Archives

Should I Believe in the Doctrine of Eternal Security?

Dan Vander Lugt
Christian life, Christianity, , ,

Many Bible passages emphasize the reality of our security as believers in Jesus Christ: John 10:27-30; 13:1; Romans 8:29-39; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; Jude 1:24.

But even genuine believers can backslide and lose the joy of their salvation. The New Testament gives many examples of believers who drew back from their fellowship with Jesus Christ: the disciples (Matthew 26:56); Peter (26:69-75); the Christians in Corinth (2 Corinthians 12:20-21); and the Asian churches (Revelation 2:4,14-15,20).

There is a stark difference between backsliding and apostasy—a permanent departure from the faith. A true Christian can backslide, be chastened, and then repent and return (Hebrews 12:6; Revelation 2:5). A person who has merely professed faith without a genuine encounter with Christ may depart, prosper outwardly, and never return. The apostle John said that some who had left the fellowship of believers and were now teaching false doctrine showed by their actions that they never really belonged (1 John 2:19).

The doctrine of eternal security is taught in Scripture, but it is intended to comfort true Christians who are earnestly concerned with living faithfully for Jesus Christ. People who once professed faith and are now living sinfully without remorse should not be comforted by assurances that their profession of faith guarantees their salvation. We gain nothing by examining the nature of the “decision” they made. We need to point out to them that their present lifestyle is out of keeping with their profession by showing them Scriptures such as 1 John 3:4-9. They must be led to self-examination. If they are genuinely saved, God will chasten them (Hebrews 12:6). They will repent and return.

It may be impossible for us to make a judgment as to whether a person is a backsliding Christian or an impostor. Sometimes only time will tell.

 

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (16 votes, average: 4.19 out of 5)
Loading...

Should I Feel Guilty about Grieving My Dog’s Death?

Dan Vander Lugt
Christian life, Contemporary Issues, ,

Don’t ever feel guilty about grieving the death of a pet. We are saddened or distressed when valuable possessions are broken or lost. But grief at a pet’s death can be deeper than the loss of any inanimate object. A dog may not be “worth” nearly as much in dollars as an antique, but the real value of “man’s best friend” is not monetary. Dogs aren’t things; they’re companions. They’re not man-made objects, but conscious beings—masterpieces of the Creator. There are ways in which a pet dog in its innocence can be our “best friend,” touchingly responsive to our moods and emotions.

Although they aren’t created in God’s image like human beings, higher animals share many remarkable qualities with us. They exhibit traits like joy, loyalty, affection, and courage. They also help us discover much about how to live fully in the present moment and enjoy the beautiful world that God has made.

Grief for a pet is real and valid because the relationship between them and us is real. The emotional impact of a family dog’s death is a real and significant loss, although on a lesser scale than that of a friend or family member. A pet’s death offers opportunities for learning important lessons about the grief process and preparing for future losses that will hurt even more.

We often find it easy to love our pets unconditionally because of their own loyalty and unconditional love for us. However, if our sense of loss at the death of a pet is more severe than the sense of loss of human friends and relatives who have died, we should consider why. Even in a world cursed with sin, we should miss human relationships more than relationships with pets. In this sense, the grief at a pet’s death can bring an awareness of our need for deeper relationships with the people in our lives.

It’s never healthy to suppress or deny your grief. Mourning the death of an animal that has shared your life experiences for years will be painful, but attempts to deny it will have negative consequences. Don’t forget the relationship you had with your dog any more than you would forget your relationship with a human loved one who has died.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (23 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Should I Feel Guilty About Grieving My Dog’s Death?

Dan Vander Lugt
Ethics, Personal Struggles, , , , , , , , ,

You shouldn’t feel guilty that you are grieving. We might be saddened or distressed when we break a valuable heirloom or lose a valuable antique in a fire. But grief at the death of a pet dog is—and should be—deeper. A dog may not be “worth” nearly as much in dollars as an antique, but the real value of your dog is not monetary. Dogs aren’t things; they’re companions. They’re not man-made objects, but masterpieces of the Creator, conscious beings with souls.

1 Although they aren’t created in God’s image like human beings, higher animals share many remarkable qualities in common with us. They exhibit emotions like joy, loyalty, affection, and courage. They also teach us much how to live fully in the present moment and enjoy the beautiful world that God has made.

Grief for a pet dog is real because the relationship between master and dog is real. God established the relationship between human beings and His other creatures (Genesis 2:19-20; Psalm 8:4-8). There are ways in which a pet dog in its innocence can be our “best friend,” touchingly responsive to our moods and emotions.

