Catholics and Protestants: Can There Be Unity? (Part 3)

Hi H-----,

Sorry for the delayed response. I wanted to read through both of those articles you sent me from the Catholic Encyclopedia and then offer my comments. I'm glad you and Mike were able to talk about these things.

I'm confused about the double message I'm hearing. On the one hand you yourself are saying (as was Kreeft) that the whole Protestant/Catholic controversy is based on a misunderstanding, and that we actually believe pretty much the same thing. On the other hand, the two articles (1, 2) you gave me, which draw heavily upon the Council of Trent, denounce what I believe as heresy, and they do so quite unequivocally, in no ambiguous terms. Everything that I read in those articles makes it clear that I do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of justification, and that Catholics do not believe in the Protestant doctrine of justification. We are dealing with two totally different understandings, and I cannot see how they can be reconciled.

Now for some thoughts on what has been said:

You wrote, "Mortal sin indicates that the movement of faith has passed away." Yet notice what the Council actually said:

"In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost." (Chapter XV)"

Even if the person has faith, and yet sins, they have lost justification. I cannot accept this tenet as Biblical, for Scripture plainly declares, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:23-24, 27-28) Justification is bestowed freely upon the sinner who falls short of the glory of God, and it is bestowed through faith apart from any works whatsoever. Nor is Paul referring to a mere "Jewish Law" or to "pagan good works" but to all moral law whatsoever as is evident from the context. An abundance more Scripture can be cited that simply does not agree with Trent.

I am not trying to be combative. From what I read in those articles, the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is convoluted and lacks the savor and freeing power of the plain Biblical gospel message. It did not feel like I was reading the apostles; it felt like I was reading Roman Catholic apologists, complete with their own literary aura and Latin fetish. Protestant writings possess the savor of the Jesus I know from the Bible, the realistic and life-giving power of the gospel message. The gospel proclaims forgiveness for the sinful, not on account of their becoming not-sinful first, nor on account of a coinciding not-sinful renovation, but that the forgiveness from God pours down abundantly upon the heads of the wicked and the filthy through unmerited favor. If we are only assured that we are forgiven after we stop sinning then there will never be the assurance of sins forgiven (as the Catholic doctrine so forcefully conceded!). What sort of good news is that? It is not the good news I am familiar with in the Bible, where such powerfully freeing verses as these are found:

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:12-14)

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." (Colossians 2:13)

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Happy are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Happy is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Romans 4:6-8)

These are glorious statements of assurance which makes happy the believer. Far from forgiveness being a thing that is "uncertain", the entire force of the gospel is that it brings to sinners hope, joy and peace in believing, that thereby they may produce good fruits. As I have said before, it is not works that bring assurance, but it is assurance that brings works, and assurance can only come when we cease looking to our own works and righteousness for assurance but look only to the righteousness that is accounted to us by faith in Jesus Christ because of His atoning sacrifice.

Justification is a forensic thing. It is something that is accounted to us in the heavenly books. When the Scripture talks about sins being "blotted out" it does not mean from our behavior but from the books in heaven, where God keeps a record of all men's deeds (Job 10:14, Rev. 20:12). If it were not so, who then is justified? Who can say their sins have been blotted out from their behavior? If one's own personal righteousness is the measure of one's justification before God, then who can stand? This is why the belief in purgatory is a necessity for Roman Catholics, and what a sad dis-annulling of the atonement of Christ it is. If you yourself must pay for your own sins, what is the point of the One who paid for our sins on the cross?

"If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared." (Psalm 130:3-4) Indeed, God does not count our sins against us, but forgives us. If He did count our sins against us none would stand. Forgiveness does not mean that if God were to judge us we would be found actually sinless. Forgiveness means that though we can not stand before God, He has not counted our sins against us. This is the glorious truth of the cross of Christ: "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21) Christ, who was actually not sinful, was treated as a sinner for me on the cross (became sin for us), so that I, who am actually not righteous, can be treated as righteous by faith in Him (made the righteousness of God in Him). This is the mystery of the gospel. We were each treated in the way we did not deserve.

Rather than opening the doors for sin and reckless behavior in the believers, this doctrine of justification by faith actually is the only thing that has the power to put a stop to sinning. This is the entire argument of Paul in Romans 6, 7, and 8 when he is confronted with that most common of all objections: "If this doctrine be true, will we not continue in sin that grace may abound?" Paul's answer is heavenly and mysterious: "Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom. 6:14) It is precisely because we are not under obligations to keep the commandments that sin shall not have dominion over us, for it isthe law itself that causes us to sin (Rom. 7:5), and grace alone severs that root and arouses in us a life of thankfulness and holiness. This teaching of Paul on sanctification by grace is so profound it is probably even more misunderstood than his teaching on justification by grace, which itself is incredibly profound. They are profound because they grind against our natural religious intuitions and have their source in the cross, which is of God and not of man, whose thoughts are higher than the earth. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are myways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9) God brings the wisdom of man to nothing (1 Cor. 1-2).

