The Resurrection, and the Believer.

For a very long time - indeed, many centuries! - the traditional greeting by disciples of Jesus on this Resurrection Sunday has been: "The Lord is risen"; with the response: "He is risen indeed". This is, of course, the very core of the Christian faith. Paul, wrote to the Corinthian believers about the resurrection of the dead. They appear to have held the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul, but that found it difficult to accept that the body would rise again. So the apostle states that: "... if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (I Cor.15:12-14).

The resurrection of the Christ is no less crucial to the Gospel than the death of the Christ. Indeed, if He did not rise from the dead, then those who believe in Him "... are of all men most to be pitied." (I Cor.15:19).

 

The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus assures us, first of all, of our justification. Speaking of Abraham's faith and the imputation of God's righteousness to him, Paul writes, "That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness” (Gal.3:6). But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his [Abraham's] sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, Who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification." (Romans 4:22-25).

 

Secondly, Father God imparts to us the power to serve Him effectively through the resurrection, "... that you may know what is the hope to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of His power in us who believe, according to the working of His great might which He accomplished in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and made Him sit at His right hand in the heavenly places," (Ephesians 1:18-20). As the passage continues, Paul declares that through the resurrection the Christ is now "... the head over all things to the church, which is His body ..." (vv. 22-23).

 

Then, in His resurrected and glorified state, the Lord Jesus continues His ministry to us. "Since then we have a great high priest Who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, . . . Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:14, 16).

 

Finally, Christ's resurrection assures us that those who belong to Him will also, one day, be resurrected, if we should die before He returns as "... He Who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into His presence. " (II Corinthians 4:14). 

If you wish to consider some of the evidence for the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, you could do worse than listen to Lee Strobel (and check his own background!) at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgmbiDTww0k

Digging for treasure.

When my grandson was much younger, and we happened to be at the beach, he loved to collect odd-shaped stones; pieces of wood; and other bits and pieces. They were, he would inform me, "treasure". Well, at about three years of age, that was understandable. However, if we want real treasure, with a real financial value, we usually have to dig for it. As the old proverb puts it: "There's no gain without pain."!

The same is true if we want to gain from the written Word of God. Profitable Bible reading, and study, involves more than just randomly opening a chapter and reading what's there. Many years ago, I was given these seven guidelines to help us make the most of our reading, and study, of the Bible:

1. Set aside a regular time. If you fail to schedule it, you'll neglect it. If, for whatever reason, you are obliged to miss that time, then be sure to read at some other point in the same day!

2. Before you commence reading, prayerfully ask Father God to guide you in your reading, through God the Holy Spirit.

3. Think carefully about what it is you are reading. Not all of the Bible's treasures are lying, like those beach pebbles, on the surface. To get at gold, and diamonds, we have to dig!

4. Try to understand what the human author was saying to his contemporary readers, before deciding how to apply the words to your own situation. (This is where a good commentary may be particularly useful!).

5. Write down at least one truth, or principle, that you can out into practice. You may do this in a separate notebook, or in the margin of your Bible (especially if you have a "wide-margin" Bible).

6. Use different translations of the Bible. If you find that you are just 'skimming' over a well-known passage, read it in a different version. This may help to focus your mind on the passage in a new way.

7. Don't get discouraged! Some parts of the Bible are more immediately interesting than others - e.g. the history and narrative sections are more easily read than the genealogies, and the sacrificial laws. Some parts you may not immediately understand. However, there is enough that you will be able to understand - and it will revolutionise your life as you apply it.

Just one final thought of my own! During my time as a Chaplain to the former Strathclyde Police Force, I picked up a lot about police procedures! In any police investigation, the evidence is seldom going to be sitting there, screaming to be picked up! Officers expect to have to dig, and delve; to ask questions; to sift through evidence - and on more than one occasion! Those are good principles to add to the above!

In my own personal devotions, I am currently reading in the Book of Proverbs. May I suggest that you read Proverbs 2:1-9, keeping the above principles in mind? Then, to morrow, start at the beginning of Mark's account of the Gospel. You will begin to discover the treasures of the Bible!

Four Gospel records.

It was quite recently that I saw the question: "Why are there four Gospels?" My first response to that question is that there are not "four Gospels", but four accounts of the one Gospel - the Good News about Jesus, the Christ. However, the question is still a valid one: "Why are there four Gospel records?"