The emotional impact a family dog’s death is similar to the loss of any family member, although on a lesser scale. It should be taken seriously, because it offers opportunities for learning important lessons and preparing for future losses that will be worse.

We often find it easier to love our pets unconditionally than it is to love each other. If our sense of loss at the death of a pet is more severe than the sense of loss of human friends and relatives who have died, we should consider why. Even in a world cursed with sin, we should miss human relationships more than relationships with pets. In this sense, the grief at a pet’s death can bring an awareness of our need for deeper relationships with the people in our lives.

Because the loss is real, it is not healthy to suppress and deny your grief.2 Openly express your grief when alone or in the presence of others who understand. Realize that grief at the death of an animal that has shared your life experiences for years will be painful, and any attempt to deny it will have negative consequences.

Don’t try to forget the relationship that you had with your dog any more than you would try to forget the relationship with a human loved one who has died. We gain some sense of God’s immense sadness at the suffering and evil in the world when we realize that the Bible offers no indication that we will ever be reunited with the animals that mean so much to us in this world.

  1. The Hebrew word nephesh implies conscious life as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In the sense of conscious life, an animal also has a soul. The word creature in Genesis 1:24 is from the Hebrew word nephesh. This word could be defined as a “breathing creature or animal” and designates the life principle in man and animals. Back To Article
  2. Although grief at an animal’s death is not unhealthy, some expressions of grief can be. Some people spend exorbitant amounts of money on pet memorials, or even have their pet’s body mounted by a taxidermist. These are reactions that show either that the animal is being valued more highly than people, or that it is being objectified in a way that overlooks the reasons we were attached to it in the first place. Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 2.50 out of 5)
Loading...

Should I Offer Forgiveness Without Repentance?

Allison Stevens
Relationships, ,

Unconditional forgiveness is canceling a debt to all those who intentionally offend us, whether or not they own up to what they have done. Offering forgiveness without repentance, however, does not follow the biblical model of forgiveness (Luke 17:3,4).

The Bible says that we are to forgive as God forgave us (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13). God forgives us when we repent (Mark 1:15, Luke 13:3,5, Acts 3:19). He does not grant forgiveness to those of us who are stiff-necked and refuse to repent. We must recognize our sin and repent to receive and enjoy God’s merciful forgiveness. God requires repentance and so must we.

Repentance is important because it’s a person’s only hope for real change (Matthew 18:3; Acts 26:20). If we don’t admit our sin, it’s impossible to be transformed. If we aren’t keenly aware of the sinful direction our lives are going, we will not see a need to adjust the direction. Repentance demonstrates that we need God to help us change our thinking, attitudes, and behavior.

An unrepentant person maintains a sense of control over his life through pride, which can lead to destruction, violence, and animosity (Proverbs 8:13; 16:18; 29:23). Turning toward God (repentance) is necessary to break the cycle of destructive behaviors and patterns of relating to others. If as believers we don’t require repentance on the part of the offender, we stand in the way of that person’s coming to see his need for God and experiencing His forgiveness. To put it simply, forgiveness is a two-way process: repentance on the part of the offender and pardon on the part of the offended.

When only one part of the forgiveness process takes place, the hurt felt by the offended one can lead to hatred, bitterness, and desire for revenge. Because we desperately want relief from the gnawing desire to get even, we can be tempted to let an issue go, or “forgive” without ever confronting the person or waiting for him to show remorse.

It’s wrong, however, to assume that if we don’t forgive someone, we’ll be weighed down with hatred, bitterness, and revengeful desires. That’s not necessarily true because the Bible says we are to love a person regardless of whether or not he or she shows any remorse. We can love our enemies1, but continue to have an unsettled issue with them. In many cases, it is more loving to withhold forgiveness until a change of heart is demonstrated than it is to offer forgiveness without the offender’s acknowledgment of deliberate wrongdoing.

Instead of giving in to revenge, we can soften our hearts toward those who have hurt us when we humbly admit that we, too, have hurt others. It is only by God’s grace that we can enjoy His goodness toward us at all. Just as important, we can have faith that God will avenge if it is necessary (Leviticus 19:18, Romans 12:19-21) and that He will hold each of us accountable (Romans 14:12; Hebrews 4:13 ). We don’t need to worry because our pain doesn’t go unnoticed by our Lord (Psalm 147:3). With that frame of mind, we can demonstrate a deeper trust in God and be led to pray for those who’ve hurt us.

