- How do we know we have the same Bible written so long ago?
- How is the Bible's fulfillment of prophecies any different than that of other sacred books or of famous psychics today?
- Aren't all religions basically the same? Why do Christians believe Jesus is unique?
- Why can't I view him as just a good person and great moral teacher?
- How can anyone today believe Jesus rose from the dead?
- Why do Christians believe Jesus is God?
- Why do Christians say we get right with God by faith? Doesn't the Old Testament portion of the Bible say it's by obeying rules and commandments?
- Doesn't the old testament picture an angry, vengeful God and the New testament a loving one?
- Why do some Christians seem angry, burned out and unfulfilled in their service for the church?
- How can I regularly nurture my relationships with God through prayer and Bible reading?
Q: How do we know we have the same Bible written so long ago?
A: Because according to the science of textual criticism, the Bible is the best preserved and accurately attested document of all ancient writings, secular or religious!
Most people don't realize that we have no originals of ancient documents; we have only copies. That's where the science of textual criticism comes in. To determine the authenticity and accuracy of an ancient document, the science of textual criticism looks at the number and quality of copies (in whole or in part), the date of the copies (with those closest to the date of the original having the most value), and how the copies compare to each other (variants etc.).
There are over 5000 original language manuscripts of the New Testament section of the Bible. One of them is a piece of John's Gospel dated to within 10 or 15 years of the original. In terms of the number of manuscripts, the next closest document is Homer's Iliad with fewer than 650, some quite fragmentary, and with a thousand year gap between the copies and the original.
In "ancient times" like the 1960's, some of us took Latin in high school. Caesar's Gallic Wars was a staple. We never questioned whether what we were studying was what Caesar actually wrote, yet there are only about 10 good manuscripts of the work and they were written nearly 1000 years after the original!
That covers the New Testament but what about the Old Testament section of the Bible? The earliest copies we have in Hebrew are dated around 900 A.D., which is nearly 1300 years after it was supposedly finished. How can we say the Old Testament we have today faithfully represents the text as originally written? We might begin by citing the care of the copyists counting as they did their work. The number of times each letter of the alphabet occurred in each book, the number of verses in each book, the number of words, etc. Anything that could be counted to insure accuracy was counted. But beyond the mention of the scrupulous copyists, The Dead Sea Scrolls supply the definitive answer.
The scrolls were discovered in 1947 when a Bedouin shepherd boy, searching for a lost goat, threw a stone into a hole on a cliff and heard the sound of shattering pottery. Investigating, he found a cave with several large jars containing leather scrolls wrapped in linen cloth and carefully sealed in jars. The scrolls had been preserved in excellent condition for nearly 1900 years} One of the scrolls found contains a complete manuscript of the Old Testament Book of Isaiah in Hebrew and is dated at 125 B.C. Here is an example of the accuracy of the copyists over the 1000 year period from 125 B.C. to ~900 A.D. (the date of our earliest Hebrew manuscript before the discovery of the scrolls): When comparing, for example, Isaiah chapter 53 of the 900 A.D. text with Isaiah 53 of the Dead Sea Scrolls (125 B.C.), there is only one word of three letters in question after 1000 years of transmission - and that word does not at all change the meaning of the passage (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible).
The text of the New Testament is better attested than any other ancient work bar none; and the text of the Old Testament, though earlier manuscript evidence we had was dated much later than the original, has been vindicated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls!
Q: How is the Bible's fulfillment of prophecies any different than that of other sacred books or of famous psychics today?
A: Because while the Bible contains hundreds of specific prophecies which have come true, none of the other sacred books do, and psychics and predictors today are notoriously inaccurate.
Of the 26 other books purporting to be Scripture/sacred literature or having adherents making that claim, the issue of specific predictive prophecy is glaringly absent. It's not found in the writings of Buddha, Lao-tzu or Confucius. In the Koran we have Mohammed making the prophecy that he would return to Mecca, which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also no founder of any cult in this country can rightly identify any ancient text specifically foretelling his appearance.
In the entire gamut of Greek and Latin literature, though they use the words prophet and prophecy, we can find no specific prediction of a great historic event to come in the distant future, nor any of a Savior to arise in the human race.
One time the National Enquirer took the top ten seers or modern day prophets and had them predict what was going to happen in the next 6 months ("Modem Day Prophets Make Predictions"). They made 61 specific yes or no prophecies. They got not 50 or 25 right, but none...not a one!