As for Luther and how the Catholic Encyclopedia says that he originated the doctrine of justification by faith because of his fearfully convicted conscience, I only have two things to say. One, the doctrine of justification by faith never originated with Luther but, as the article itself testifies, many "heretics" before him had believed it (most of which were persecuted) simply because that is what the Bible itself teaches. As one theologian well-noted: "Protestantism as it emerged in the 16th century was not the beginning of something new, but a return to Bible Christianity and to the simplicity of the Apostolic church from which the Roman church had long since departed." Second, if Luther found peace of conscience through the gospel of grace, that is precisely the point of the gospel! It brings peace of conscience to those who are burdened down by the weight of guilt. One in-obscured look to the crucified Savior and at once the sinner is relieved, just like the Israelites who looked to the bronze snake in the wilderness. That's the whole point. Perhaps this is something self-righteous people who think they are good will never understand. If we saw our sins as Luther saw them, as we should see them, we too would rejoice in the gospel of justification by faith. Luther discovered the truth about the gospel and couldn't help but share it with others. And he was not the only one.

In the 16th century and up to today the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith has set millions of souls free from guilt and set them off worshipping Jehovah with ardent desire. Far from producing slothfulness in holiness, men and women who have known the grace of God in truth (not merely who have been catechized) are witnesses of the freedom from guilt Jesus Christ's blood brings and the transformation of life that accompanies such a faith. It is no small sect that broke off from the Roman Catholic Church, but a movement that continues to grow and bear fruit, though it be not institutionalized. That's because the power is in the good news, not the institution.

Take care, H-----.
-Eli

Catholics and Protestants: Can There Be Unity? (Part 2)

Thanks, H-----, for the thoughtful response. I enjoyed Kreeft's article on justification by faith, but I disagreed with him and feel that such a stance sweeps the real issues under the rug instead of dealing with them. I don't believe the difference is merely a matter of terminology or emphasis, but a fundamental difference in thinking, though the common terminology adds to the confusion and makes it appear that there is agreement when there isn't (the same can be said about Mormonism). The clear difference in thinking can be seen here, for example, in the Council of Trent:

"In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ." (Chapter XV)

Here a few things are said: 1) justification by faith without works (Rom. 4:5-6) is false, for even if a person has faith, but sins, they are lost. 2) Divine law is incumbent upon a person for justification, and their sins will keep them out of the Kingdom of God, even if they have faith in Christ. 3) Sins separate them from the grace of God.

Such a belief of justification really eclipses the glory of the love and grace of God, because it really doesn't matter that Jesus loves you and gave Himself for you... if you commit a mortal sin you are lost. So the mind will never be resting and rejoicing in the love and grace of God, but will always be concerned about obedience. If a person is doing well then can be glad. If they are not doing well they can't be glad. But the true gospel frees us to be glad in Jesus Christ at all times, in no way dependent upon our performance (Phil. 3:3, 4:4). This is so freeing!

Have you ever wondered what the emphasis the New Testament places upon freedom is all about? "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:36) "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Cor. 3:17) "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Gal. 5:1), etc. Is it freedom from governmental tyranny? No, of course not. Is it freedom from sinning? Some would think so, but there is no sense of this whatsoever in the text, and if it were true there would be no Christians, for who has been freed from sinning? What is it then? It is this: the glorious freedom of being free from all performance obligations so that our standing and relationship with God is determined no longer by our own works and obedience, but by the righteous grace of Jesus Christ alone. It's the feeling you get when you don't have to take an exam, on a Divine scale! That's true freedom!

Another obvious difference between Catholics and Protestants is seen in the statement made by the Council of Trent about "divine law". The Scripture states that Christians are not under the law any more, that is, that as Christians we have no obligations keep the law for whatever reason. We are dead to it in every respect - to its injunctions and punishments (Rom. 6:14, 7:1-6). If what the Council of Trent says is true, and we are still indeed under the law, then we are all also under the curse of the law, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal. 3:10) If the law determines our justification before God, then no one shall be justified, "for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2:16b) This was the great contention during the Reformation.

To say that Luther, the Reformers and the Roman Catholics misunderstood is not right. They understood all too well. Luther was not ignorant of Catholic theology but was a doctor of theology at the University of Wittenberg. If it were merely a matter of semantics, why were the Reformers condemned as heretics, and the pious William Tyndale, for example, burned at the stake for believing that a man was justified by faith without the works of the law (one of two charges that led him to the flames)? I'm just raising the question because of what it reveals.

