Following the introductory article in the U.S. News and World Report’s special edition of “Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity” is the attention-grabbing title, “Who Was Jesus?” It is followed by only a paragraph which says that people have been trying to find out “the truth of what happened” concerning the events surrounding Jesus in the first century from that time onward (12). People know the truth—if they have read the New Testament, which has been available since the first century.
Apparently, that paragraph is merely an introductory comment for the articles which follow after it, the first of which concerns “A Messianic Kingdom.” One can tell how exciting this piece will be from the sentence following the title: “Recent writings offer intriguing theories about Jesus’ plan for a Jewish Utopia” (14). This claim seems vague at best and unsubstantiated at worst. In the first paragraph the author gives the following assertions—without any proof:
1. Jesus was considered the rightful king of Israel by His followers.
2. The Last Supper was a meeting of His Council of Twelve.
3. It was a Wednesday evening, not Thursday.
4. They used leavened bread in their meal because it was a common meal, not the Passover.
5. Jesus gave thanks for the wine and then the bread.
6. Afterward, Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, and then Judas left the group.
Undoubtedly, neither this writer nor most other gospel preachers would be considered “Biblical scholars” by those who contributed to this U.S. News and World Report special issue, but at least we know enough to document what we write rather than just make wild, unsubstantiated declarations.
Jesus was called the King of Israel by Nathanael (John 1:49) and was referred to as “the King of the Jews” by the Magi (Matt. 2:2). Pilate even wrote, “The King of the Jews” above His cross when they crucified Him (Luke 23:38). What this first point in the article fails to take into account, however, is that, when the people came by force to make Jesus a king, He departed from them so that they could not fulfill their intention (John 6:15). He also told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). These are important facts that should not be overlooked by “scholars.”
Second, a meeting with the “Council of Twelve” sounds like a strategy session. Two primary things are recorded: 1) He warned the apostles of His forthcoming betrayal; 2) Jesus taught them how to remember Him (Matt. 26:20-30).
In the third place, how did Jay Tolson (who wrote this article) arrive at the conclusion that this Last Supper was on a Wednesday evening? They needed to take Jesus down from the cross because the next day was the Sabbath. Mark 15:42 states specifically that it was the day before the Sabbath, which means that it was Friday, which in turn means the Supper was on Thursday, not Wednesday.
The fourth allegation is completely false. In Matthew 26:17, the situation is explained: “Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?’” This fact alone proves that the bread was not leavened; one would think a person writing an article on this subject would know better. Apparently, he knows neither the Old nor the New Testaments, since Moses made it clear:
Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days. And no leavened bread shall be eaten seven days. And no leavened bread shall be seen among you, nor shall leaven be seen among you in all your quarters (Ex. 13:7).
Tolson is also in error on the meal not being the Passover; Jesus said to His “Council of Twelve”: “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” So, if it was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (and it was), and Jesus said it was the Passover they were eating (and He did), Tolson is wrong on both counts.
Fifth, Jesus did not give thanks for the wine; He gave thanks for “the fruit of the vine.” The Greek word, oinos, meaning either fermented or unfermented, is never used of the Lord’s Supper. Only “the fruit of the vine” or “the cup” can be found in any passage of the New Testament discussing this subject. No proof has ever been offered that anything intoxicating was used. Matthew and Mark record the order as being the unleavened bread first and the fruit of the vine following. Luke has the same order, but adds another cup prior to the unleavened bread (Luke 22:17-20).
The sixth point is actually correct, but getting so much information wrong does not exactly build confidence in the reader. The article now becomes “fanciful” by its own admission and brings up a book by some professor, called The Jesus Dynasty, with a subtitle two lines long. The professor alleges that Jesus and John the Baptizer were not interested in a new religion but desired to found a new “worldly royal dynasty” (12). They wanted to establish a restored Israel right away (through peaceful means), though one wonders what strategy might have been used against a very powerful and jealous Roman Empire. Jesus was going to have His brother James succeed Him, along with various members of His family.
The proof for this theory is about like that for Q. Most of the evidence has disappeared, although the New Testament allegedly provides a few hints of it. But now new evidence has emerged to point us in that direction. Exactly what facts have come to light? The professor who wrote the book claims that Jesus came to set up a worldly kingdom immediately and failed (no sources cited). He also says that information from newly-discovered scrolls indicates that two Messiahs were expected. Would it be out of order to ask for a quote to that effect? According to the professor’s theory, one of the Messiahs was to be a king, and the other one was to be a priest. Perhaps if he knew the Word, he would have realized that one person is both:
The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! … The Lord has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:1-2, 4).
John was Demoted?
The reason that Christianity did not end up with two Messiahs, some allege, is that John was demoted from being the priest figure to simply being a herald (17). John actually considered being a herald an honor. He identified himself as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” a prophecy of Isaiah 49:3. He said that he must decrease as Jesus’ fame increased (John 3:30). Never did he say a word about wanting to be a priest. So, John was never demoted; he was, however, put to death by a wicked king (Mark 6:21-29).
The article also concludes that John could not become “as important as the only Son of God and second person of the Trinity, which is how orthodox Christianity comes to understand Jesus” (17). Statements such as these are frivolous and misleading. Jesus did not come to be viewed this way; He taught these truths about Himself, personally. He taught that He was eternal (John 8:56-58). Unless people believe that He is the Son of God, they shall die in their sins (John 8:24).
This endless speculation rambles on over several pages, and none of it possesses any merit, but a few points will be considered. One perspective is that James, the Lord’s brother, was a leader in the church in Jerusalem but that he and his book were minimized by the early church. The fact is that James was not among the first believers, and he was not called to be an apostle, but the New Testament clearly shows that he was a leader in the Jerusalem church. He spoke against the Judaizing teachers’ demands in Acts 15 and is mentioned by Paul in the book of Galatians. He gave Paul advice when he came to Jerusalem in Acts 21. Nothing has been suppressed.