The simplest answer comes from the world of policing, where officers will endeavour to obtain as many witnesses as possible to any crime, or incident. Doing so ensures that they have as complete a picture as possible of what happened. Each witness will provide evidence that comes from a slightly different perspective than that of other witnesses.

Chronologically, Mark was the first to write the Gospel record, followed by Matthew, and then Luke. In these three records, known as the Synoptics, the emphasis is on the human nature of the Lord Jesus; in John, the last to be written, the emphasis is on His deity. However, we then discover that each was written for a different "audience"! Matthew wrote especially for Jews; Mark for Romans; Luke for Greeks; and John for disciples of Jesus. All four wrote for the whole world.

In Mark, the Lord Jesus is depicted as the Servant of God; in John as the Son of God (God the Son). In Matthew, He is portrayed as the Ruler of men; in Luke, as unique among men. Matthew and Mark provide the record of His official glories; Luke and John show His personal glories, as Son of Man and Son of God. The 19th century French philospher, historian, and writer, Ernest Rénan, described Matthew's account of the Gospel as "the most important boook ever written", and Luke's account as "the most beautiful book ever written." (although I would certainly not subscribe to many of Rénan's other views!)

Marks record may well be described as "the most concise book ever written"; while John's record surely deserves the description of "the most heavenly book ever written."!

I came across this, anonymous, poetic piece in one of my reference books:

"Matthew - Messiah, Israel's King, sets forth, by Israel slain;

but God decreed that Israel's loss should be the Gentiles' gain.

Mark tells us how, in patient love, this earth has once been trod

by one Who, in a Servant's form, wasyet the Son of God.

Luke, the  physician, writes of a more skilled Physician still, 

Who gave Himself, as Son of Man, to save us from all ill.

John, the beloved of Jesus, sees in Him the Father's Son,

the everlasting Word, made flesh, yet with the Father One."

Why are there four Gospel records? So that the fullest possible picture might be provided of the One Who came that you and I might have - if we choose to accept it - eternal life. Not "pie in the sky when you die", but the very life of the Creator of all that is, in you, here and now!

So the really important question is: "With all of that information, have you accepted His wonderful gift of salvation from sin, and a life so new that it is described as being "born again"? 

And, if not, why not?!

God - and the Archbishop!

The headline immediately attracted my attention.  

"Archbishop Welby: Sometimes I wonder if God really exists."

Thinking that it was one of those deliberately misleading headlines, designed to encourage me to read the full article, I did just that!  The headline, it would appear, is absolutely accurate!  In what was offered as a direct quotation, we are informed: "The other day I was praying over something as I was running and I ended up saying to God ‘Look this is all very well but isn’t it about time you did something, if you’re there’ – probably not what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say." (emphasis added). That final comment must surely be viewed as something of an understatement!  

So, if the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church has occasion to doubt the very existence of the Creator God, is it any wonder that so much appears to be wrong within that particular communion - at least in the 'western' world?

Of course, the existence of God is on of those hoary old chestnuts that is pulled out, time and time again, by the sceptical, secular, humanists of the world.   And it must be admitted that, in the sense of laboratory experiments, that existence is something that we cannot prove!  Nor, indeed, should we expect to be able to do so!  If I was able to reduce God to the confines of a test-tube, then I would be greater than God.  In that case, the God Whose existence I had now 'proved' would not be God at all, as one definition of God is "the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority: the supreme being." (Oxford Dictionary).  If I have reduced this being to something the existence of which I can 'prove', that I am certainly superior to that Being - and it, whatever else it may be, is not God! 

This is not to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God - but note my use of the word 'evidence'.  Evidence is not scientific proof.  In a criminal investigation, for example, the detectives who are involved in the case will gather evidence from the crime scene and elsewhere.  They will put together a case, and present it to the Office of the Procurator Fiscal (in Scotland), or to the Crown Prosecution Service (in the rest of the UK).  It will then be up to the legal experts to decide whether, or not, the case as presented is likely to persuade a jury that the accused is guilty of the crime as charged!  There is no 'proof''.  It has all to do with the burden of evidence - "beyond reasonable doubt"!

The topic is too large for me to deal with in just one post on this blog.  Anyway, I deal with it, to some extent, in the second volume of my book series (Foundations of the Faith) that I hope to have published by the end of the year, or early next year.  However, permit me to share a few thoughts.