Yes, an unconditional pardon can be granted without the offender ever knowing they’ve hurt us. But this one-sided “forgiveness” is not in our best interest, nor in the best interest of the person who hurt us. It devalues the significance of repentance and robs both the offender and us of the opportunity to grow in Christ.

The ultimate purpose of forgiveness is the healing of a relationship. This healing occurs only when the offender repents and demonstrates remorse and the offended one grants a pardon and demonstrates loving acceptance.

  1. An enemy can be defined as one who intentionally hurts us, is destructive, and can’t be trusted because of his or her lack of remorse. Unconditional forgiveness implies that our response to our enemies should be to offer a pardon with no response on the part of the offender. The Bible teaches, however, that we should respond to our enemies in love (Matthew 5:44). Scripture does not teach that we need to forgive our enemies. Instead, we should love them and pray for them. Love and forgiveness are not synonymous. Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (444 votes, average: 4.09 out of 5)
Loading...

Should Someone “Speak in Tongues” in Church and Provide their own Interpretation?

Dan Vander Lugt
Bible, Christianity, , ,

The Apostle Paul set guidelines in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 for tongues-speaking in Corinth. He makes it clear that no-one should speak in tongues in church unless an interpreter is present. Speaking in tongues should be strictly monitored so that it is understandable and edifying.

Paul doesn’t say who the interpreter should be. He only says that each of the limited incidents of tongues-speaking (two or three) should be immediately interpreted. There doesn’t seem to be an absolute prohibition of the same person who speaks in tongues providing the interpretation, but we need to be careful here. The ancient commentator Ambroaster noted that “Paul does not want…people to take up the whole day and leave insufficient time for expounding the Scriptures”, and Chrysostom says “(Paul) insists that it be kept under control and used for the edification of the whole church”. If someone takes an inordinate amount of time they will be violation of Paul’s instruction. Even worse, such “tongues-speaking” may not be genuine at all. It may just been an emotional display done for self-gratification.

Severian of Gabala declared that “the person who speaks in the Holy Spirit speaks when he chooses to do so and then can be silent, like the prophets. But those who are possessed by an unclean spirit speak even when they do not want to. They say things that they do not understand.”1

The Apostle John said to test the spirits to see whether they are of God (1 John 4:1-4). Although we do not believe that tongues-speaking today doesn’t appear identical to the supernatural occurrences of Acts 2, the apostle Paul instructed us in 1 Corinthians 14:39, “. . . do not forbid speaking with tongues.” Although we shouldn’t forbid people from doing what they consider to be speaking in tongues, we are wise to scrupulously apply the guidelines of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 to all incidents to be sure they meet Paul’s standards for intelligibility and edification.

  1. Studies of the Eastern religions and Spiritism show that they often involve an ecstatic tongues phenomenon parallel to that which occurs in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles. In addition, careful studies of tape recordings have demonstrated that such non-language tongues-speaking may be governed by universal psychological and linguistic factors, excluding the possibility of their being similar to the miraculous occurrences described in Acts 2. Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (72 votes, average: 3.63 out of 5)
Loading...

Should This Cloud of Hopelessness Concern Me?

Jeff Olson
Christian life, Ethics, Personal Struggles, Relationships, , , ,

Hopelessness is a dreadful feeling. The Bible says, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick” (Proverbs 13:12). Many people go through times when they know something is terribly wrong, but they often can’t put their finger on it. All they can explain is a strong sense that nothing is going to work out.

It’s unwise to ignore chronic feelings of hopelessness. Our souls cannot live for long in a state of perceived hopelessness. Hope is the oxygen of the soul. Without a hopeful outlook, our souls will eventually suffocate.

Our dilemma is that a hopeful perspective is as fragile as it is indispensable. Situations beyond our control can delay the fulfillment of hope and leave us in a fog of uncertainty and despair. As hope seems to be collapsing all around us, the potential exists to lose heart and slip into a state of depression.

Depression is a troubled mood or state of the soul that has a dramatic effect on our bodies. We lose energy. Sleeping and eating patterns become abnormal. And we have difficulty concentrating.

Depression can be mild or major. The more depression interferes with a person’s ability to sleep, to eat, to work, to focus, and to enjoy life, the greater the severity of depression, and the greater need there is to be concerned.

Sometimes a depressive mood lifts for no apparent reason. Usually,however, depression doesn’t work itself out over time. Left to itself, it can linger on like an old injury that slowly wears a person down.Over time, it can grow into a severe debilitating problem. That’s why it’s important for those who are depressed to seek help.

