christian example in several ways. First, it shows how traumatic circumstances in some people's lives can easily lead to a loss of faith and turn one bitter and cynical. And how that attitude can easily rub off on one's children.

In addition, it is useful in revealing the different manner in which various classes of people come or don't come to faith. The hero is naturally optimistic and good-natured, and so has no trouble accepting the truth of something which appears to be unbelievable to others. A judge and attorney only accept the truth of the unbelievable when it suits their political purposes. And a doubting Thomas such as the heroine is only convinced when she can see the proof with her own eyes.

Besides, Edwin Gwynn is great as usual, in the central role of Kris Kringle himself.

Die Hard

O.K. Now we come to the bottom of the pack in terms of the true Christmas spirit, even though it is a fantastic movie. But then, I am a sucker for anything Bruce Willis is in. I guess the moral of this story is never say die and never run out of bullets.

Gremlins

Even the horror genre finds its way into the most popular list. It is a well made and entertaining movie to watch even if Christmas time may not be the most appropriate time to do so. The best scene is set to the the tune of the Christmas classic “Do You See What I See?” I am afraid that once you see it, that wonderful carol will never have the same meaning for you. No expects much of a moral out of such movies, but if there is one it is: When confronted by intruders in your house, head immediately to the kitchen, which is simply loaded with useful weapons you can defend yourself with. And don't forget the microwave oven!

Christmas in Connecticut

This movie did not make it to the top 20 on any official list, but since I just saw it again a few days ago I will throw it in for good measure. Barbara Stanwyck portrays a popular writer of homey family recipes in a woman's journal who also writes about her perfect husband and baby and their life on the farm. The problem is that she is unmarried, no child, lives in a city apartment, and can't cook. But she gets roped into hosting and cooking Christmas dinner at her non-existent farm for the rich owner of the company who owns her magazine.

The problems multiply when a wounded veteran is also invited to the get-together and she falls in love with him at first sight to the chagrin of her fiancee, who owns the farm she has to borrow for the occasion and has to pose as her husband and father of her child (also borrowed for the occasion).

It is a lot of silly fun with enough plot for two or three movies, but when all is said and done, there is really only one message that is conveyed: If you are clever and devious enough and are a good enough liar, you will end up with the right man and even get a raise from your boss.

H.G. WELLS ON THE LAST DAYS

No one could accuse this famous novelist of being an evangelical Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “None of his contemporaries did more to encourage revolt against Christian tenets and accepted codes of behaviour, especially as regards sex, in which, both in his books and in his personal life, he was a persistent advocate of an almost complete freedom.”

However, as a very well-read and intelligent person of his time, he was certainly aware of the teachings and stories in the Bible. And some of them even pop up in his fictional writings in a rather skewed form. I recently re-read all his short stories and noted that three of them actually deal quite directly to the area of New Testament eschatology – the study of future events in the Last Days. Here is a quick summary of those interesting stories with comments.

“A Vision of Judgment” (1899)

This fanciful and lighthearted story pictures a man wakened by the loud sound of a trumpet and yanked out of his grave to face his Maker. Wells quite obviously uses biblical language at this point such as “a multitude no man could number, nations, tongues, kingdoms, peoples” and “seated on a throne of dazzling white cloud, the Lord God and all the host of angels.”

Among those who are called forth for judgment is King Ahab, who proudly recites all the ways in which he openly defied God and His prophets. But when the Recording Angel begins to reveal to all those watching some of the embarrassing, silly little sins of the king, he squirms and shrinks in size as he repents and pleads for mercy.

Then as an example of the opposite extreme, a martyred prophet steps forth and begins bragging about all the pain and torture he had undergone in his lifetime, all for the sake of God. But even he is dismissed as “a perfect nuisance” only to join his fellow sinner Ahab hiding in God's sleeve.

And after everyone has had their turn at being reduced down to size, God shakes them all out of his sleeve onto a new planet with the parting words, “Now that you understand me and each other a little better, try again.”