1. Creation  I would contend that any unbiased, impartial, observer would accept that this amazing universe in which we live out our mortal lives is not the result of a long series of random accidents. To use an unoriginal example, if I see a Boeing 747 sitting on an airport runway, I do not conclude that it resulted from an explosion in a junk-yard!  (We won't go into the origin of the junk-yard, or the cause of the explosion!).  Design demands a Designer, and the creation demands a Creator to Whom, in the English language, we give the nomenclature "God".

2. DNA  Okay, I suppose that after Creation, everything else is merely a sub-section!  Having said that, DNA is amazing!  What is it?  Well, I am no micro-biologist, but I know that it is a code - a code made up of four chemicals identified by scientists as A, T,G, and C.  These are arranged in the well-known double helix.  Every human cell has no less than three billion of these 'letters' in its code. They are, effectively, the instruction manual for the cell.  An instruction manual, basic logic tells us, requires a writer who deliberately, and intentionally, prepares it.  We call that writer, God!

3. The human 'heart'  No, not the organ that is pumping blood around your body as you read this post - although it is a remarkable piece of engineering in its own right!  I'm referring more to the human psyche - the inner person that makes me different from you, and you different from everyone else. Suppress it as we may, there is something inside us that 'knows' that there is a superior Being.  I read an article just a few months ago that claimed that this "sense of God" is innate to humanity.  Our 'default' position is, apparently, that we accept the existence of God.  It is a secular society, that does not want to be answerable and accountable, that then 'teaches' us that the whole idea is nonsense. However, even then, there is truth in the words of Augustine that "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee"; or, in a more contemporary form: "There's a God-shaped blank in every heart that only God can fill".

I doubt that the Archbishop of Canterbury reads this blog, but I trust that someone will advise him that he need not doubt.  Almighty God has not left Himself without witness. Our God is totally dependable; totally trustworthy; totally believable.  

“Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (Jn.20:29). 




  

Creationism v. Evolution (again!).

Professional writers sometimes complain about "writer's block" - when, for some unfathomable reason, thoughts refuse to flow in any coherent manner, and the work of writing simply dries up!  I now understand!  I don't think that I have ever gone for as long without a post, since I started this blog more than four-and-a-half years ago!!

Not that I have not been writing!  However, I have been spending my time responding to online newspaper articles, and to the comments of others in the fora that accompany them.  One such instance was today.  In The (Glasgow) Herald, one columnist, in an artice based on "... the bombshell news that nearly half of Americans believe in creationism."  He goes on to illustrate his point that those who are in that camp are mad: "You might as well say gravity is a theory. In a certain sense, it is, but if you'd like to throw a hammer straight upwards, your head will shortly tell you the truth of the situation."  Reference was also made to the newly-released film Prometheus, and a statement therein by a scientist character who "... claims humans evolved from alien life forms. Asked if she has any basis for such a belief, she replies: "No, but it's what I choose to believe."

My own response follows!

No attempt to hide the bias in this article!! And no reason why it should be hidden! However, to state that: "The thing about evolution is it isn't really a theory you can choose to believe or disbelieve. It is, to the best of our admittedly fallible knowledge, a fact." is the height of nonsense.

Indeed, the following reference to gravity and hammers supports my claim. For any scientific theory to be accepted as "proven", it must fulfil two basic requirements - it must be observable, and it must be repeatable. This is simple and straightforward with regard to gravity and falling hammers. However, with the beginning of everything it is, by definition, simply impossible!

What we do have is evidence. Obviously, that same evidence may be interpreted in different ways. Mr McNeil, and others, may choose to interpret, e.g., the amazing complexity of the eye as the end result of a series of random mutations - although they will be hard-pressed to explain why it 'evolved' in its 'early' stages as, until all of it is in its final form, it is useless ( irreducible complexity). Others may see, behind the complexity, order, and wonder of the eye - and, indeed, the known universe - an intelligent Being to whom they usually ascribe the nomenclature "God". The character in the film is, at least, being honest! The only thing of which we may be certain is that there was a First Cause that was (is!) outwith time and space, as these are both created entities! A little delving into the area of quantum physics will really blow one's mind!