The professor alleges that the church did not like James’ letter because it “lacked any reference to Paul’s view of Jesus as the divine son of God, his atoning death on the cross, or his glorified Resurrection” (18). Why should Paul be singled out? Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost was all about Jesus being raised from the dead. Is he at fault, too? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also record the details of the resurrection. Jude was also the brother of Jesus, and the brother of James (Jude 1). He referred to Jesus as “the Lord Jesus Christ” three times in only 25 verses.
James chose to write a practical letter rather than a theological one; his short book is called the “Proverbs” of the New Testament. The main concern ought not to be if he spoke of the Deity of Christ; it ought to be, “Did he deny it?” The answer is no. He does, however, mention that some “do not hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 2:1). James does refer to the church once and also to the kingdom, but it is in the sense of the church: “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5). No one can find an earthly kingdom in this book—nor any other elements that smack of conspiracy.
Part of this alleged plot also includes the idea that, after the temple was destroyed in A. D. 70, Matthew, Luke, and John all emphasized more “the spirit over the law” (19). First of all, Matthew and Luke wrote prior to the destruction of the royal city. Not only do most non-Modernist scholars place their writings at about 60-62, it would make no sense for them to include warnings of Jerusalem’s destruction if the city were no longer there. Second, John, who actually did write later, does not mention it at all, but Matthew and Luke include it, just as Mark did. Mark emphasized the spiritual just as much as Matthew and Luke.
The professor goes on to theorize that Paul replaced the physical kingdom-oriented Jesus with a heavenly–exalted figure, which, like the rest of his musings, are ridiculous. All of the writers of the New Testament present Jesus emphasizing the spiritual over the physical. The professor loses all credibility when he says: “I don’t think Jesus thought he was the savior” (20). His problem is that he is not thinking at all!
John the Baptizer identified Jesus as the Savior in John 1:29: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” In taking away our sins, Jesus became our Savior. Jesus did not deny what John said of Him. He also did not deny being the Savior to the woman at the well when she said that He was (John 4:42). Furthermore, Jesus said that He came to “save the world” in John 12:47. And how is this for confirmation? In Luke 19:10, Jesus proclaimed: ”For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
The professor is simply bonkers. He also tries to undermine the virgin birth, repeating the fallacy of the RSV translators, that the Hebrew word almah just means “young woman,” which is untrue. When the Septuagint translators (more than 250 years before Christ was born) chose a Greek equivalent to that word, they used parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” More important to notice is that “scholars” like this professor will disagree with any portion of the inspired Scriptures in order to vainly try to establish their nonsensical “scholarly” speculations.
A few other bizarre objections to what the Bible clearly teaches are offered, but even Tolson, who wrote this piece admits that some of the theories are conjectural, and he cites others who disagree with the author whose book he has been summarizing. So why was so much space taken up discussing what even that writer/professor acknowledges is “creative”? Probably, U.S. News and World Report would not have anything to sell if they said: “The Bible is true; believe it.” The reader does not receive any new “evidence”—only the machinations of a bored college professor.
A female “expert” claims that no one can conclude that the new religion of “Christianity” existed at the turn of the second century, and a third “professor” asserts that “the Gospels were written or assembled by people who didn’t equate historical truth with literal accuracy” (21). Really? And she knows this, how? Such careless statements have been frequently repeated, but one would think some of the scholars would have by now heard of the skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, who set out to prove back in the 1800s that Luke was historically inaccurate. After he completed his investigation, he acknowledged that Luke wrote with precision. He was 100% correct on everything that could be verified. Ramsay’s research convinced him that Christianity is true.
This same female scholar opines that historical details did not matter to Christians as much as “the religious experiences that people were having” (21). It may come as a shock to “experts” such as this one that the Bible does not teach salvation by “religious experience.” Jesus taught that truth would set people free—not some sort of religious experience (John 8:31-32). The Bible was written for people to read, study, and follow. The message appeals to the head and to the heart, but it is not mystical.
Faith Versus Fact?
Tolson’s concluding paragraph says that the great issue of our time is the “debate pitting religion against science, faith against fact” (21). Well, thanks so much for couching the controversy in such unflattering terms for Christianity, Mr. Tolson. Of course, the fault is not entirely his; many who claim to be Christian theologians probably have no objection to the way he framed the argument, but Christians do.
The Word of God does not disagree with true science; in fact, many scientists have devoutly believed the Scriptures. The only point of disagreement is evolution—an unproven theory that is based on error. The fact is that, while many scientists believe in evolution, evolution itself is not scientific; it even contradicts established scientific laws. The Bible has never contradicted science: the real question should be, “Is evolution scientific?” Those who believe the Bible do so because of the evidence. True scientists and true Bible scholars have no disagreements; both are in search of the truth.
Pitting faith against fact is equally erroneous. If the argument actually was between those two choices, what imbecile would choose faith? While faith does involve trust in God—that He knows what He is doing—it also is based on the facts that He provided to us, such as the miracles and the resurrection. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record these historical events that we might believe (John 20:30-31), as those in the first century did! Some will always deny the evidence. Pharaoh and his “experts” denied the proof that the plagues provided.
Those who believe are not taking “leaps of faith”; they are responding rationally to the evidence—the same type that Peter presented on the Day of Pentecost, when 3,000 (many of whom had crucified Jesus) became convinced of the truth, repented, and were baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:1-41). Facts are what lead to faith, and they change the hearts of men.