An honest reflection of the following statements can alert a person to a potential problem with depression:

  • I feel sad or shut down nearly every day.
  • I have little or no interest in doing things I used to enjoy.
  • I’m sleeping too little or too much.
  • I’m eating too little or too much.
  • I feel tired most of the time.
  • I find it difficult to stay focused.
  • I’ve lost interest in physical intimacy with my spouse.
  • I feel overwhelmed by the burdens of life.
  • I don’t hold out much hope that my life will improve in the future.
  • I shift between feeling helpless and unworthy to feeling angry and cheated.
  • I think about death or killing myself.

Those who identify with two to four of the above statements should,at the very least, consider seeing a physician for a complete medical checkup. Sometimes these are symptoms of a pure medical condition. Those who identify with five or more of the above statements should consider seeking immediate professional help.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Shouldn’t the Genealogies of Genesis Lead to a Creation Date of 4004 BC?

Dan Vander Lugt
Bible, Contemporary Issues, , , ,

Misunderstanding the genealogies of the Old Testament could lead to the view taken by Archbishop Ussher that the world was created on 4004 BC.

The genealogies of Genesis are clearly not reliable for determining the amount of time that has elapsed between the creation of man and the coming of Christ. For instance, the Genesis genealogies would allow for only 300 years between Noah and Abraham, yet at the time of Abraham there were already great civilizations in such widespread places as Egypt, China, India, Mesopotamia, and Greece. In addition, detailed archaeological evidence demonstrates that in some of these places many dynasties had already come and gone, and civilization was already ancient.

The solution to the apparent conflict between archaeological evidence and the biblical record lies in the fact that the genealogies don’t include unimportant individuals. The Hebrew word for son, ben, didn’t only mean son, but also was used to refer to grandsons and descendants. Similarly, the Hebrew word yalad (bear) also can have the meaning of “become the ancestor of.” (Isaiah 29:23 is an example of yalad being used in this way.)

There are a number of good examples of how genealogies tend to omit all but the most important individuals in a line. For instance, Matthew 1:1 names only Abraham, David, and Christ. Even though there are only four generations listed between Levi and Moses (Exodus 6:16-20), Numbers 3:39 states that Levi’s descendants already were numbered at 22,000 males! (The genealogy shown for Ephraim seems to show 18 generations between Ephraim and Joshua. This genealogy is found in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27). The list of kings in Matthew 1:2-17 omits a number of names that are listed in the list of kings in the Old Testament.

These and other examples demonstrate that the genealogies of the Old Testament patriarchs are given in order to demonstrate the common descent of all mankind from Adam and Eve, not to provide a complete chronology of the time that has elapsed from Adam to Christ.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 3.60 out of 5)
Loading...

To What Extent do Christians and Jews Share a Common Foundation in the Bible?

Dan Vander Lugt
Christianity, World Religions, , , , ,

Christians often mistakenly conclude that the primary basis of Judaism is the “law and the prophets.” Actually, Orthodox Judaism puts surprisingly little emphasis on Scriptural authority.

1

Jewish orthodoxy is not based as much on the Hebrew Bible as it is on “oral law.” It believes that when Moses wrote the law, he also inaugurated an “oral law” to be passed to each successive generation of Jewish leaders. In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees considered themselves the recipients and guardians of this oral law. They believed that because they were the only people trained in the tradition of the oral law, they were the only people qualified to interpret the written law. For the Pharisees, the “oral law” had precedence over the written law.

Jesus accepted neither the “oral law” nor the Pharisees’ claim of privileged knowledge and authority. He considered the “oral law” merely the “tradition of the elders” and “commandments of men,” declaring it a man-made invention that “nullified” the Word of God (Mark 7:1-13; Matthew 15:1-20).

Jesus taught that it is the disposition of the heart not mere obedience to tradition that leads to true understanding of the law. Like Elijah (Mark 8:22-29), Jesus had supernatural power and authority (John 5:36; 14:7-11; Matthew 7:29). He knew that if the Pharisees truly honored the law and the prophets, they would see that He fulfilled them (John 5:46-47; Luke 6:6-11). Instead, the Pharisees chose to honor their traditions (John 5:43-44) while paying little heed to the great spiritual leaders and prophets of Israel’s past (Matthew 23:23-39). In spite of Jesus’ moral purity (John 8:45-47), they claimed He did His miracles through the power of Satan (Matthew 9:34; 12:24).