This kind of failure stands in stark contrast to the hundreds of Old Testament prophecies (about various people and lands) that have already come to pass and those of the future Messiah/Savior already fulfilled in Jesus. (D. James Kennedy and Wilbur Smith)
Just take some of the dozens of major predictions about Jesus for example. If you knew something of Jesus' life by reading the 4 Gospel accounts in the New Testament, and then read the predictions below, you'd be amazed. Why? Because those prophecies were written hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. The chance He could have fit Himself into the prophecies or that He fulfilled them by coincidence is zero!
Examples:
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2 with Matthew 2:1
Born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:18 and John 1:14,18
Would be a descendant of King David: Jeremiah 23:5 with Acts 13:22,23
His ministry in Galilee: Isaiah 9:1-2 with Matthew 2:21-23
Would be attested to by the miracles He did: Isaiah 61:1-2 with Luke 4:18-21
His betrayal by a friend: Psalm 41:9 with Matthew 26:47-49
Sold for 30 pieces of silver. Zechariah 11:12 with Matthew 26:15
Forsaken by His disciples: Zechariah 13:7 with Mark 14:50
Hands and feet pierced: Psalm 22:16 with Luke 23:33
Crucified with thieves: Isaiah 53:12 with Matthew 27:38
Would suffer for the sins of others: Isaiah 53:2-6 with Mark 16:1-39
Took on God's curse for our sin on the cross: Deuteronomy 21:23 with Galatians 3:10-13
Cast lots for His clothing: Psalm 22:18 with John 19:23,24
Pain deadener offered but refused: Psalm 69:21 with Matthew 27:34
His forsaken cry: Psalm 22:1 with Matthew 27:46
His bones not broken: Psalm 34:20 with John 19:31-33
His side pierced: Zechariah 12:10 with John 19:34
Mocked: Psalm 22:7,8 with Matthew 27:39-44
Darkness over the land: Amos 8:9 with Matthew 27:45
Buried in a rich man's tomb: Isaiah 53:9 with Matthew 27:57-60
Conquered death and rose: Psalm 16:8-11 with Acts 2:22-33
The Bible is unique in its content in that its prophecy and fulfillment demand a supernatural author!
Q: Aren't all religions basically the same?
A: Certainly many religions speak about similar topics and themes; but that doesn't make them equal or one because they may have quite different, even opposite, teachings on the same subjects...In fact, on every major point there is indeed disagreement with the Bible - on the nature of God and man, our central problem and its solution, the meaning of life, and the significance of death and what follows this life.
Take the concept of God: Some religions are polytheistic (many gods), some pantheistic (God impersonal and identified with the world), some deistic (God transcendent and does not intervene in the world), some theistic (personal infinite God who is beyond the universe but acts within it), and there are several other views like panentheism, finite godism, and more. So the how and why and what of a relationship with "God" are quite different depending on the "God" being presented.
But however "God" is defined, broadly speaking religions are the same in that all except one claim that our own efforts, our works, our good deeds, our morality, our service gain us a favored relationship with "God" and the earned reward of a good afterlife...all except one - Christianity - the faith taught in the Bible. Note, for example, the following passages:
"We have not been made right with God by our efforts at obeying commandments but through faith in Jesus Christ.." (Gal 2:16).
"There is no difference (between people), for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glorious standard"... "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord". (Rom 3:23; 6:23).
"He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because of his mercy." (Titus 3:5).
"God saved you by his grace (special favor) when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it." (Eph 2:8,9).
Click here for a chart comparing various major religions.
As some have noted, religions are swimming instructions for drowning
people; Christianity is the life-preserver!
Q: Why do Christians believe Jesus is unique? Why can't I view him as just a good person and great moral teacher?
A: Jesus is totally unique in who he claimed to be and what he claimed to do!
Jesus often drew his disciple's attention to his person, who he was. "Who do people say 1 am?...Who do you say I am?" (Matt 16:13-20). He was constantly saying, I AM this and I AM that...(for example, "I AM the bread of life") yet he was very humble - not one trace of bloated ego! How do we put those two together (continually drawing attention to his person, yet being very humble)? Jesus went willingly to Jerusalem to die on a cross. Not only could he have avoided death, but his death is considered by his followers, past and present, not as a tragedy, but as something wonderful. How do we explain that?