I really appreciated Kreeft's explanation of faith, hope and love as a plant's root, stem and fruit (an excellent analogy). But I believe the real misunderstanding and the issue that never seems to be considered is the matter of the object of faith: what a person is believing. We use the word "faith" like there is only one kind, but a Muslim's faith is quite different than a Christian's. A Muslim's faith does not produce hope and love simply because it is "faith". The Bible's teaching on faith and works requires first a correct faith, for faith is not this generic thing, but a conviction about something that is not seen (Heb. 11:1). But what is that conviction? What is that thing that is not seen? It is the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is in truth. It is that God came into the world to save sinners as sinners by grace through faith. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." (Titus 3:5) If this gospel is believed then the fruit of love is born. I mentioned this in my last email. When a person believes the good news that he is justified and saved by pure unmerited favor because of the loving sacrifice of God's Son, and that there is no works required for him to do whatsoever, that God freely forgives Him of all his sin because God desires to and has enabled Himself to do so, and not because of the man's performance... when this gospel is believed it does something to you... it affects you, it melts you, it changes you by the wonder of such unconditional, relentless, incomprehensible love. But if the gospel is eclipsed by conditions other than faith, then we lose the only power of fruit bearing and find ourselves desperate to produce fruit which cannot be born by a generic "faith", and the impossible rat race of making ourselves acceptable to God begins. Christianity is all about assurance and security, not striving to arrive. Good fruit is born from a tree that is planted safely by the rivers of living waters, the rivers of God's grace and love in Christ Jesus.

Much more to be said. Looking forward to our continued dialogue.
Your friend,
-Eli

Catholics and Protestants: Can There Be Unity? (Part 1)

The following is a response to a question I received about Roman Catholics and Protestants putting aside their differences and standing together as one body in Christ. Can it happen?

Hey H-----, good to hear from you. It was great chatting with you the other day in the T.S.C.!

I believe that Catholic/Protestant disagreement on the peripheral issues of unity (ie. not evangelizing each other; evangelizing together, etc.) reveals that there is a far deeper disagreement at a more fundamental level, and until we acknowledge and address that deeper issue we are setting the axe at the branches and not at the root of the disunity. When someone like me reads this article by Beckwith, or better, the article you sent me a while ago on Evangelicals and Catholics standing together in the 21st century, I cannot, on the conviction of my faith, help but have hesitation. And the fact that one person cannot understand why the other person would feel such a way reveals the disconnect at the deepest level. I believe there are two fundamentally (not superficially) different understandings of what Christianity is taking place, and it is for this reason that there really can be no essential unity between Catholics and Protestants until this is settled. Granted, we may experience a superficial unity if we set aside the essential, but what kind of unity is that? And if we set aside the essential do we even have Christianity any more or merely an oyster without it's pearl? Such a unity can be attained with Muslims and Mormons if we really desired it. You know what I mean?

If I can happily do community projects with a Mormon or an atheist I can more so happily do theistic apologetics with a Catholic against the growing tide of secularism. I can even argue for the monotheistic truth of God with a Jew, or the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus with a Catholic, and stand together with them against the blasphemous doctrines of Mormonism; but I cannot stand with any of these as my brother in Christ contending for the gospel of Jesus Christ unless there is a true and essential unity at the deepest level concerning the gospel of Christ as it is in the Bible. In defense of my stringency I can only point to the apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians. There, in the most vehement way possible, Paul condemned to hell anyone who preached a gospel other than what he preached, even if they believed in the divinity of Christ, the oneness of God, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and the forgiveness of sins that comes through Jesus Christ alone. It was not these things that Paul had a contention with, but it was with any other condition for salvation other than faith alone in Jesus Christ, whatever the addition may be. This doesn't mean that faith doesn't have it in it to produce love, but that even love is no condition to be imposed upon the sinner for salvation, for the forgiveness of sins is freely bestowed by unmerited favor upon the unworthy. In fact, it is only by the comprehension of this grace - that it is totally free and without the condition of works - that we realize the incredible love that God has for us and thus are effected by it to love (1 John 4:19, 10)! True unconditional love is produced only by faith in true unconditional grace.

I hope this makes sense. I would love to continue a dialogue with you about these things as we bump into each from time to time. Your thoughts on things are very important to me. I believe we all need to talk about the gospel, for until there is unity there, there is no unity.

Take care, H-----.
Yours,
-Eli

Could Jesus Have Faked It?