No less a person than Lord Kelvin - a renowned scientist - stated that: "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." while modern-day Nancy Darrall (PhD in Botany, Univ of Wales) has stated that: "The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living anf extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution."

Such statements, from eminent scientists both in the past and the present, could fill at least one full issue of The Herald! 

I am unaware of Mr McNeil's area of scientific expertise, but perhaps his journalistic skills might be brought to bear by attending to some reasonable research before submitting his thoughts to print! He might then be able to make the more accurate statement that: "The thing about evolution is that it is a theory you can choose to believe or disbelieve. It is one way of interpreting the available evidence."!

The Resurrection of Jesus - Part 5

So, here we are, with the fifth part of this series of posts dealing with the resurrection of the Lord, Jesus the Christ.  Can we summarise the positive evidence for this momentous event in the history of planet Earth?  I believe that we can.

First of all, as already mentioned, there is the fact that Jesus was dead!  It may seem that this is one of those self-evident statements that do not need to be made - but there are those who claim that it is not true.

However, let us consider, again, the purpose of crucifixion.  It was, simply and plainly, to kill the victim.  It was the execution of the death penalty.  The survival of someone who was crucified was as likely as the survival of someone strapped to the electric chair; placed in the gas chamber; hanged from a gallows; stood before a firing squad.  It simply didn't happen.  When the words of the Apostles' Creed state that "He was crucified, dead, and buried;" that is exactly what happened.

But there is specific evidence that He died!  John, who was an eye-witness of the terrible deed, recorded something that would not have had any particular meaning to a Galilean fisherman of some 2,000 years ago, but that God the Holy Spirit ensured that he wrote!  In John 19:34-35, he writes "... one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth - that you also may believe."  Now, medical experts assure us that, if Jesus had still been alive when the soldier pierced His side, then strong spurts of blood would have emerged with every heart-beat.  What John saw, however, was not even (as I used to think!) two separate spurts, side-by-side - a bit like dual flavoured ice-cream from a 'Softy' machine.  What he saw was the seeping out of a watery serum, containing semi-solid clots of blood.  This, to a modern pathologist, is clear evidence of massive clotting of the blood, and is exceptionally strong medical proof of death.  John, of course, would have had no idea of that significance to a modern medic.  That spear-thrust, and its outcome, is positive proof that Jesus had died.

The emptiness of the tomb has already been mentioned, and will be mentioned again.  But it, too, is rock-hard (no pun intended!) evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead.  For example, the seal was broken.  This was not, of course, some form of air-tight seal around the circumference of the stone disc. It was a legal seal, by which a cord would have been fastened across the stone, and sealed at each end by the "... the leading priests and Pharisees ..." (Matt.27:62; 65-66).  To have been caught breaking such a seal would have had dire consequences indeed!   The guard, too, was an attempt by the Jewish hierarchy to keep the Body of Jesus under their control!  But if death itself could not hold Him, what chance had a group of Temple soldiers?!

Even the stone bears witness to the resurrection.  Someone has said that it was removed, not to let Jesus out, but to allow the witnesses to go in!  However, the language used by the evangelists is of great interest.  Remembering that this 'stone' was not just some convenient, but large boulder, but a specially shaped stone disc, like a very large millstone (without the central hole, of course!). It would have been upright, in a groove that was slightly inclined, and a chock would have been used to keep it away from the entrance.  When the chock was removed, the stone rolled down in the groove, and at an angle against the rock-face.  Little wonder that the women were concerned about moving it!  When we check the original Greek text, we discover that prepositions are used that clearly indicate that the stone was separated from the tomb, at such a distance that it appeared to have been picked up, and carried away!

Finally (for this post) there are the post-resurrection appearances of the risen Lord.  These appearances were to individuals and small groups (e.g. Mary Magdalene, the two on the road to Emmaus), and to larger groups (e.g. the disciples, the group of more than five hundred of whom Paul speaks - I Cor.15:6).  These were people who had not expected the resurrection; yet who then went on to "... turn the world upside down ..." (Acts 17:6).

Evidence?  Many have been convicted in modern law-courts on evidence that is less compelling!  Until tomorrow!