The answer to these questions is the Gospel or Good News. Jesus claimed to be God who'd taken on our human condition (Jn 1:1,14; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 14:1-9...) to do for us what we could never do for ourselves - bridge the gap between us sinful creatures and His absolutely holy Father, i.e. restore us to God and gain for us eternal life by taking on himself the punishment we deserve for our sins! (Gal 2:21; Acts 13:38, 39; II Cot 5:21; Rom 3:20-25).
In considering Jesus today we have only 4 options: (1) He was a liar, (2) He was a lunatic, (3) He was a legend, or (4) He was and is Lord! Let's look at these briefly.
(1) Do you know of any who call Jesus a liar...a deliberate liar? Jesus said He was "the way the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6), that he came "to testify to the truth" (Jn 18:37) and that "the truth he gave would make us free" (Jn 8:31,32). His life matched his teaching such that even the religious leaders who hated him could not convict him of any sin On 8:46). Many agnostics have admitted he's given us the greatest moral teaching (e.g. philosopher J.S. Mill). Now, if Jesus knew He lied when telling people he was God and the only way to forgiveness and eternal life, then he was also a hypocrite because he told others to be honest; he was also a devil because millions have staked their life and death on him in vain; and he was also a fool because he died for those same claims. Would you dare make and try to back up the claim that Jesus was a knowing deliberate liar, hypocrite, demon and fool?
(2) But then, perhaps he was a lunatic...his claims were false but he really believed they were true? However, Jesus never demonstrated any signs of dementia, delusions or paranoia...no inappropriate emotions; no misperceptions, no thinking disorders, no unsuitable or socially unacceptable behavior. In fact, as we read the New Testament we find in Jesus the picture of mental health...a more "together" individual we could not imagine! "He was loving, but didn't let that immobilize him; surrounded by adoring crowds, but with no bloated ego; balanced despite a demanding lifestyle; able to accept people without excusing their sin; responsive to individuals based on what they uniquely needed"..."And Jesus didn't just claim to be God and the way to real life, he backed it up with amazing feats of healing, with astounding demonstrations of power over nature, with transcendent and unprecedented teaching, with divine insights into people, and ultimately with his own resurrection from the dead...So when Jesus made claims to be God, he wasn't crazy. It/He was the truth." (Psychologist Gary Collins).
(3) But, perhaps the Jesus we know is just a legend...maybe the writers of the New Testament made up Jesus with ail His claims? But the legend theory won't "fly" for at least 2 reasons. First, if I were to write a biography of the late President Kennedy, saying that he claimed to be God and forgive sins, my new religion wouldn't get off the ground and would be called "legend" or more likely worse. Why? Because there are too many people around today who lived during Kennedy's time, who would prove the falsity of those claims. Now consider the case of Jesus. The preaching of His claims took place only weeks after His death and resurrection and the earliest NT documents began to appear within decades...simply not enough time for legend to develop, let alone thoroughly corrupt the actual history...and that despite the existence of many eyewitnesses who had personal knowledge of Jesus. In 1844 theologian Julius Muller issued a challenge: "Find a single example of legend developing that fast anywhere in history." That challenge has never been accepted to this day! A second reason why the Jesus as legend theory isn't valid is found in asking the following question: "Is it psychologically possible that the followers of Jesus would make up false claims and then die for them? People give their lives every day for causes and ideas which lack truth, but not for ones they've concocted themselves!
(4) The last option is before us: Jesus was and is Lord! The big question for each of us remains: What will we do with him?
Q: How can anyone today believe Jesus rose from the dead?
A: The Bible's view of truth is not a foggy, mythical, "spiritual" truth but a 2+2=4 kind of truth...the only kind there really is! The Bible isn't an abstract philosophical treatise, it's thoroughly rooted in history...a history which reports about real people living in real places, real events in real time, and about a real God who's entered our history in Jesus and left his footprints all over the place. Therefore, we can investigate the truth of the Bible's claims using the same tools we use to investigate anything else.
For example, let's take the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The Bible reports as sober history that Jesus Christ, after dying on the cross, was in the tomb for three days and then physically rose from the grave. Listen, for example, to the words of the Apostle Paul: "If Christ was not raised then our preaching is useless and your trust in God is useless...and we apostles would all be lying about God...you'd still be under condemnation for your sins and all who've died believing in Christ have perished...but the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead and He's become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again." (I Cot 15:14-20).