It is often argued that Jesus might have been a self-fulfilled Messiah. That is, that He could have been an imposter who sought to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and so make Himself out to be the Messiah, or that perhaps He was a delusional man who truly believed He was the Messiah and went about to fulfill the Messianic imperatives. Could that be true? Let us consider the evidence.

The first difficulty such a person would have to face if attempting to self-fulfill Messianic prophecy is the timing of the birth of Messiah. Amazingly, the exact time of the Messiah’s birth and the precise conditions and events surrounding the Messiah’s birth are specifically foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament. This presents a virtually impossible obstacle for anyone desiring to self-fulfill the Messianic prophecies. The Book of Daniel records a remarkable prophecy which states that from the issuing of the command to rebuild Jerusalem - after its destruction by the Babylonians which occured in 586 BC - until the arrival of the Messiah, there would elapse exactly 483 years: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” (Daniel 9:25). In Hebrew, the word shabuah (translated “weeks”) simply means a period of seven, which in Hebrew thought could either be seven days or seven years. The figure in the verse is 69 shabuah, or 69 x 7, which equals 483.  The city of Jerusalem lay in ruins until the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus issued an edict in 445 BC which commanded the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its walls and streets. It is obvious from the text, and from the fact that the Messiah did not arrive 69 shabuah of days (about one year) after this edict, that the prophecy is referring to shabuah of years. By calculating 483 years from the edict of Artaxerxes forward, we are brought amazingly to the last week of the life of Jesus Christ, also known as “Passion Week” (32 AD). Now hear what Daniel says next:  “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” (Daniel 9:26) This remarkable prophecy states that the Messiah will be killed at the time He is revealed (though not for any sin of His) and that following His death a people shall come and destroy again Jerusalem and the temple. The precision and grandeur of this prophecy is astounding. Not only did Jesus come at exactly the right time when Messiah was foretold to come, and not only was Jesus put to death exactly as the prophecy foretold would happen to Messiah, but within 40 years of Jesus’ death the Romans came upon Jerusalem and destroyed again the city and the temple, just as the prophecy foretold! Truly, we do not have a Messianic candidate that could fit this prophecy more perfectly than Jesus. If Jesus was not the Messiah, how could He have arranged the precise timing of His birth, the unusual nature of His death, and the necessary political conditions for not only His own nation, but Rome? Based upon this alone, how can anyone honestly blame another person for believing in Jesus? But there is so much more.

Jesus couldn't have chosen to be born in Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah was to be born (Micah 5:2). The circumstances which resulted in Jesus being born at Bethlehem involved Caesar Augustus taxing the Roman Empire, and at just the right time. It is impossible that this could have been arranged. But is it possible that, having found Himself born at Bethlehem, He decided to fake it from there? He couldn't have pretended He was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14); His mother and father and His brothers and sisters would have blown the whistle on His lie. Besides, if Jesus was born of Joseph, He might have borne the resemblance of Joseph. But suppose He bore the resemblance of Mary, and suppose His family collaborated in the scheme? Mary and Joseph might have planned the whole thing before Jesus was born. But if that were true, King Herod would never have ordered the slaughter of the babies at Bethlehem, for he did this only because of the wise men's report; but if the whole thing wasn't truly of God then the wise men would never have followed the star from the east to come visit Jesus and report to Herod what they saw. Unless, of course, we assume that they too were in on the scheme!

One might argue that His parents were attempting to fulfill prophecy when the young Jesus was taken down to Egypt and then moved to Nazareth to grow up there (Matt. 2:13-15, 23) . But is it really probable that Joseph and Mary were really Messianic conspirators? How could they have understood all the prophecy that needed to be fulfilled at that time, and what would motivate them to orchestrate such a deception? What would they get out of it? What would Jesus get out of it? If they really were prophetically knowledgeable, they would have known that all of this would lead to death – and if didn’t, Jesus couldn’t claim to be Messiah. To suggest that Mary and Joseph were Messianic conspirators is pure speculation devoid of all probability and evidence. If they did in fact conspire to pass Jesus off as the Messiah, they would have had to brainwash Him from a young age, convincing Him that He was the Savior and King of the world.  At a minimum, a boy fed such lies would grow up confused and conceited, emotionally troubled and mentally unhealthy! This we definitely do not find in Jesus. In fact, His neighbors among whom He lived reported absolutely nothing unusual about Him as He was growing up.  They actually later denied His Messianic claims on account of this (Matt. 13:54-58).  Even His family was troubled by his Messianic claims (John 7:5). One of the prophecies of Messiah was that He would be rejected even by His own family (Ps. 69:8). Therefore how could they promote Him while at the same time reject Him?