Although individual Pharisees were friendly to him (John 3:1-10; 7:50-52; 19:38-42), Jesus’ refusal to endorse the oral law generally resulted in their animosity both to Him (Matthew 21:23-46) and the apostolic church (Matthew 10:16-28; Acts 6:8-15; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).

When Titus destroyed Jerusalem in ad 70, the surviving form of Jewish religion was that practiced by the Pharisees.2 During the next four centuries, the “traditions of the elders” were systematized, codified, and amplified in the Talmud.3In some ways, this emphasis upon the oral law continues to distort and contradict the plain meaning of the “law and prophets.” Israel Shahak, a survivor of German concentration camps and an Israeli citizen, scientist, scholar, and defender of human rights, made these striking observations about the Orthodox Jewish view of the Jewish Bible:

There is yet another misconception about Judaism which is particularly common among Christians or people heavily influenced by Christian tradition and culture. This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a “biblical religion”; that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same central place and legal authority which the Bible has for Protestant or even Catholic Christianity.

Again, this is connected with the question of interpretation. We have seen that in matters of belief there is great latitude. Exactly the opposite holds with respect to the legal interpretation of sacred texts. Here the interpretation is rigidly fixed—but by the Talmud rather than by the Bible itself. Many, perhaps most, biblical verses prescribing religious acts and obligations are “understood” by classical Judaism, and by present day Orthodoxy, in a sense which is quite distinct from, or even contrary to, their literal meaning as understood by Christian or other readers of the Old Testament, who only see the plain text. The same division exists at present in Israel between those educated in Jewish religious schools and those educated in “secular” Hebrew schools, where on the whole the plain meaning of the Old Testament is taught (Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p.36).

Thoughtful Christians realize that Judaism is not unique in its emphasis on tradition. Christian leaders have also often elevated tradition to a higher level of authority than Scripture, with very destructive results. Christians have often nullified the clear meaning of Scripture on the basis of privileged interpretations by elites. In spite of human ambition that seeks to twist the meaning of Scripture to serve personal and institutional power, there have always been those, both in the Jewish and the Christian tradition, who have resisted the idolatry of tradition and institution. Like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and his apostles, these Jews and Christians have honored not only the letter of the law but its spirit as well. Like the saints of the Old Testament, these “are sure of what [they] hope for, and certain of what [they] do not see” (Hebrews 11:1 niv).

  1. Orthodox Jews do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They do not believe that every word in the Bible is a divine revelation. They consider only the Pentateuch, the first five books of Moses, to be divinely inspired. The rest of the Bible is considered to be the product of human minds and hands (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Original Sins, pp.142-45). Back To Article
  2. A leader of the Pharisees of the school of Hillel, Johanan Ben Zakkai, officially broke ranks with the Jews in rebellion with Rome and signed an agreement whereby he accepted Roman political authority in return for the right to continue his religious tradition. He established a center for Pharisaic teaching in Jamnia, which soon after the destruction of Jerusalem became the center of Judaism. Back To Article
  3. Modern Jewish orthodoxy interprets Scripture almost exclusively by means of the oral tradition embodied in the Talmud. In fact, when Orthodox Jews refer to “Torah,” they are referring as much to the Talmud as they are to the Old Testament. Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (15 votes, average: 3.60 out of 5)
Loading...

Was Jesus’ body buried?

Dan Vander Lugt
Basics Of Faith, Christianity,

In recent years, a few New Testament scholars[1] have suggested that after Jesus was crucified his body may not have been buried as described in the Gospels. They conjecture that his body was likely buried in an unmarked grave or simply thrown on the ground to be devoured by scavengers. While it is true that the bodies of some crucified people were thrown into mass graves, the evidence surrounding Jesus’ death does not support the speculation that his body would have been discarded in this manner. Along with the testimony of first-hand witnesses preserved in the Gospel accounts, there are many other significant reasons to assume Jesus’ body would have been buried.

After Jesus was crucified, Jewish leaders were bound by their own customs and religious law to provide a proper burial for him. Regardless of their personal hostility towards Jesus, they couldn’t ignore issues of ritual purity without damaging their own credibility and authority as guardians and defenders of Jewish tradition. Josephus, the most important Jewish historian of the period, wrote: “The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors (criminals) who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset.”[2] The Temple Scroll from that time period discovered at Qumran[3] specifically calls for the burial of crucified Jews.

