Could the Gospel Writers Withstand the Scrutiny of a Lawyer?
by John Warwick Montgomery
Lawyers distinguish between making claims (almost anyone can file a lawsuit) and proving the case (which is possible only on the basis of good evidence). Lawyers, therefore, are in the evidence business and will not accept any claims (including religious claims) without good reason to do so. It is highly significant, then, that throughout history so many great lawyers, judges, and legal scholars have come to Christian belief.
This is due in large part to the solidity of the Gospel testimony to Jesus Christ. The Gospel records qualify under the "ancient documents rule" and would be admitted as evidence in any common law court. They assert that they are firsthand, nonhearsay testimony to Jesus Christ (1 Jn 1:1, etc.) or are the product of careful research concerning Him (Lk 1:1-4). Documents, like defendants, are innocent until proven guilty, and the critics have not been able to impugn the credibility of the Gospels.
The soundness of the four Gospels depends upon their early dating and their authorship by those who knew Jesus personally. Corroboration from outside the Gospels comes by way of such early writers as Papias, who was a student of the Apostle John. Papias tells us that the four Gospels were written either by an apostle (Matthew and John) or by an apostle's associate (Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul). The Gospels were in circulation, then, while hostile witnesses of Jesus' ministry were still alive. As F. F. Bruce has argued, these opponents were the functional equivalent of modern cross-examiners: They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to refute the Gospel accounts of Jesus' miraculous ministry if it had not happened just as the Gospel writers said it did. Since the opposition could not do that, the Gospel narratives stand as powerful evidence that the miraculous picture of Jesus they convey is accurate.
The fact that the first three Gospels were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, and the Gospel of John not long thereafter, makes impossible the attempt of liberal Bible critics and secularists to argue that they are really the product of a developing oral tradition in which the early church modified Jesus' life and teachings. There was insufficient time for doing this. A. N. Sherwin-White has pointed out that the case for accurate reporting is far better in the case of the Jesus of the Gospels than for the best-known contemporary of Christ, Tiberius Caesar, whose career is also known from just four sources.
Harvard professor Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on the law of evidence in the nineteenth century, wrote, "All that Christianity asks of men on this subject is [that the testimony of the Gospels] be sifted as if it were given in a court of justice. . . .
The probability of the veracity of the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration."
What About Those Who Never Heard About Christ?
by Chad Owen Brand
Human beings as a lot are incurably religious. The problem is that since these same human beings are also infected by sin, they tend not to desire to honor and glorify the true God, who is righteous and holy. Rather, they tend to make gods for themselves that are pleasing to them or that satisfy some sense of what they think a god ought to be. As John Calvin said, the human mind is a factory for idols. Such gods, concocted by the rationale of humans apart from special revelation, are invariably out of touch with the truth (Rm 1:18-32).
What hope is there for those who do not live in predominantly Christian parts of the world? Historically, Christians have argued that their hope lies in the mission impulse of the Christian church. From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish believers began to spread the message to the Gentile world (Ac 10–11). Christians such as the Apostle Paul made it clear that it was not good enough even to be a Jew, since the hope for salvation rests in affirming Jesus as Messiah (Php 3:7-11). In the early centuries of the faith, Christians spread the message to Africa, northern Europe, the British Isles, and the Asian subcontinent, all because they believed this message was the hope of salvation for the world.
It is obvious to anyone that vast numbers of people in the world today either have never heard the gospel or have heard it in only a cursory manner. What hope do such people have? The Bible makes it clear that there is no salvation in any name other than that of Christ (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12). That means that one must believe specifically in Jesus in order to be saved (Rm 10:9-14). Does this mean that most people ever born will spend eternity in hell? If so, is that a problem for the Christian faith?