In order for Jesus to fulfill all Messianic prophecy, it would be necessary for Him to have a forerunner to go before Him to prepare the way for His coming (Is. 40:1-3). Are we also to assume that John the Baptist was in on a big lie? If so, the size of our conspiracy grows as does the size of our groundless speculation. John the Baptist was a holy man and was understood to be so by all of Israel (Josephus,  Antiquities 18.5.2). He spent years eating locusts in the desert, preaching the law of God, until He was eventually put to death for his devotion to God. The extreme unlikeliness of John's involvement in a grand Messianic hoax pushes such an idea into the realm of irrationality. Why, John himself even doubted whether Jesus was the Christ later on in Jesus' ministry (Luke 7:20)!

Clearly Jesus believed Himself to be the Messiah. But how then, if He were merely a self-deluded or willfully lying man, could He have fulfilled the prophecies regarding the miracles and signs and wonders that Messiah must do (Is. 35:5-6, John 7:31)? The Jews would accept no Messiah who could not fulfill this criteria, and certainly Jesus did fulfill it. His life was full of the miraculous, and it was largely on account of this that so many people followed Him: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." (John 3:2; see also John 2:23, 6:2, 7:31, 11:47, Acts 2:22) How could this have been faked? If we say that He was demon-possessed or a sorcerer, we are now treading upon seriously dangerous ground (Matt. 12:22-37). Why concede the reality of demons and sorcery but not the reality of God and of Christ? How can we attribute demons to one so holy and faultless and God-honoring? There is nothing in the character and life of Jesus that would even suggest an unclean spirit or sorcery, but rather the presence of the Holy Spirit. To charge Jesus with such evil is not only the highest imprudence, but also the highest blasphemy.

There is also nothing in the life of Jesus to even slightly suggest that He was delusional. In fact, there is hardly a better example of one so sound in mind. "Never a man spake like this man." (John 7:47) Commenting on the psychology of Jesus, Dr. Gary R. Collins, professor, author and psychologist, noted: "Psychologists don't just look at what a person says. They'll go much deeper than that. They'll look at a person's emotions, because disturbed individuals frequently show inappropriate depression, or they might be vehemently angry, or perhaps they're plagued with anxiety. But look at Jesus: He never demonstrated inappropriate emotions. He was obviously in contact with reality. He wasn't paranoid, although He rightfully understood that there were some very real dangers around Him. He spoke clearly, powerfully, and eloquently. He was brilliant and had absolutely amazing insights into human nature. He had deep and abiding relationships with a wide variety of people from different walks of life. He was loving but didn't let His compassion immobilize Him; He didn't have a bloated ego, even though He was often surrounded by adoring crowds; He maintained balance despite an often demanding lifestyle; He always knew what He was doing and where He was going; He cared deeply about people, including women and children, who weren't seen as being important back then; He was able to accept people while not merely winking at their sin; He responded to individuals based on where they were at and what they uniquely needed. All in all, I just don't see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness. He was much healthier than anyone else I know!" (The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, 147) Clearly Jesus was not mentally ill. Were He delusional, people would have quickly detected it.

There are many other impossibilities. How could Jesus have had Himself "rejected without a cause" (Ps. 35:19, 69:4)? Surely in order to instigate the fulfillment of this prophecy He would have had to have done something worthy of rejection, but the prophecy could only be fulfilled if He did nothing to incur such rejection. Both King Herod and Pilate had to condemn Him, all His own disciples would have to abandon Him, and He would have to be rejected by the entire nation of Israel (Acts 4:25-28). How could He control the actions of others? He would have to control every single person He came in contact with as well as the rulers of the Jews and of the Gentiles. And how could His disciples have been in on the scheme if they too forsook Him (Matt. 26:74-75)?

There are so many prophecies that any attempt to fulfill them all could easily have been foiled. Any number of little things could cause failure to bring them about. Take for example the prophecy of Christ riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9:9). What if the donkey's master didn't want to give the donkey to the Lord? What if no people came out to praise and cheer Him shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord"? Jesus could have been killed without difficulty by the Jewish authorities after He cleansed the temple or preached against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Why didn't they just get rid of Him sooner than they did? How could He have planned even the necessary prophetic mode and timing of His execution, so that He was crucified during the Passover - something the Pharisees didn’t even want to do (Matt. 26:2-5)!? Could it be as the Scriptures state, that "His hour had not yet come" (John 7:30, 13:1)? If Jesus was attempting to self-fulfill prophecy, a vast plethora of things could easily have gone wrong and ended His phony career. There is no other reasonable explanation that can be given except that Jesus is truly the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And why would someone want to be the Messiah anyway? To be the Messiah does not mean gold, women, glory and long life. It means poverty, loneliness, rejection and death. Jesus knew all along that He had come to die (Matt. 20:28), and indeed at the young age of thirty-three, after only three years of ministry, He willingly and without resistance went to His ignominious death. This was not some honorable and painless death. The prophecies concerning Messiah's trial and death were terrible: He must suffer many things, be beaten and scourged and ridiculed, then be nailed to a cross to die as one rejected by God and men - the most painful and shameful execution that could possibly be imagined. And so He fulfilled Isaiah 53:5-7: "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before His shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth."