Now, on first hearing about a resurrection from the dead, the normal person wonders, "How can anyone expect me to swallow that...I'd have to take a leap of faith against reason...I'd have to kiss my brains goodbye to believe that ever happened or could ever happen!" Skepticism is both normal and positive. It only becomes negative and a hindrance to growth when one will not consider the evidence that might dispel his skepticism. Then how do we determine whether something happened the way it's reported in some book...i.e., whether it's actual history? We act like jurors and (1) look at the evidence in terms of the personal testimony of eye witnesses, (2) examine the writings of the time, (3) see if the arguments that say it happened differently can be defeated, and (4) consider all the circumstantial evidence.
(1,2) The New Testament is a reliable historical document. It contains the 4 Gospel stories of Jesus' resurrection written within 15-55 years after Jesus, and all of them agree in their main lines of reporting. As shown earlier, that short time-frame makes it impossible for legend to arise and also, the disciples would never have died for a resurrection story they themselves made up. Luke, one of those who wrote about Jesus, is accurate every single time in what he says about the ancient world in citing 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 islands, and several rulers...a reliable reporter to say the least. The New Testament accounts also agree with accounts given by Roman and Jewish historians of the time. And how do we know we have what the eyewitnesses actually wrote? The NT is more accurately attested than any other ancient document - secular or religious.
(3) What about the arguments purportedly giving a different interpretation of the resurrection?
The swoon theory says that Jesus didn't really die, he just swooned from exhaustion. The Journal of the American Medical Society in a 1986 article entitled "On the physical death of Jesus Christ" concluded that "The weight of historical and medical evidence indicates Jesus was dead even before the spear pierced his side...interpretations based on the idea he didn't die are at odds with modem medical knowledge." Or consider the facts that Jesus was up all night before the crucifixion, beaten with whips made of bone or metal tips, unable to carry his cross beam to the place of crucifixion, crucified and a spear thrown into his side, certified as dead by an experienced Roman Centurion, embalmed in 75-100 pound of spices, and then he supposedly revived in the tomb, rolled away a stone weighing hundreds of pounds, overpowered the guards and appeared to his followers as the powerful risen Christ.
The wrong tomb theory presents this version of the events: The women and other disciples went to the wrong tomb to look for Jesus. Then why didn't the authorities go to the right tomb and produce the body and end all preaching of the resurrection. Also, what do we then do with all the circumstantial evidence of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances and the amazing change in his disciples, etc.?
The stolen body theory says just that...Jesus' disciples stole his body from the tomb. But they were honest men, totally disheartened after the death of Jesus, and hiding in fear that the religious leaders would come for them next. Did they then boldly concoct a complete lie and go around preaching it and giving their lives as martyrs for it?
The hallucination theory wants us to believe that Jesus' appearances were all hallucinations. The disciples wanted to believe in a resurrection so much they talked themselves into it.
But hallucinations are pretty individualistic; the psychological ground must be prepared in the person or persons; and they increase in intensity or are gradually overcome. In light of what we know about hallucinations, consider the evidence: First, the disciples were not prepared for a resurrection, but its opposite. Though Jesus had taught them he would rise, they were totally disheartened after his death and expecting the worst. Secondly, the appearances were to more than 500 people at different times, sometimes day, sometimes night, some to large groups, some to individuals. Paul the Apostle challenged any who doubt to ask those who were still living and saw Jesus (I Cor 15:6). The resurrected Jesus ate with his disciples; walked with them, taught them; and he was touched by them to see he was no ghost. And thirdly, unlike what we know of hallucinations, the appearances of Jesus dropped all at once. Why? He ascended into heaven as the Bible reports. As "jurors" we must continue to ask ourselves, "Where does the truth lie?...in the resurrection of one who claimed to be God or in one or more of these alternate interpretations of the events?"
(4) The circumstantial evidence:
"If you were to look at the enormous hole in Arizona known as Meteor Crater, the idea that it was caused by a small boy who threw a firecracker or the efforts of a family of gophers wouldn't get too far. 2000 years ago we have this large hole in history - a giant explosion that must be explained, and only the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead does it justice" (Arlie Hoover).