A couple of proposals have been offered to respond to this difficulty. Some have suggested that God will evaluate all people according to the "light they have." That is, if someone is a Hindu or a Muslim or an ancient Aztec, God will judge that person only according to his response to the religious information he has at hand. The problem is that the Bible regularly condemns idolatry. Scripture even indicates that idolaters know intuitively that there is something wrong with their idolatry (Rm 1:19-20). The other problem is that many actions of religious people are terrible. Hindu Kali worshipers murdered travelers, and Aztecs sacrificed young women to their god. Another proposal is that God will simply save all persons by His power. The difficulty here is that it ignores human free will as well as the fact that the Bible indicates that some will eventually go to everlasting punishment (Mt 25:46).
Christians must hold that faith in Christ, and only faith in Christ, is the avenue to salvation. But having said that, God will judge those who have heard the truth and yet have rejected it more severely that those who have never heard (Lk 10:14). There is also the hope that in the future the church's message of salvation will cover the entire earth.
(For another perspective, see the article in Romans 10, page 1696.)
Does the Bible Teach That There Is a Purgatory?
by Chad Owen Brand
Some Christian traditions teach that Christians who die in good fellowship with the church but still not in a state of perfection will go to an intermediate place after death that is neither heaven nor hell. This intermediate place is known as purgatory. Unbaptized adults and those who have committed mortal sins, according to this tradition, go to Hades or hell. A few perfected persons (saints) go directly to heaven.
Defenders of purgatory teach that it will be a time and place of suffering, something akin to the lake of fire, but not as severe and only temporary. The amount of time one spends there depends on the degree of purging needed, based on one's sins. Pope Gregory I taught that baptism absolves us of original sin but that we have to remit payment for our actual sins. This purging is a preparation of the soul for heaven.
Is there any biblical justification for the doctrine of purgatory? Supporters of the doctrine generally defend their position by citing 2 Maccabbees 12:39-45 (a passage in the Apocrypha, or collection of writings that Protestants do not accept as a part of the Bible). But this text says nothing about purgatory, and those who do not accept the authority of the Apocryphal writings would not find it compelling even if it did. The other text that is sometimes cited is 1 Co 3:10-15, where the concluding phrase is "yet it will be like an escape through fire." But again there is nothing in the text that indicates that there will be a time and place after death in which individuals will be purged of the sins committed in this life.
The doctrine of purgatory fails the biblical test both in terms of direct interpretation of the specifically cited texts and in terms of the overall teaching of Scripture. Neither of the classically cited passages mentions purgatory by name or by concept. Even more, this doctrine denies one of the fundamental teachings of the NT—that Jesus' death on the cross atoned for all our sin, not simply original sin (Rm 3:21-26; 2 Co 5:21). Because of that atonement, though we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, those who have placed faith in Christ will never face condemnation (Rm 5:1; 8:1; 2 Co 5:10).
Are the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses Compatible with the Bible?
by Robert M. Bowman Jr.
Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) claim to regard the Bible as the absolute Word of God and to base all their beliefs on it. In fact, the teachings of JWs are contrary to the Bible.
The Bible. JWs use a doctored version of the Bible called the New World Translation (nwt). The JW leaders who produced the nwt were not biblical scholars, and it shows. The most obvious difference between the nwt and other Bibles is its use of "Jehovah" in the NT. JWs claim that the NT originally used the Hebrew name YHWH (translated "Jehovah" or "Yahweh") and that apostate scribes put "Lord" (Gk kurios) in its place. There is no historical or manuscript evidence for this claim.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. JWs teach that the Father alone is Jehovah, the almighty God; that the Son, Jesus Christ, is "a god" (their translation of Jn 1:1) inferior to the Father; and that the "holy spirit" is an impersonal force emanating from God. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God (Jn 1:1; 17:3; 20:28; Ac 5:3-4; 2 Co 3:17-18; Ti 2:13). The Son made everything (Heb 1:10-12) and is to be honored as God (Jn 5:23; Heb 1:6; Rv 5:13). The Holy Spirit is a person, called the "Comforter" or "Helper" (Gk parakletos); He teaches, speaks, and bears witness to Jesus (Jn 14:16,26; 15:26-27; 16:13-14).
