Born of a virgin
Hailed as God and man
Surrounded by 12 Disciples
Performed miraculous deeds
Baptized
Sacrificed
Resurrected

Internet sites abound with alleged similarities between the events of the New Testament narrative,[1] in particular the person and work of Jesus Christ, and ancient mythological accounts of gods. Horus, Osiris, Dionysius, Mithra: all allegedly share in characteristics which Christians uniquely attribute to Christ. What are we to make of these parallels?

Superficial Claims
First and foremost, it is necessary to recognize the superficiality of such comparisons. Alleged similarities are typically a mile wide and an inch deep, intended to confuse and mislead in an area in which very few are personally informed. Internet claims are simply recited without actually being researched. Here are a couple of examples of such distortions of the actual evidence:

Virgin birth
It is certainly true that a few myths and religions spoke of something which has been described as a “virgin birth,” but examination of the source texts reveal that such terminology is misleading and irresponsible. Those accounts are decidedly sexual in nature with a male deity procreating with a female (virgin or not in some cases) in order to produce a son. In other words, a male god is engaging in physical sex with a female woman. If a man (deity or not) has sex with a female, then it is not a virgin birth because she is no longer a virgin. To call this a “virgin birth” is simply irresponsible and misunderstands the nature of Christ’s virgin birth.

For the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, read in particular Luke 1:34-35. God did not sexually interact with Mary. The pagan pictures of “virgin birth” are extremely dissimilar to the biblical account of the conception of Christ in which the power of the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary.

The parallel is very weak and unconvincing at best.

Resurrection
What of the many other mythical accounts of dying and rising gods? Analysis reveals that this too is hardly analogous to the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Those “gods” rose again each year as part of the agricultural cycle not as a watershed moment in history. It is the historical account of resurrection that sets the Christian claim apart and it is the central question which must be answered. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15) and should be discarded as such. But if He did rise, this reality has profound implications for us and our lives.

The reality of the resurrection best accounts for the objective data that we have. We know for a fact that the early church professed the resurrection (i.e. it was not invented some years later). We know for a fact that the disciples were willing to lay down their lives for that message (i.e. this makes it extremely unlikely that they stole the body). No body of Christ ever surfaced. Why not? Did the Romans or Jews steal it? That is extremely illogical since it would have only intensified the claims of Christianity. Was it a random grave robber? We have absolutely no evidence for that. Though it might grate against man’s rational desire for natural explanations, the resurrection simply best explains what we know to be historically true. Denial of the resurrection demands great faith in speculative answers to the questions which are raised by the data of the 1st century.

[For an in-depth analysis of the absolute uniqueness of the biblical account of resurrection, set aside a large portion of time to begin to work through N.T. Wright’s mammoth “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” Wright looks at pagan accounts in particular and analyzes the claim that Christianity merely borrowed the concept of resurrection from surrounding cultures. Wright evidences that the Christian conception of resurrection was totally dissimilar to the expectations of the Ancient Near Eastern culture of that time or previous. There is a marked contrast between the hope of Christian resurrection and the pagan desire for life after death.]

The following summarizes the resurrection “parallels” quite nicely, “It is superficial and unfounded to say that the study of the history of religions has shown the dependence of the resurrection of Jesus on mythology. On the contrary, it is precisely the comparison with the history of religion that gives rise to the strongest objections to any kind of mythifying of the resurrection of Jesus.”[2]

When one examines the claims of pagan parallels, one finds the such comparisons are incredibly shallow. Ultimately, it is not the similarities that are incredible, it is the depth of dissimilarity. The uniqueness of the biblical portrait of Jesus is astounding.

The Existence of Parallels
Though many parallels are weak, the fact that there are some similarities still needs to be considered. We will limit our consideration to similarities pointed out within the text of the Old Testament for the sake of time as I have posted a few resources which deal more specifically with claims of parallels in the New.

First, I think it is important to consider that many parallels are intentional devices on the part of the authors of Scripture to show YHWH’s superiority over, not similarity to, pagan gods. Biblical studies have shown indeed that the language of the Scriptures often alludes to surrounding myths in taking a polemical posture against those religions and their idols. The Scriptures were not given from within a vacuum devoid of context. In speaking against Baalism in early Israel, it is only fitting that the authors of the Scriptures use language that parallels and supersedes that which was used by proponents of Canaanite paganism. The Bible is full of such intentional engagement with false teachings. For example, many believe that Psalm 29 is intentionally aimed at displaying the superiority of YHWH to Baal. YHWH’s voice is highlighted (7 times in the 11 verses) and is described as a thunderstorm to evidence His great power. This is particularly enlightening when one considers that Baal was considered the “storm-god” whose “voice” was heard in storms. In using the same language and imagery of the pagan god, David is here elevating the voice (7 being a number of completion or perfection in Hebrew culture) and power of YHWH over that of Baal. Rather than simply borrowing from ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) myths, the Scriptures are using similarities as inroads to consider the superiority of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the “gods” of the culture.