How could Jesus have controlled all the events that occured during His arrest and crucifixion which demanded exceedingly detailed prophetic fulfillment? Here are just a few: He had to be betrayed by a close friend (Ps. 41:9). He had to be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver - the silver would then later have to be used to purchase a certain field, which Jesus' enemies did indeed buy (Matt. 27:9-10). All His disciples had to abandon Him (Zech. 13:7). He had to be falsely accused (Ps. 35:11), spat on and struck (Is. 50:6), scourged (Is. 53:5), and sentenced to crucifixion (something reserved only for serious criminals, though Pilate found no fault in Him). He had to be killed on the Passover (1 Cor. 5:7). He had to be killed outside the city (Heb. 13:11-12). He had to have His hands and His feet pierced (Ps. 22:16). His garments had to be gambled for (Ps. 22:18). He had to be given sour wine to drink (Ps. 69:21). He had to be ridiculed and cursed while hanging on the cross (Ps. 22:6-8). No bone of His body could be broken, even though the Roman soldiers broke the bones of both criminals that hung next to Him (John 19:31-36). He had to be pierced in His side (John 19:37). He had to be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Is. 53:9). All of these things happened. Could Jesus have faked this? Every one of these things had to be fulfilled, and yet they were all outside of His control.

If any one of these prophecies had failed, then Jesus could never have been believed to be the Messiah. There is simply no possibility that Jesus could have caused all of these prophecies to be fulfilled on that fateful day. The only explanation is that it was in truth the work of the Divine will.

That the prophecies of Messiah required some extremely radical fulfillments is known by all. Anyone who does not fit these claims cannot be followed as Messiah. Messiah would rise from the dead (Ps. 16:10). Messiah would gather the Gentiles to worship God (Is. 11:10, 49:6). Messiah would pour out the Holy Spirit upon the people of God (Joel 2:28-29). Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed immediately after the appearance of Messiah (Dan. 9:26). Messiah would establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth and reign upon the throne of His father David (Is. 9:6-7). Messiah would totally restore the earth to its pre-fall conditions and bring peace and righteousness to the world (Is. 11:1-9). Anyone who cannot do all of these things is not the Messiah. This explains why, when Jesus was lying buried in the tomb for three days, His own disciples gave up hope that He was the Messiah. They "had hoped" He was the Messiah (Luke 24:21), but a dead Messiah is no Messiah at all. Had Jesus not risen from the dead there would be no such thing as Christianity. The disciples would not have preached that Jesus was the Christ. Christianity therefore requires the empty tomb. The Christian faith is not merely a philosophy based upon ideas and principles, but rather a faith founded upon the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption... Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." - Peter, Acts 2:27, 29-32

Of course we know that the same Jewish leaders who orchestrated Jesus' death also accused the disciples of stealing the body (therefore, as an aside, the Jewish leaders could not have been part of a Messianic hoax), but this article is not concerned with the character of the disciples but with the character of Jesus. A study of the apostles’ character will likewise reveal the absurdity of such a claim. But now we must make a decision. The ultimatum is the same today as it was in the 1st century: either Jesus is the Christ who really did rise from the dead, or it was all just one enormous hoax. But if one chooses the latter, one will find oneself fighting, not only against reason, but against God.

Miraculously, Jesus Christ has continued to fulfill prophecy even since His death and resurrection. While Judaism was an exclusionary religion that included no one but Jews, Christ has drawn the whole world to Himself - people of every tribe, tongue and nation - so that for nearly two thousand years both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus have worshiped the one true God of Israel in Spirit and in truth, side by side, just as the prophets foretold would happen after the coming of the Messiah (Isaiah 49:6, 60:3). There is no comparison to the worldwide, cross-cultural, worship of God that Jesus Christ has produced. And not only this, but as the age progresses, more and more prophecy is being fulfilled, rapidly leading the world toward the second coming of Jesus Christ: when He shall return to the earth in great power and glory, fulfilling the prophecies of worldwide restoration and the establishment of the kingdom of God in righteousness and peace.

This article has shown that it is patently absurd to claim that Jesus could have faked His Messianic identity. The next question is, what will you believe about Jesus? Was He a fraud, or the Christ of God who came from heaven to die for your sins? There is no middle ground.  You must decide. 

Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father except by Me.” (John 14:6) The One who claimed to be the truth now generously offers life to you, and to all who simply turn to Him by faith.

Repentance and the Covenants

The following is a response to a question I received from an LDS student on the nature of repentance in the Bible.

Hi K----, thanks for the excellent question and for putting it so well.

Whenever we study the Bible we have to understand that there is more than meets the eye, because for one, we are told very explicitly that we are dealing with mystery (1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:3-4, 9; Col. 1:26, 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:16, etc.), and two, the Bible deals with two very clear covenants, an old and a new covenant, and failure to distinguish between these, or the merging of them, results in nothing but confusion. Romans 16:25 actually says, "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..." This means that the gospel of Christ was a mystery hidden in God since the world began and had only at that time begun to be published, or made public. All I am saying is that the Scriptures may not be so "plain" as we may have thought them to be, but requires careful attention to details and careful distinguishing between the covenants; that is, distinguishing what belongs to the Old Covenant and what belongs to the New. There is a vast difference between them, yes?

The primary Hebrew word translated "repent" or "repentance" in the Old Testament is shuwb or shub. It is an incredibly common word and is used all through the Old Testament in a variety of applications. Hebrew has a rather condensed vocabulary and so it uses the same word for many things. All shub means is to turn. There is absolutely no indication of what the turning is from or to - that must be provided by the context. This is extremely important. In the Old Testament God very often "repents", or does shub. For example, "Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people." (Exodus 32:12) Now here the word repent is used, but does it have anything to do with turning from sin? No, of course not, for it is God who repents and it has nothing to do with Him turning from sin. Rather, he turns from punishing the people. Many other examples could be cited.

Now I in no way am excluding the usage of shub in connection with sin. Certainly in the Old Testament the prophets are constantly calling the sinful nation of Israel to turn back to God by obeying the law and putting away their false gods. But the context determines this. We cannot immediately assume that repentance is talking about sin every time it is used, but we must check the context and find out its application.

When we come to the New Testament the same thing applies. The Greek word translated "repent" or "repentance" is metanoia. Once again we find that metanoia has absolutely nothing to do with sin in and of itself unless the context applies it to sin. It simply means to "think again" or "change one's mind". Literally, a person thinks one thing but then changes his mind and thinks another. This is the simple meaning of repentance in the New Testament, and therefore the word by itself it doesn't tell us what is being re-thought or what the change of mind is about. The context is necessary to answer that question.

Unfortunately today, repentance has become a religious word. You don't hear non-believers using the word in everyday speak, and it has come to mean "turn from sin" without any consideration of context. This is an error largely due to the word "repentance" itself as it sounds like the word "penance", which word came out of Roman Catholic theology. Penance was the sinner's work of atoning for his sins by means of good deeds, restitution or self-inflicting punishments. Penance was thought necessary to show God how sorry you are and to make Him merciful and forgiving toward you. That is a perverted and wicked idea that has no grounds in the New Testament. But repentance has traditionally become associated with it, and today it has stuck. Say the word repentance and you immediately are thought to mean "turn from sin" in some fashion. This is a major source of misunderstanding.

Here is an example of metanoia in non-Biblical classical Greek literature:

"We were inclined to conclude that for man, as he is constituted, it is easier to rule over any and all other creatures than to rule over men. But when we reflected that there was one Cyrus, the Persian, who reduced to obedience a vast number of men and cities and nations, we were then compelled to change our opinions [metanoia, repent] and decide that to rule men might be a task neither impossible nor even difficult, if one should only go about it in an intelligent manner." (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1. 1. 3.)

They thought one thing and then re-considered and thought another thing. No reference to sin whatsoever. If a man thinks he wants chocolate ice cream, goes to the ice cream store, but while he is there he changes his mind and now wants vanilla ice cream, he has repented.

So all this is to say that we need to examine the context and not assume that repentance refers to sin. I'm thankful that you did this in your survey of the Old Testament.

Now here is where we need the Spirit to help us understand the two covenants in Scripture. Certainly under the Old Covenant obedience to the commandments of God were required in order to be right before God and to have relationship with Him and to obtain the forgiveness of sins and the blessings of the covenant. The terms are spelled out very clearly. Therefore when the prophets call people to repent, we find that in context they are calling the people to turn from lawbreaking to lawkeeping, from disobedience to God to obedience to God. So this kind of call comes up all over the Old Testament as you have shown. Ezekiel chapter 18 is probably one of the best and clearest examples of the call to repent under the Old Covenant - very simple: turn from your unrighteousness to righteousness and live; but turn from your righteousness to unrighteousness and die. It couldn't be more clear. And in fact, it is so severe that if a person turns from his righteousness to unrighteousness and commits any evil, all his previous righteousness is forgotten! That's tough. It becomes even more scary when you notice Ezekiel's usage of the word "all". God requires total and exact obedience, and anything less than that is disregarded. Such is the Old Covenant.