It is certainly a rather watered-down version of the Last Judgment that emphasizes God's mercy over His wrath, but the story does a good job of showing that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” And perhaps it goes a small way toward explaining the meaning behind Paul's words concerning those who will be saved but only as through fire (I Corinthians 3:15). It also serves as a warning to all those who desire the day of the LORD. As the prophet puts it, “Why would you have the day of the LORD? It is darkness and not light.” (Amos 5:18) 

“A Dream of Armageddon” (1901)

By contrast, this tale is much more grim in that it describes a time in the distant future in which a benevolent world leader decides to escape his demanding position in order to pursue a love interest on the Island of Capri. He does this even though he is well aware that his successor is rather ambitious for power and world dominance. And true to form, his successor foments a world war in which even Capri cannot escape.

The moral is fairly obvious, and the only similarity to biblical eschatology comes in with the title of the story. But what I find interesting is that Wells has appropriated the popular notion of the word 'Armageddon' rather than its true biblical meaning. For if one reads the only specific reference to this event in the New Testament (Revelation 16:16), it becomes clear that Armageddon is not the site of the Last Battle, but only the staging ground for God's enemies.

As to the actual battle, that appears to be described in Revelation 20:7-9 as taking place around Jerusalem (“the beloved city”). And one cannot even describe it as a battle at all since after the enemy has surrounded the city, fire comes from heaven and consumes them all before any sort of armed conflict can take place.

So this is one place where the atheist Wells and numerous modern prophecy experts find themselves in agreement, against the biblical testimony. They all speak in terms of various political forces aligning themselves against one another in the equivalent of a major world war instead the more accurate portrayal of the combined strength of Satan-led forces being wiped out in an instant by the supreme power of God's wrath.

“The Story of the Last Trump” (1915)

Wells begins this tale in a whimsical manner with a small child playing with the last trump up in heaven's attic. He is not able to blow on it and so it is discarded, only to fall to earth slightly dented. It eventually finds its way into an old used-goods shop where some men take it on on trial to see if it can be restored to a serviceable condition. But even a full-grown man does not have enough wind power to get it to utter a sound until one them gets the bright idea of hooking it up to a “particularly powerful foot blow-pipe.”

He manages to get a short burst of sound out of the trumpet, at which time there is a small explosion and the trumpet vanishes into thin air, snatched away by a giant hand. In that same instant many people in various locations around the world are treated to wondrous visions and get the fleeing impression that the Last Judgment time has arrived. And various earthquakes and storms are reported as happening simultaneously.

The story now moves on to concentrate on a pastor of a large and fashionable congregation. “Every Sunday, and at convenient intervals during the week, he fought against Modern Materialism, Doubt, Levity, Selfish Individualism, Further Relaxation of the Divorce Laws, all the Evils of our Time – and anything else that was unpopular...He had the face of a saint, but he had rendered this generally acceptable by growing side whiskers.”

Into this comfortable cleric's life there suddenly came in a flash a vision of the Divine. “While he had just been writing and arguing about God, there was God!” He suddenly realized that at each of his sermons which were primarily calculated to impress the adoring wealthy and influential members of the congregation, there was another One in the audience listening in, and terror seized him.

At this point, the Anglican priest goes about like a madman warning everyone he meets that “The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!” But even his Bishop tells him to calm down and not try to confuse spiritual truth with matters of fact.

The poor priest is similarly treated wherever he goes, and as Wells concludes his story – “If a thing is sufficiently strange and great no one will perceive it. Men will go on in their own ways though one rose from the dead to tell them that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand [see Luke 16:31]...Men will go on in their ways as rabbits will go on feeding in their hutches within a hundred yards of a battery of artillery. For rabbits are rabbits, and made to eat and breed, and men are human beings and creatures of habit and custom and prejudice, and what has made them, what will judge them, what will destroy them...will never draw them away from eating their lettuce and sniffing after their does.”

This is the most powerful of the three stories and one designed to shake up each of us believers to the point where we must examine our own hearts closely. Yes, we may say we believe, but when it comes down to it I am afraid that many of us are like the Bishop who never confused doctrinal truths with matters of fact.

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION -- JOHN

Even in the Fourth Gospel, we are confronted with examples of the resurrected Jesus not being recognized. This happens no less than four times in the final two chapters, making uncertainty one of the most consistent features of the combined resurrection story.