After considering the eyewitnesses and the alternate explanations, there's still a wealth of circumstantial evidence to examine: * Jesus predicted His resurrection many times (e.g. Mt 16:21).
- The resurrection fits the character and uniqueness of Jesus.
- The resurrection explains the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus (for example, Ps 16 as explained by Peter in Acts 2)
- The disciples were totally transformed from cowards to fearless preachers; yet myths don't inspire martyrs.
- And how can we explain the existence and growth of the Christian Church?
- How was the militantly anti-Christian Saul of Tarsus converted? (Acts 8,9)
- How could the 11 disciples seriously insist that any new apostle must be a witness of the resurrection?
- How did baptism come to have the significance of being buried and raised with Christ?
- How did the Lord's Supper, signifying Jesus' death, become such a feast of joy to Christians?
- What caused Jewish Christians to transfer their worship from Saturday to Sunday?
- What moved Jewish Christians who were militantly monotheistic to ascribe divinity to Jesus?
- While the Bible is so accurate archaeologically, how come we never find a site reported in its pages of a tomb the disciples visited as a shrine of their fallen Master...how come there is nothing like this in later history?
- What broke the back of history and gave us BC and AD?
- How can millions keep testifying to an encounter with the risen Christ based on the Gospels?
Even this brief presentation of the case ought to be enough to convince us that because the Bible is a historical document. It can be examined using the typical means we use to investigate any purported actual events. And thus, belief then becomes faith based on the evidence, not a leap in the dark against reason!
Q: Why do Christians believe Jesus is God?
(1) How is Jesus different from other religious leaders? Why don't the names of Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius offend people? The reason is that these others didn't claim to be God, but Jesus did. This is what makes him so different from other religious leaders.
(2) Jesus takes the names of God. The NT clearly presents Christ as God. The names applied to Christ in the NT are such that they could properly be applied only to one who was God. For example, Jesus is called God in the phrase, "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13; compare Jn 1:1; Heb 1:8, Rom 9:5; 1Jn 5:20, 21).
(3) Jesus has the attributes of God. The Scriptures attribute characteristics to him that can be true only of God. Jesus is presented as being self-existent (Jn 1:4; 14:6); omnipresent (Mt 28:20; 18:20), omniscient (Jn 4:16; 6:64, Mt 17:22-27), omnipotent (Rev 1:8; Lk 4:39-55; 7-14, 15; Mt 8:26, 27); and possessing eternal life (1 Jn 5:11, 12, 20; Jn 1:4).
(4) Jesus received honor and worship that God alone should receive. In a confrontation with Satan, Jesus said, "It is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God and serve Him only'" (Mt 4:10). Yet Jesus received worship as God (Mt 14:33; 28:9) and sometimes even demanded to be worshiped as God On 5:23; compare Heb 1:6; Rev 5:8-14). Thomas, after seeing the evidence that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, said to Him, "My LORD and my God!" (Jn 20:28).
(5) Jesus spoke of Himself as one in essence and nature with God. He boldly asserted, "If you knew Me, you would know My Father also" (Jn 8:19); "He who beholds me beholds the One who sent me" Jn 12:45); "He who hates me hates My Father also" Jn 15:23); "All may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him" Jn 5:23); etc. These references certainly indicate that Jesus looked at himself as being more than just a man; rather, he was equal with God.
(6) Jesus was seen as God by very monotheistic (one God) people like Paul. Most of Jesus' followers were devout Jews who believed in one true God. They were monotheistic to the core; yet they recognized him as God incarnate. Because of his extensive rabbinical training, Paul would be even less likely to attribute deity to Jesus, to worship a man from Nazareth and call him LORD; but this is exactly what Paul did. He acknowledged the Lamb of God (Jesus) as God when he said, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).
(7) Jesus, because of His deeds (claiming to do what only God could do), was viewed as claiming deity by the religious leaders and Jesus did not correct them.
"And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.' For this cause therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (Jn 5:16-18).
Not only did Jesus claim equality with God as His Father, but He also asserted that He was one with the Father. During the Feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem, Jesus was approached by some Jewish leaders who asked about his being the Christ (the Messiah/Savior). Jesus ended his comments to them by saying, "I and the Father are one". And they wanted to stone him for blasphemy, "because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God"
(Jn 10:30-33).