Second, I think that in many cases parallels actually strengthen the case for the biblical account. For instance, the vast distribution of pagan flood accounts in the ANE should not lead us to conclude that there was no flood, but rather that something actually happened. If one were investigating a murder and witness A claimed to hear an explosion late at night, witness B testified to fireworks sometime after 11:30, witness C argued for a backfiring car about 12:05, and witness D described a gunshot at 11:58, you would not conclude that they were all colluding or lying. Only a foolish detective would consider the contrasting accounts to be necessarily contradictory. They instead carry the common theme of a loud bang sometime around midnight. Even more foolish would be to assume that nothing actually happened. Further investigation of the evidence would highlight whether indeed there was a gunshot wound and approximate time of death.

What are we ultimately to make of the existence of some parallels? If the biblical account is true, then man and demons are rebellious resisters of the revelation of God. If so, is it not extremely likely that both would seek to corrupt the account by reinterpreting actual events? Pagan parallels do not disprove Christianity any more than a witness who swears that he heard a car backfire disproves a murder.

Recommended Resources for Further Study
Reinventing Jesus – Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace (in particular, read chapters 16-18 which deal with issues of alleged parallels)

Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology – Niehaus

Dethroning Jesus – Bock and Wallace

---

[1] In particular, I have received a number of e-mails about a video called Zeitgeist. For a brief overview of the many problems in this particular video, consider this interview.

[2] Walter Kunneth, as quoted in “Reinventing Jesus.”

Christ, Culture, History

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.” – George Washington

While our country was certainly founded upon religious principles, it is not exactly certain which religion(s)[1] that may have been. In addition to Christianity, a belief known as deism competed for a great many of our influential founders. Often told is the story of Thomas Jefferson pouring over his Bible by candlelight—scissors in hand—excising anything that hinted of the supernatural.[2] Besides Jefferson, mention is made to Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and James Madison as proponents of this divergent belief. It has long been alleged that George Washington assumed the same deism as these fellow founding fathers. But is this assumption accurate?

In order to answer that question, it might first be helpful to understand deism.

What is deism?

Deism is the exaggeration of the truth of God’s transcendence.^[3]

Deism was religion stripped of revelation. It was “enlightened” religion.

The Age of Enlightenment of the 17^th and 18^th centuries gave birth to great confidence in the authority of reason and man’s ability to arrive at truth unaided by anything other than his own mind. Rationality reigned.

Deism simply took the tenets of the Enlightenment project and applied it to the domain of religious conviction. Utter reliance upon reason led to the devaluation and ultimate denial of special revelation (particularly the Scriptures and the Son). Reason replaced revelation as the final authority for all religion.

The analogy that is typically used to describe the tenets of deism is that of a cosmic clockmaker. God simply created the universe, wound up its natural laws, and retreated to allow it to run its course. He is utterly and only transcendent. There is no recognition of immanence. There is no confession of God’s personal workings with the universe. God becomes a depersonalized entity. He is an “absentee landlord.”

Jonathan Edwards, a contemporary of Washington’s (though 29 years his elder), wrote this of the deists of his time: They own the being of God; but deny that Christ was the son of God, and say he was a mere cheat; and so they say all the prophets and apostles were: and they deny the whole Scripture. They deny that any of it is the word of God. They deny any revealed religion, or any word of God at all; and say that God has given mankind no other light to walk by but their own reason.

What about Washington?

Mary V. Thompson, a researcher for the Mount Vernon estate, typically responded to e-mails and letters to the estate regarding the identity of Washington’s religious beliefs with history’s assumption of deism. However, tiring of rehearsed answers to such queries, Thompson set out to search through the primary and secondary evidences herself. Such research was compiled in her somewhat recent book, “In the Hands of a Good Providence: Religion in the Life of George Washington.”[4]

In attempting to frame her conclusions, the author draws upon personal and public statements that Washington made, his charitable donations, his church attendance as understood within certain contextual factors, statements by family and friends as to his beliefs, his thoughts on slavery and other social and moral issues, and the overall religious culture in which Washington lived. Her conclusion is that our first president, though perhaps not as explicit or emotional as we tend to approve of today, was nonetheless fairly well representative of the Christian faith as it was expressed within his particular environment.