John 20:14-16

Blum summarizes some of the most common explanations for Mary's inability to know who she was talking to near the garden tomb: “The appearance of Jesus to Mary was so unexpected that she did not realize that it was Jesus...Some suggest that Jesus' appearance was changed; others say she had a temporary 'blindness' as did the Emmaus road disciples...others say that possibly the tears in her eyes kept her from recognizing Him...As the Good Shepherd, He calls His sheep by name (cf. John 10:3) and 'they know His voice' (10:4). Immediately she recognized Him.”

One technical point should be brought up here. Concerning the fact that Mary turned toward Him, Ellis notes, “There is some evidence, especially from a consideration of the possible Aramaic background to the Gospel that 'turned' here means 'recognized'; this is supported by the Sinaitic Syriac.”

As to why Mary took Jesus to be the gardener, Beasley-Murray says that “she assumed that at so early an hour during the Feast only the gardener would be there.”

Morris echoes some of Blum's catalog of reasons for her non-recognition by stating, “Why she did not recognize Him is not said. It is possible that tears were blurring her vision, but then tears are not usually a reason for failure to recognize someone well known. There seems to have been something different about the risen Jesus so that He was not always recognized.”

I would like to digress at this point to relate a somewhat similar situation I found myself in years ago. My best friend through middle school and high school was named Alan. We both went into the same profession and stayed in close contact through our university years, and he was best man at my wedding. But when I moved out of state, we lost contact with one another.

After that point, whenever I attended the yearly professional conference I would go to the registration desk to see if he happened to be in the attendance listings. And at last, when the conference was in Boston I saw that he had registered. But it didn't tell the hotel at which he was staying. So as I was leaving the registration desk wondering how I could get in touch with him, a man stopped as he was approaching from the other direction and shouted out my name. I had absolutely no idea who he was and how he would know my name. He apparently sensed my confusion and said, “It's Alan.”

After about five minutes of talking to him, he began to look perfectly familiar and I could not for the life of me figure out why I couldn't recognize him immediately. And unlike Mary, I did not have the excuse of tears in my eyes. Besides that, I was actually on the lookout to find my friend whereas seeing Jesus alive again was the very last thing on Mary's mind.

One final word on there verses: Raymond Brown disagrees with Dibelius, who feels that this story is “an adaption of the recognition scene that appears in stories of the Greco-Roman gods as they walk among men.” By contrast, Brown says that “John may be telling his readers that in the spoken word of Jesus they have the means of recognizing his presence.” That may be an overly subtle point, but in any case it does not subtract from the literal meaning of the narrative.

John 20:24-29

This is the most well known non-recognition story, that of 'Doubting Thomas.' Morris says, “Normally this is taken to indicate that Thomas is of a more skeptical turn of mind than the others, and, of course he may have been. But another possibility should not be overlooked, namely that he was so shocked by the tragedy of the crucifixion that he did not find it easy to think of its consequences as being annulled.”

And Culpepper wisely states, “Realist more than doubter, Thomas stands in for all who, like Mary Magdalene, embrace the earthly Jesus but have yet to recognize the risen Christ.”

In any case, Thomas totally redeems himself by his words, as Ellis says: “So to that disciple who most firmly demanded factual evidence was given the honor of making the first confession of faith in the completeness of the revelation summed up in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Blum summarizes the importance of this story by saying, “In his Gospel, John has traced the development of unbelief, which culminated in Jesus' enemies crucifying Him. Conversely, John also traced the disciples' development of faith, which was now climaxed in Thomas.”

John 21:4

The apostles are fishing at early daybreak when Jesus comes to them again. Both Blum and Brown evoke the same explanation for their inability to discern who he is this time:

“Early in the morning the disciples failed to recognize Jesus...on the shore either because of distance or lack of light.” (Blum)

“The distance and the dimness of the early morning light are offered as possible explanations.” (Brown)

John 21:12

But there are no such excuses to fall back on once the apostles come to shore and have a meal of fish prepared by Jesus himself. And yet we still run into the following inexplicable statement: “Now none of the disciples dared ask him, 'Who are you?' They knew it was the Lord.”

Morris voices our own thoughts regarding this point in the story when he writes, “John...informs us that none of them dared to ask who Jesus was. This seems curious. If they knew who Jesus was why should they ask such a question?...Yet it must be borne in mind that there was something unusual about Jesus' appearance.”

Brown comes to the same conclusion: “Because Jesus' appearance is strange (vs. 4), they recognize him but are puzzled and unsure. The Jesus they knew has undergone transformation in becoming the risen Lord.”