Now this is where the gospel comes in, and this is where the mystery comes in - something that is so radically far above our own thinking that we could never understand nor see it were it not for the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2). The Old Covenant way of being righteous before God was by obedience to the laws and commandments of God. But in the New Covenant a new way of being righteous before God is manifested: it is the way of being righteous before God by faith in Jesus Christ.

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:21-28)

Please read the above carefully. It is the heart and core of the gospel and of the New Covenant mystery. It is so radical that most people totally miss it. What it is saying is so amazing and foreign to our religiously earthbound minds that we cannot accept the simple truth of what is being said. We think there must be some catch or that some word must be redefined to fit our categories. We come up with objections like, "surely the "law" must refer to "the ceremonial law of Moses"", and we miss the whole point of what is being said. If we simply read it (and read it in it's context from chapter 1-5), you cannot conclude that mere ceremonial commandments are in view (see Evidence that "the Law" Includes the Moral Law). What the New Covenant promises and declares is that anyone who puts their faith in Jesus Christ and ceases to seek righteousness by works, that person is justified [declared righteous] before God, and God is able to do this because Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins and is the propitiation for them. This concept is so mysterious that many stumbled at it (read Romans 9:31-10:4 very carefully). These words, "justification" and "propitiation" are extremely important. Radical? That God would justify the ungodly who do not work, simply because of faith in what Christ has done (Rom. 4:5)? You bet! The Scripture warns that there is no other way to be righteous before God. If you seek to obtain righteousness by works you will of course fall short and be destroyed forever, for God's holy judgment is inflexible and uncompromising; but if you give up all hope in obtaining righteousness through works and turn solely to Jesus Christ for your righteousness, and believe that He satisfied the wrath of God on your behalf at the cross, then you are justified and have peace with God and eternal life with God - a free and totally undeserved gift (Rom. 5:17-19, 6:23). This obviously reveals just how much God loves (Rom. 5:8-11)!

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Rom. 5:17-19)

Notice it is by the obedience of one that many shall be made [Greek: declared] righteous. That is amazing! It is not by our obedience that we are justified, but by the obedience of Jesus Christ that we who believe in Him are justified! What an unspeakable gift!

Now we can see what repentance is all about in the New Testament. It is in fact a changing of one's mind, but the context is now supplied. It is changing one's mind about the way of righteousness - it is thinking again about how we are justified before God. I thought I had to keep all the commandments to be right with God... then I realized that this way was hopeless and that I was doomed to perish for my sins, and then I realized that Christ had died for me and done all the obedience to make me right with God. All I was to do was trust in Him and not in my own obedience for righteousness. The lights click on! "Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind, but now I see." Galatians 3:21-24 teaches us this very thing, that God gave the law to show us our need for justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone. My own repentance occurred when I was reading this very passage, and when I suddenly understood that God never gave a law to make us righteous, but that law was given to show us our need for grace (see also Rom. 3:19-20).

And thus Jesus preached: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15) What are we to do? Repent and believe the gospel. That is, change your mind and believe the gospel. There is nothing about stopping your sins here, but everything about changing your mind from non-gospel thinking to gospel thinking. And what is gospel thinking, but that: "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:14-16, 36, 5:24, 6:28-29, 35, 40, 8:24, 20:31, etc.)

Of course, there is a whole theology about law and gospel which can be seen by carefully studying the book of Romans, which I would most urgently recommend you do. There Paul explains the purpose of law, the gospel of grace through faith, how the gospel does not ignore or loosen law but gloriously establishes it, and how Christians are free from all obligation to law so that they can now live a life of love and grace freely from the heart. It's all there, you just need to ask the Spirit to give you spiritual eyes to see it because it's so far above our religious categories. It truly is a "great mystery". Be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and find out if what I am saying is true. If you have any questions at all as you read through Romans, feel free to ask me them.

For a detailed explanation of repentance and its usage in the Bible, I recommend you read through Robert Wilkin's dissertation which he wrote for his PhD. You can find it here on my message board.

For an outstanding summary of repentance in the book of Acts, where it is clearly seen as changing your mind to believe the gospel, I highly recommend Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's article, The Terms of Salvation. Chafer was the founder and late president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Any serious student of the Bible ought to read this.

Well, K----, I hope this is a helpful start. May God give you the willingness to go all the way for the truth, whatever the cost.
Sincerely, your friend,
-Eli