Death, the soul, and eternal punishment. According to JWs, when unsaved human beings die, they cease to exist. There is no intermediate state of the dead and no eternal punishment for the wicked (who are annihilated instead). The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that human beings exist after their deaths as spirits awaiting the resurrection and final judgment (Lk 16:19-31; 23:43; Heb 12:9,23; Rv 6:9-11). (The nwt mistranslates Lk 23:43 and the Hebrew texts to avoid this implication.) The wicked will suffer eternal punishment (Mt 25:46; Rv 14:9-11; 20:10).
Jesus' resurrection and return. JWs believe that God "raised" Jesus from the dead as an angelic spirit, with a so-called spirit body. They deny that He will return visibly and personally to earth. Scripture, however, teaches that Jesus rose with the same physical body with which He died, though glorified and immortal, and that His body possessed flesh and bones, hands and feet, and even marks of His crucifixion (Lk 23:49; Jn 2:19-22; 10:17-18; 20:20,25; Ac 2:24-32). Though He is the second person of the Godhead, Jesus is also a glorified man (Ac 17:31; 1 Co 15:47; 1 Tm 2:5) and He will return personally and bodily to the earth (Ac 1:9-11; 3:19-21; 1 Th 4:16; Heb 9:26-28).
Salvation. JWs view Jesus' death as providing a "corresponding ransom," releasing all people in principle from the condemnation due to Adam's sin. However, to enjoy everlasting life, JWs believe they must not only accept Christ's ransom but also prove themselves worthy by their works. The Bible's teaching is quite different. Christians are saved by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ, and our good works are the fruit of salvation, not the prerequisite for it (Rm 3:21-28; 5:1-11; Eph 2:8-10; Ti 3:4-8).
How Is the Transformation of Jesus' Disciples Different from Other Religious Transformations?
by Gary R. Habermas
When people discuss the beliefs of Jesus' disciples and their willingness to suffer martyrdom for their convictions, they often make comparisons to other religious persons whose lives were also changed due to their own religious beliefs. Like Jesus' disciples, many have willingly given their lives for their beliefs. Examples include modern Muslims, the followers of various religious teachers, and certain UFO groups. Even political ideas, such as communism, have inspired life changes and martyrdoms.
Under these circumstances, can Christians continue to make evidential use of the disciples' transformations?
Initially, we need to make a crucial distinction. Transformed lives, whether the disciples' or others', do not prove that someone's teachings are true. However, they do constitute evidence that those who are willing to suffer and die for their religious commitments truly believe them to be true.
So, can we distinguish between the disciples' transformations and the experiences of others? In general, people committed to a religious or political message really believe it to be true. Of course, beliefs can be false. But in the case of Jesus' disciples, one grand distinction makes all the difference in the world.
Like other examples of religious or political faith, the disciples believed and followed their leader's teachings. But unlike all others, the disciples had more than just their beliefs—they had seen the resurrected Jesus. This is a crucial distinction; their faith was true precisely because of the resurrection.
Let's view this another way. Which is more likely—that an ideology we believe in is true or that we and a number of others saw a friend several times during the last month? If eternity rested on the consequences, would we rather base our assurance on the truth of a particular religious or political view, or would we rather that the consequences followed from repeated cases of seeing someone?
But unlike the world's faiths, which rest on certain beliefs being true, the disciples both heard unique teachings and saw the resurrected Jesus. Jesus was the only founder of a major world religion who had miracles reported of Him in reliable sources within a few decades. But most of all, He confirmed His message by rising from the dead. The disciples, both individuals and groups, saw Him repeatedly. Even two skeptics—James the brother of Jesus and Saul of Tarsus (Paul)—witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
No wonder the disciples were so sure of their faith! Not only had they been promised heaven, but then they had actually been shown a glimpse of it!