Finally, Anderson says, “Once ashore, the disciples evidenced a certain ambivalence regarding their encounter with Jesus...Perhaps they saw Jesus as the same recognizable person who even performed the mundane task of preparing breakfast, yet they also recognized that he manifested the divine glory.”

This is one time when all my other commentaries have let me down in that many of them do not even attempt to explain this glaring non sequitur. My own explanation goes back to the passage in Matthew 16:14 and parallels where Jesus asks his followers, “Who do men say I am?” Again, the obvious answer is “Jesus.” But although everyone knew his name, that doesn't necessarily translate to knowing exactly who he was. And the answers at that time included John the Baptist (also the worry of Herod Antipas – see Mark 6:16), Elijah, and Jeremiah. Or could he be a spirit as the disciples had felt on an earlier occasion (see Mathew 14:26) or a sort of guardian angel as they believed Peter was at a later date (see Acts 12:15)?

Thus, that problem phrase could almost be reworded as “What are you?” rather than “Who are you?”

Concluding Remarks

Here are a few general comments which apply to all the incidents of confusion on the part of those to whom the resurrected Christ appeared.

Borchert – “The possibilities of explaining the situation[s] are almost endless. But one must at least be careful not to think one can analyze and reach clear conclusions on unstated parts of a story. One must also be careful not to attempt the psychoanalyzing of a person in a story...The nonrecognition theme concerning the risen Lord, however, does seem to be significant feature in the...presentation of the appearance stories...This theme...appears to have had both apologetic and evangelistic significance for the early Christians as a means of explaining their pattern of coming to faith..Coming to the point of conviction that Jesus is alive is probably as varied as the nature of the people who believe.”

We may think that we are in a better position to understand the nature of the resurrection than those at the time. But as K.L. Anderson reminds us, “Jesus taught explicitly about the nature of resurrection life on only one occasion in the triple tradition (Mk 12:18-27 // Mt 22:23-33 // Luke 20:27-40)...Here Jesus declared that in the resurrection people will be like angels in heaven...Some scholars conclude that Jesus was referring to the resurrected as disembodied spirits.” So the confusion continues today.

And Sheriffs says, “The Christian idea of resurrection is to be distinguished from both the Greek and Jewish ideas.” The current Jewish ideas can be gauged from the various reactions of the early believers we have already canvassed. As for the Greek ideas at the time, Ellis notes an incident occurring in the Book of Acts: “The strangeness to the Greeks of the concept of anastasis is shown in Ac. 17:18 where some Athenians apparently thought 'resurrection' was a goddess.”

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION: LUKE

Luke 24 presents us with a whole litany of examples of unbelief and uncertainly regarding the person of the resurrected Christ. As Fitzmyer puts it, “the proofs of the resurrection of Jesus are confronted throughout by human incredulity and lack of perception. Luke has not depicted the disciples of Jesus fleeing and deserting him at his passion, but he has not played down their obtuseness at his resurrection.”

Luke 24:11

It begins with the women bringing the report of the empty tomb to the apostles. “These words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.” The NEB translates it as “nonsense”and The Message reads “but the apostles...thought they were making it up.”

This could possibly be a reflection of the general belief at the time that women were unreliable witnesses. But Craddock feels that this is the real explanation: “No doubt men bringing the same report would have met the same unbelief. Their faith waits on a confirming experience of the risen Christ, an experience that was not without its own element of unbelief (v. 41).”

And K.L. Anderson adds, “The empty tomb did not, by itself, demonstrate that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The apostles responded with incredulity [24:11]. Peter verified that the tomb was empty, except for the presence of burial cloths, which probably ruled out the possibility of grave robbers. But he was struck only with amazement (Lk 24:12).”

And it turns out that there is even some doubt as to whether even Peter believed enough to look for himself since some early manuscripts even omit verse 12 entirely. Textual scholars are today divided on the question. Bruce Metzger and the other members of the RSV translation committee recognized this problem but in the end saw no reason to omit v. 12 and “regarded the passage as a natural antecedent to ver. 24.” By contrast, NEB leaves this verse out as a later addition by someone else than Luke.