John 19:31-34 confirms these ritual purity concerns by noting that the Jews asked the Romans to facilitate the deaths of the crucified so that they wouldn’t be hanging on the cross on the Sabbath.[4]All four Gospels confirm that Joseph of Arimathea took custody of Jesus’ body and provided an honorable burial.[5]

Pilate had already experienced sufficient conflict with the Jews and would have been hesitant to unnecessarily offend them. The heightened nationalism and explosive political climate of early first century Palestine would have made it extremely unlikely that any Roman governor would violate Jewish sensitivities by leaving the body of a crucified Jew on a cross on the eve of the Passover. The same concern with Jewish opinion that made Pilate willing to execute Jesus in spite of personal reservations,[6] would have made him unlikely to leave Jesus’ body on the cross on a holy day at the symbolic center of Jewish society.

[1] Two well-known scholars are Jesus Seminar member and former Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan and University of North Carolina professor and author Dr. Bart Ehrman.

[2] Also see Against Apion 2.211

[3] The region in southern Israel where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

[4] Archaeological evidence confirms the precedent of crucified Jews receiving proper burial: “We actually possess archaeological evidence from the time of Jesus that confirms the claims we find in Phil, Josephus, the New Testament, and early rabbinic literature, to the effect that executed persons, including victims of crucifixion, were probably buried.

“The discovery in 1968 of an ossuary (ossuary no. 4 in Tomb1, at Giv’at ha-mMivtar) of a Jewish man named Yehohanan, who had obviously been crucified, provides archeological evidence and insight into how Jesus himself may have been crucified. The ossuary and its contents date to the late 20s CE, that is during the administration of Pilate, the very Roman governor who condemned Jesus to the cross. The remains of an iron spike (11.5 cm in length) are plainly seen still encrusted in the right heel bone. Those who took down the body of Yehohanan apparently were unable to remove the spike, with the result that a piece of wood (from an oak tree) remained affixed to the spike. Later, the skeletal remains of the body—spike, fragment of wood, and all—were placed in the ossuary.” (p. 54, How God Became Jesus)

[5] Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51; John 19:38

[6] Matthew 27:11-26

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 2.83 out of 5)
Loading...

Wasn’t Jesus Merely One of Many Divine Messengers?

Dan Vander Lugt
Christianity, World Religions, , , ,

Even if Jesus was a messenger from God, why shouldn’t I believe He was merely one of many divine messengers, like Rama, Krishna, or Buddha?

As Eastern philosophy and religious ideas become more popular, many people are attracted to the idea that while Jesus may have been a divine being in human form, He was not unique. Nor could He—a divine being—really have died on a Roman cross.

The Hindus have a word for a divine being who appears in human form to bring enlightenment to mankind. This word is avatar, meaning “God-manifestation.”

Probably the closest biblical equivalent to this Hindu concept were the theophanies of the Old Testament, in which God revealed Himself to people in a variety of forms: to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2); to Jacob as a man with whom he struggled on the night before his reunion with Esau (Genesis 32:24); and to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3:24-25) as a divine-like figure in the midst of Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace. If these were indeed manifestations of God, and not angelic appearances, in such manifestations God never changed His essential nature. He simply assumed a form that allowed Him to communicate directly to people.

It is beyond the purpose of this article to speculate further about the exact nature of the Old Testament theophanies or to evaluate the validity of Hinduism or its avatars.

The point this article is making is that Jesus was not just a divine manifestation. He didn’t come merely to impart knowledge or a special sense of awe or consciousness of God’s presence. Our race needed much more from God than mere knowledge and wonder. As victims of our own fallen natures, knowledge alone could never help us.

The witnesses of His life, death, and resurrection declare that in Jesus Christ, God became a genuine human being. In Christ, God merged His identity with fallen creatures of flesh and accomplished what none of them was capable of doing—living and dying in a way that not only set a flawless example for humanity, but also destroyed the power of Satan and evil.

In Matthew 1:20-21, the angel of the Lord said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” There might be many avatars who, like the angel of God in the Old Testament, come to impart wisdom or strength, but there could be only one incarnation in which God not only “appeared” to us, but fully became one with us in all of our weaknesses and limitations (Hebrews 4:15). Having lived and died on our behalf, Jesus Christ was raised from death triumphantly, His task completed for all time (Romans 6:9; Hebrews 10:10-14). His sacrifice was on behalf of the entire human race (1 John 2:2), and He was proven the “Son of God with power” (Romans 1:4 NKJV). He is the one to whom everyone will some day bow and confess as Lord (Philippians 2:10).

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5)
Loading...