Q: Why do Christians say we get right with God by faith? Doesn't the Old Testament portion of the Bible say it's by obeying rules and commandments?
A: On approaching the Bible, many wonder whether there are not two ways of getting right with God.
In the OT, at first glance, it seems to be following the ceremonial system of sacrifices, rituals, feast days, and obedience to the law of Moses (10 Commandments, etc.). One might get the impression the people earned and deserved God's favor by their good behavior. On the other hand, the NT seems to state clearly that forgiveness of sins and eternal life come not by our earning or deserving, but by God's grace, mercy, love & compassion through the gift of faith alone.
Since the NT claims to fulfill the OT, let's first see if it indeed does teach faith alone as the way. Note the following passages:
(Jn 3:15) "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."
(Jn 5:24) "Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
(Rom 3:22-28) "We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we can all be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we've done .... God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us... Can we boast then that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. So we are made right with God through faith, and not by obeying the law."
(Gal 2:15) "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not made right with God by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ."
(Eph 2:8,9) "God saved you by his special favor (grace) when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we've done, so none of us can boast about it."
Then what about the OT? Does it teach a different way of getting right with God? Let's look deeper, first at Abraham:
(Rom 4:1-3) "Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith? Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride. For the Scriptures tell us, 'Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous.'"
That last line is a quote from Moses in Gen 15:6!
What about the great King David? Did he believe he could earn God's favor, or did he trust in God's forgiveness?
(Rom 4:4-8) "When people work, their wages are not a gift. Workers earn what they receive. But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work. King David spoke of this describing the happiness of an undeserving sinner who is declared to be righteous: 'Oh, what joy for those whose disobedience is forgiven, whose sins are put out of sight. Yes, what joy for those whose sin is no longer counted against them by the Lord.'"
David said that in Psalm 32. But, was it his constant teaching? Consider Psalm 103 in which David talks about how God revealed Himself to the great Moses:
(Psalm 103:7-12) "He made known his ways to Moses, his deeds to the people of Israel: The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in love...He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities...As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us..."
Or consider David's words in Psalm 143:
(Psalm 143:1,2) "O, Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you."
How then could David speak of "the righteous" gathering about him in the Psalm just before (Psalm 142:7)? Because when the Psalmists spoke of themselves or others as "righteous" they were appealing to their membership in Israel which God had permitted to partake of His righteousness. Throughout the OT the consistent teaching is that only God can make a person righteous.
How about the Prophets of Israel...What did they believe?
(Habakkuk 2:4) "The righteous will live by his faith."
(Daniel 9:18) "...O God...we do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act?
The people in OT times had the rituals and laws as guides to holy living and keys to help them understand God's nature, but as we've seen above (with Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets) those laws and ceremonies were never meant to be the way to earn right standing with God. Then what happened? It seems that by the time Christ came upon the scene, many believed they could earn God's favor by their degree of obedience...How did things get so turned around?
Beginning in the time of the Pharisees -150 B.C. teachers or rabbi's arose to lead the people in God's ways. But the idea of righteousness became completely identified with conformity to the law of Moses, and that law came to be seen as a way to acquire merit before God. The true UT passion for obedience arising from faith/trust in God became transformed into a striving for merit, to ensure one's part in God's kingdom.
And by Christ's time, the religious leaders had added all kinds of man-made laws, so that what people thought was the way of salvation was really an oppressive legalistic system of rules and regulations (Mt 23:4,13,14). The commandments, which were meant also to show us our sin and need of the Savior, (see Rom 3:20 ff.), were turned on their head and made into an alternate way of salvation. (See Rom 9:30-10:4; Phlp 3:4-9; Acts 13:36-41; Jn 1:17,18) Many people today are making the same mistake folks made in Bible times. They believe there's a god...a supreme being.., and they figure that if they try to be "good" then God will "reward" them with heaven. In essence they're saying they can earn God's favor by their performance.
But the Bible's unanimous testimony is that there's one way of getting right with God - by His grace through faith!
Q: Doesn't the old testament picture an angry, vengeful God and the New testament a loving one?