Luke 24:13-32

Green writes concerning this incident at Emmaus: “Disbelief and astonishment continue even in the presence of the risen Christ...Simply put, the disciples lack the cognitive categories for making sense of Jesus' passion. The cross and empty tomb require a depth of insight available only to those who have had their minds opened to understand the Scripture (Lk 24:45).

Craddock appears to agree with this understanding when he writes, “Clearly, more is involved than their blindness due to shock or an inability to recognize Jesus due to some transformation of his appearance...Faith is not coerced or overwhelmed by revelations to the unprepared.”

Marshall is somewhat noncommittal as to the exact reason for the two men's actions: “The most puzzling feature is perhaps the initial blindness of the disciples but this is more theological than legendary in character, and it has parallels in some other resurrection appearance narratives; the motif that the risen Jesus looked 'different' is widespread.” But in another publication, he writes that “a supernatural failure to perceive the identity is meant rather than that He had a different form (though this is possibly implied in Mk. 16:12).”

The “supernatural failure to perceive” is also a factor brought out by additional scholars who note that the passive formulation “their eyes were kept from recognizing him” in v. 16 is often used to indicate a direct and supernatural act of God.

In any case, the two disciples from Emmaus were certainly convinced enough of the reality of their encounter that they walked the whole 7 miles back to Jerusalem in order to tell the others. And another point is worth bringing up here. It soon becomes obvious that they belong enough with the in-crowd of believers to know exactly where the Eleven are hiding. This indicates that they probably had had close encounters with Jesus before His resurrection and were in a good position to know exactly what he looked and sounded like.

Luke 24:36-43

The immediate sequel to the above event is the sudden appearance of Jesus in the the closed room where the Eleven were found. But even at that point in time, there were still doubts in their minds. First, in verse 37 we are told that they took him for a ghost or disembodied spirit. And that belief was attributed to the fact that they were “startled and terrified.” But even after Jesus tried to dispel that notion by his words in v. 39, “they were still disbelieving and still wondering.” And this time, their unbelief is attributed to “their joy.” To me this is clear evidence that those back in that day were psychologically aware of the need to be suspicious of anything that appeared to fit in too well with their own wishes and desires.

The bottom line again is that no mere fabricator of these resurrection stories in his right mind would have hinted even once that there was a shadow of doubt that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead. The Luke accounts possess the ring of truth.

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION: MATTHEW

In this series of four blogs, I hope to show that the strange passages in the four Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection which actually appear to cast doubt on the whole story can paradoxically be used as clear signs of the reality of the happening rather than being a legend concocted by His followers. Two passage in Matthew's Gospel need discussing in this context.

Matthew 27:62-28:15

One unique feature of Matthew's Gospel is the story of Pilate telling the Jewish leaders to post a guard over the tomb for three days (Matthew 27:62-66), their being struck down by fear of the angel (28:2-4), and the subsequent cover-up story concocted by the chief priests (28:11-15). Some skeptical scholars treat this part of the narrative as a made-up story designed to put to rest Jewish rumors that the disciples stole the body from the tomb. And we do know that such rumors were circulating at least as early as the time of Justin Martyr (ca. AD. 114-165) and still manage to crop up today.

    For an example from a liberal commentator, Overman states: “Only Matthew includes this detail of the guards being bribed, another detail created to stifle hostile rumors concerning Jesus' death and resurrection.”

    And the skeptic Stendahl was quoted as saying, “This whole tradition is clearly apologetic and is meant to refute the criticism which is mentioned as current among the Jews in 28:15.” It should be pointed out that just because an account is apologetic does not mean that it has to have been fabricated.

But from more conservative scholars we get a different perspective on the story of the guards:

    France says, “It is hardly likely that Christians would have invented such a convenient weapon for their critics if the story were not already in circulation.”

    K.L. Anderson writes: “Strange and improbable apologetic it would have been for an early Christian to construct stories suggesting the earliest alternative explanation for Jesus' resurrection: the disciples stole the body.”

    Blomberg says, “The allegation that Christ's disciples stole his body...thus holds the dubious honor of being the oldest alternative to faith in the risen Christ as a response to the fact of the empty tomb, even though it is one of the least plausible alternatives, in view of the subsequent events Matthew narrates. Ironically, had the disciples wanted to steal the body, they could have done so earlier...Strong incidental testimony to the truth of the Christian version of the story thus appears here.” He also points to the fact that the disciples at this point in time were not “in any kind of mood for such bravado, cf. John 20:19.”