The Resurrection of Jesus

It is just as well that I am a man of words!!  A great deal of my time this evening has been taken up with a Facebook discussion with some of my former pupils on the Person of the Lord Jesus; the reliability of the Bible; and the creation/evolution debate!  Well, it's good to know that some of them think of more than the latest electronic gadget, pop song, or whatever else occupies the minds of the majority of young people today.
I then logged on to the online version of The Independent newspaper - and got myself involved in another discussion on the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and the fact of His resurrection (which event was celebrated, yesterday, by millions of people around the world).

So is there any real evidence for that event?  It's an important question!  Josh McDowell makes the point that it "... is one of the 'most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds of men, or it is the most fantastic fact of history."  I'm not actually happy with the use of the word "fantastic" which, itself, is related to "fantasy".  The resurrection of Jesus is an undeniable, fully accredited, fact of history.  And this is not surprising.  It is unimaginable that Father God would allow such a momentous event to be left in some sort of historical limbo - to be believed, or not believed, according to the whim of the individual!  And, of course, it is the keystone of the Christian Faith.  The Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and Christianity itself, stand or fall together!

So what is the evidence?  First of all, there is far too much to cover it in one post!  Indeed, books have been written on that evidence.  So, this evening is just an introduction and, God willing, I will add a post each night this week until I have covered all of the main aspects of the evidence.

My plan is to briefly deal with the importance of the Resurrection in this post.  Then, in subsequent evenings, I hope to deal with the claims of the Lord Jesus that He would rise from the dead - a claim to which more credence was given by the Chief Priests, than by the disciples!  This, I hope, will be followed by a post on the situation at the tomb before the Resurrection; one on the post-resurrection scene; one on the positive evidence for the Resurrection; and one - or possibly two! - on some of the offered "alternative explanations" for the empty tomb.  That should take me nicely up to the end of the week and, possibly, to Sunday as well!
So, why is the Resurrection of such great importance?  Well, I've already mentioned that it is the central plank, the corner-stone, of the Christian Faith.  Paul writes to the Corinthian believers: "... if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. ... And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost!  And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world." (I Cor. 15:14-19)

It also makes Christianity unique among the belief-systems of mankind.  Of the major world-systems that are based on personalities - only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its Founder.  Abraham, the recognised father of Judaism, died about 1900 B.C. - but no-one has ever made any serious claim that he was resurrected from the dead.  When the Buddha died, possibly in the mid-6th century B.C., it was recorded of him that it was "with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever remains behind." (the Mahaparinibbana Sutta), and there is no trace in the Buddhist holy writings of him having existed after his death, or having appeared to his, presumably distraught, disciples.  Muhammad died in 632 A.D., and his tomb in Medina is visited, annually, by tens of thousands of Muslims.  Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, died in 1539 A.D.  His body, it is claimed, disappeared while those of his followers who had come from a Hindu background, and those from a Muslim background, argued over the manner of its disposal.  But there is no claim that he was ever seen alive again.  Only Jesus left an empty tomb!

Finally (although there is so much more that could be mentioned), there are the recorded words of the Lord Jesus Himself.  "The Father loves me because I sacrifice my life so I may take it back again. No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded." (John 10:17-18; my emphasis); and "'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'  ... when Jesus said 'this temple,' He meant His own body. After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered He had said this, and they believed both the Scriptures and what Jesus had said." (John 2:19-22).

Michael Green, in his book Man Alive, states that, "Christianity does not hold the Resurrection to be one among many tenets of belief.  Without faith in the Resurrection there would be no Christianity at all.  The Christian church would never have begun; the Jesus-movement would have fizzled out, like a damp squib, with his execution.  Christianity stands or falls with the truth of the Resurrection.  Once disprove it, and you have disposed of Christianity.  Christianity is an historical religion.  It claims that God has taken the risk of involving Himself in human history, and the facts are there for you to examine with the utmost rigour.  They will stand any amount of critical investigation."

I trust that this, and the the ensuing posts, will be of help to anyone who wishes to thus investigate.

Fresh evidence to support the veracity of the New Testament record!

The following video has been produced by CBN News. It certainly appears to be that the actual anchors referred to in Acts 27:29 have been discovered - even if the original finder was blissfully unaware of their significance!



If the video doesn't play smoothly (although pausing it, and waiting for 5-6 minutes before re-starting, should help), you may read the script at:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/February/Searching-for-Pauls-Shipwreck-on-Malta/ (sorry, you'll have to copy and paste!).