A: Many people say that in the OT we have an angry vengeful God; while in the NT we have a loving God, especially in the person of Jesus Christ. An open reading of the entire Bible, however, yields one God who is holy, just and righteous and who loves His people with an everlasting love. Consider the following:
(1) If you have the idea that the God of the OT was angry and vengeful in a capricious sort of way, especially during the wilderness journey after the Exodus, simply read through the books of Exodus and Numbers. There you will find a God of righteousness and justice to be sure, but also of great mercy and patience; and you will find yourself saying repeatedly, "If I were in control I'd have wiped out the people a long time ago, rather than simply punishing them. And I certainly would not have come back to them again and again in grace and mercy like God did."
(2) Next, read Psalm 106, which is a summary of this period of wilderness wandering and disobedience in the Promised Land. If you don't agree with its perspective, ask yourself, "Do I really believe in an absolutely holy and just God who created us perfect and who has a rightful claim to our total obedience?" If you don't, then you're denying the basic presentation of God throughout the Bible and are living with a god of your own design pre-empting any belief in the God of the Scriptures.
(3) If you wonder about God telling the Israelites to totally destroy the people in Canaan as they entered and conquered the Promised Land, consider the following:
(a) God had given the Amorites/Canaanites more than 400 years to shape up (See Gen 15:16). Yet, from Deut 18:9-12 and from their own epic literature discovered at Ras Shamra we know that they worshipped many gods, sacrificed children to these gods, engaged in religious prostitution and divination. God was, in fact, very patient in judgment with the wicked Canaanites.
(b) This was no ethnic cleansing on the part of the Israelites, falsely claiming that their God had ordered the whole affair, to excuse themselves. It was God's doing start to finish. The conquering of Jericho is one of many clear examples of this truth. Does not God have the right to take the life of His creatures, especially those who defiantly snub Him, worship false gods and make a mockery of His image in which they're made?
(c) Surely God knew what he was doing when he told the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of the land. Think about how fast sin spread before the great flood (Gen 6:5), during the period of the Judges (e.g. Ch. 19), and in the Promised Land because the people didn't obey God and left some of the Canaanites in the land. For hundreds of years afterward, the Israelites were affected and infected by the pagan practices and constantly trying to mix worship of the one true God with Baal worship. The powerful challenge of Elijah on Mt. Carmel summarizes the problem God's prophets faced over the centuries...all due to the Israelites disobeying this seemingly harsh command of God: "If the Lord is God, then follow Him, but if Baal, follow him."
(4) As we move into the NT, Christians - those who believe that Jesus is God - sometimes falsely contrast him with the OT presentation of God, and they too fall into a false dichotomy between the two. But, in fact, God in the OT is both just and loving...and Jesus is certainly loving...but is He just? We need to realize that Jesus is the one who spoke about eternal punishment more than anyone else in the NT (e.g., Mt 26:31-46). But, dare we compare Jesus with the sovereign Lord pictured in the OT? We certainly should! Reading the Gospels we find that Jesus was not at all the Casper Milquetoast type many make Him out to be. Jesus was totally in control of every situation and assertive right up to the cross, at which point He humbly submitted Himself to death on our behalf.
Jesus' attributes were totally consistent with those of His Father.
Q: Why do some Christians seem angry, burned out and unfulfilled in their service for the church?
A: Because in many ways they've mistaken servitude for servant-hood. Click here for a comparison between Servitude and Servant-hood
Q: How can I regularly nurture my relationships with God through prayer and Bible reading?
A: Bible-Enriched Prayer gives some good guidelines.
- Pick a passage. (for example start with the Psalms.) It's good to follow a particular book of the Bible from 1st chapter to the last.
- As you read a phrase or sentence of the passage, be asking (i.e. keep in mind) the questions below and add your own as well.
- If the Scripture supplies an answer to one of those particular questions, then immediately raise a prayer to God. It could be a prayer of Adoration (praise), Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication (asking for something for yourself or someone else) or Surrender (promising to change an area of your life with God's help). This is the ACTSS formula
- Then move on to read the next phrase or sentence. Pray as the Spirit brings to mind something in answer to the questions, and proceed all the way through the passage you've chosen for that time of communication with God.
Questions:
Is there a note for praise or thanksgiving?
Is there a sin for me to confess or one to avoid?
Is there a promise for me to claim?
Is there a command for me to obey?
Is there a bad habit I need to break or a good habit I need to establish?
Is there an attitude that needs changing?
Is there a new thought about the Father, Christ, The Holy Spirit, the Devil, or some aspect of my life in Christ that I need to correlate with other practical knowledge of the faith?
Is there someone for whom I need to intercede?