Adding to the improbability of the cover-up story are the following questions:

    Why would all the soldiers be fast asleep when they knew the consequences of sleeping while on duty?

    If they were asleep, how could they have seen the followers carry off the body?

    If they did see him carried away, why didn't they stop them?

    How could they have slept through the noise of the stone being removed?

    Why would the apostles have subsequently placed their very lives on the line for what they knew was a lie?

One additional detail of the guard story in Matthew 28 has been questioned as unlikely – the fact that the guards reported back to the priests instead of to Pilate. The later apocryphal Gospel of Peter even tried to fix that “error” by stating that they did report to Pilate first. But Hendricksen, and others, point out: “That they reported to the chief priests, in charge of the temple, and not directly to Pilate, is not strange, for by saying 'Take a guard,' Pilate has temporarily placed these men under the authority and supervision of the chief priests.” In addition, it is highly doubtful that the Roman guards would have been very eager to tell Pilate that the very thing they were supposed to prevent had taken place anyway due to their negligence.

Matthew 28:16-17

These verses contain a second incident which is impossible to ascribe to a well-meaning fiction writer who is attempting to convince his audience of the reality of Jesus' resurrection. When the apostles meet Jesus on the mountain in Galilee, some worshiped him while “others doubted.” Thus, Bright and Mann state that “it is not possible to find any good reason for this assertion.” No good reason, that is, except that it actually happened that way, whether or not it served any apologetic purpose.

But it turns out that there are other possibilities for interpretation of this final phrase. For example, the “others” may refer to disciples in addition to the eleven Apostles. However, France eliminates that possibility on grammatical grounds and then proceeds to explain that the “verb distazo [doubtful, hesitant] occurs only once elsewhere in the NT, where it describes Peter's loss of confidence in the face of the elements in 14:31...It denotes not intellectual doubt so much as practical uncertainty, being in two minds. In this context it could indicate that some were not sure whether it was Jesus they were seeing...More likely it indicates that they did not know how to respond to Jesus in this new situation, where he was familiar and yet now different...But a further factor may be relevant here: the last time these eleven disciples had seen Jesus was as they ran away from him in Gethsemane; so what sort of reception could they now expect from the master they had deserted?”

In a similar vein, Blomberg states, “Distazo refers more to hesitation than to unbelief. Perhaps, as elsewhere, something about Jesus' appearance makes him hard to recognize at first...Perhaps their Jewish scruples are still questioning the propriety of full-fledged worship of anyone but Yahweh. Or (most likely?) they may simply continue to exhibit an understandable confusion about how to behave in the presence of a supernaturally manifested, exalted, and holy being.” Witness Peter's awkward behavior at Christ's Transfiguration as a similar example.

My personal opinion is that the distazo refers to the dubious propriety of worshiping a being who might turn out to be just a reincarnation of an OT prophet, a personal angel of Jesus, or a spirit being. In any case, there seems to be no conceivable reason for the author to purposefully introduce such an ambiguity into a major resurrection narrative unless it was his dedication to telling the strict truth, even if it might have the unintended effect of casting doubt on Jesus' bodily resurrection.

 

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION: MARK

Two Christian doctrines which have caused people over the ages the most trouble grasping are the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. I wanted to look at how each of the four Gospel accounts handled the latter issue, beginning with the probable earliest written account, that of Mark.

J.B. Phillips is one of many commentators who has remarked that the biblical narratives are characterized by possessing “the ring of truth.” But since many of us appear to be tone deaf, I would like to explain a little of what that means.

Perhaps the best way to recognize the veracity of the Gospel accounts in particular is to compare them with a spurious “Gospel” written during the the 2^nd century AD, the “so-called” Protoevangelion of James. As with many other later creations of its type, the purpose was to bolster up doctrines in the early church which the authors felt was not stressed strongly enough in the canonical NT writings.

In this particular case, the issue concerned the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary. Thus, the narrative has Mary and Joseph camped in a desert cave when her time comes to deliver a child. Joseph goes out looking for a midwife and fortuitously finds one right away. After the birth, the midwife tells her friend Salome the amazing news that a virgin has delivered a baby. Salome refuses to believe the story until she has herself performed a gynecological exam on Mary. Thus, we are conveniently provided with two first-hand witnesses attesting to the fact that Mary continued to be a virgin.

In addition, the text goes out of its way to point out that Joseph's two older children with them are not Mary's but are the product of his earlier marriage. And as if that weren't enough, Joseph also admits that he is too old to have any more children.

Before comparing this rather heavy-handed treatment of Jesus' birth with the biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the Gospels, we need to make sure that we are all on the same page regarding the meaning of “resurrection.” It is to be distinguished from three different religious beliefs:

The first is the idea of resuscitation, meaning a person being brought back from the dead only to die later in the usual course of events. This would apply to those such as Lazarus, who were brought back from the dead miraculously by Jesus during his ministry on earth.

The second related idea is that of the soul or spirit departing from the body and continuing to exist somewhere in a totally disembodied state. The Greek and Roman philosophers favored this view of the afterlife. And when it was combined with Christianity in the early days of the church, it gave rise to the heresy of Gnosticism. The Buddhist doctrine is somewhat similar, only in that case each individual soul is swallowed up with all others into one single entity or world soul.

Thirdly, is the concept of reincarnation, i.e. a person dying but his spirit being brought back to earth in a completely different body, sometimes over and over again throughout the ages. Hinduism ascribes to this belief.

In contrast to all these concepts, resurrection means having a brand new body after death, but one that is in one way or another related to the old body in the same way that a seed and a plant have the same DNA while not resembling one another in other aspects. See Jesus' explanation in John 12:24-26 and Paul's discussion in I Corinthians 15:40-48.

Mark 16

If we turn first to the earliest Gospel for its description of Jesus' resurrection, we run into an immediate roadblock in that the best and earliest manuscripts stop at verse 8 at the point where the three women visiting the tomb have been told by a presumed angel that Jesus had risen. But instead of obeying his message to tell the apostles, they are afraid and keep quiet instead.

Since this is not all a satisfactory ending in most people's minds, later scribes felt they had to flesh out the story a little further. Thus, we have the wealth of later manuscripts which have various tacked-on conclusions to Mark's Gospel. The most common of these, the so-called “Longer Ending” consisting of verses 9-20, can be found in most modern translations, usually in smaller print or accompanied by a footnote stating that this ending was probably not original to Mark.

The most reasonable scenario explaining both (1) the truncated nature of Mark's Gospel and (2) the blatant contradiction between Mark's “they said nothing to any one” and the unified witness of the other three gospels that the women immediately reported to the Apostles is as follows:

    1. The original manuscript of Mark's Gospel had very little time to circulate and be copied for the benefit of those closest to Jesus before the final pages were accidentally separated from the rest of the scroll and lost to posterity.

    2. Those few early complete copies were utilized by some of the other Evangelists in the preparation of their own narrative accounts. Therefore Mark's information can be recovered from those other Gospels.

    3. But simply leaving Mark's Gospel incomplete where the narration broke off accidentally caused a major problem for scribes copying the document. If the women went off to tell the apostles (as we can assume the original document read, in total agreement with the other accounts), then the reader would demand to know what happened when those men heard the news. So the easiest fix was to simply change that last verse 8 slightly to say that the women told no one. In that way, it would not appear to be as obvious that something was missing in the story.

    4. Later on, the incomplete form of the Gospel of Mark was seen to still be lacking, especially in comparison with the three other accounts published by then, and so a variety of attempts were made to finish off the story by using a summary of the events narrated in the other three accounts.

I have attempted to explain and defend the above scenario in my rather lengthy blog titled “The Ending of the Gospel of Mark” for those who are interested.

The most interesting thing I see regarding the very early “Long Ending” is that even it does not exactly give us a ringing endorsement to the idea of Jesus' bodily resurrection in that three times the text (verses 11-14) mentions that someone “did not believe.” This is something that a writer of a fictional or strictly apologetic account would have had absolutely no reason to even mention since it gives critics of the resurrection abundant evidence to question whether Jesus really did come back to life. The only possible motive for including those three occasions is that they were factually true.

Since those three negative episodes happen to be recorded in the other Gospel narratives, I will discuss them in subsequent blogs.