Was Washington a Christian? Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards, framed the issue well:

The evidence concerning it must of course arise from an induction of particulars. Some will induce more of these particulars, and others fewer; some will rest on one class, or collection, others on another; and some will give more, and others less, weight to those which are induced; according to several modes and standards of judging. The question in this, and all other cases, must be finally determined before another tribunal, than that of human judgment; and to that tribunal it must ultimately be left. For my own part, I have considered his numerous and uniform public and most solemn declarations to his high veneration for religion, his exemplary and edifying attention to public worship, and his constancy in secret devotion, as proofs sufficient to satisfy every person, willing to be satisfied. I shall only add, that if he was not a Christian, he was more like one than any man of same description, whose life has been hitherto recorded.[5]

The reality of all religion will finally be exposed at a future time and at a future throne by the Founder of the true faith, Jesus Christ. To Him alone belongs all ultimate authority to make such judgments. Until then, for those interested in insight into the culture and context of the early years of this country and one of its most celebrated commanders, I certainly recommend “In the Hands of Providence.”

Update: Peter Lillback, president of Westminster Theological Seminary, comes to the same conclusion regarding Washington’s faith in his book, “George Washington’s Sacred Fire” which recently went number one on Amazon.

---

[1] It is important to note that the term “religion” as used within the 18^th century in particular carried a different connotation than it does today. It is anachronistic to judge that period’s use of the term by today’s standards in which “religion” and “Christianity” are often contrasted. For many in the 18^th century, religion was simply a synonym for the historic orthodox faith. See in particular Jonathan Edwards’ consistent use of the term. As with all words, context must determine how the intended use.

[2] To this day, you can still purchase a copy of Jefferson’s edited “Bible” which consists of mostly of sayings of Christ and is devoid of such “extravagances” as the incarnation and resurrection.

^[3] Strong, A. H. (2004). Systematic theology (414). Bellingham, Wa.: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[4] Mary V. Thompson, “In the Hands of a Good Providence: Religion in the Life of George Washington,” (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008).

[5] Thompson, 181.

Book Reviews, History

In a recent sermon Chandler referenced a conversation with a gentleman who wanted some articles on the historicity of the Bible. Since then, we have had a number of requests for such materials, so we wanted to compile a list of helpful resources to consider on this topic:

Books

1. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses – Richard Bauckham
2. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels – Craig Blomberg
3. Jesus and the Gospels – Craig Blomberg
4. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? – F.F. Bruce
5. Studying the Historical Jesus – Darrell Bock

Articles

1. The ESV Study Bible has a number of pertinent articles (you must have a registered account to be able to access these)
   • The Canon of Scripture
   • The Reliability of Bible Manuscripts
   • Archaeology and the Bible
2. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels – William Lane Craig
3. The Historicity of the New Testament – JP Moreland
4. Historical Reliability of the Gospels – James Arlandson

Small Group DVD Study
Why We Believe the Bible – Desiring God Ministries[1]

Additional Resources
Men’s Bible Study: January , 2009 – March 10, 2009 covered a theology of Scripture

---

[1] DG also offers a DVD set and study guide for this seminar. Both are also available online at the DG website.

History, Resources, Scripture

It is a vain thing for any to suppose that they place their chiefest happiness in being forever in the presence of Christ who care not at all to be with him here as they may….and it is an absurd thing for men to esteem themselves Christians who scarce think of Christ all the day long.
– John Owen

(The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded, from Volume 7 of the Banner of Truth Trust Series, pages 344-5)

This semester I have been reading the works of John Owen (1616-1683) for an independent study at DTS with Dr. John Hannah. Though reading in seminary can sometimes be a laborious endeavor, I have found my time with Owen to be really sweet and life-giving.

For those not familiar with Owen, he was a puritan pastor and theologian who is generally regarded as having written some of the finest treatises on sin and sanctification (On the Dominion of Sin and Grace, On the Mortification of Sin, On Temptation, On Indwelling Sin in Believers). I would imagine that he has been one of the most influential writers in the lives of many of our own pastors as I know that he has been for a number of those other pastor/theologians whom we admire.

Though Owen’s work is beautiful, it is also quite difficult for a number of reasons. First, it is written from the context of the 17th century. Language usage changes over time and that makes reading his stuff somewhat more complex. Second, his writing is so dense. When I think of puritan writings, I think of a lot of adjectives, but succinct is not one of them. Third, modern American evangelicals tends to be pretty ignorant of the Bible and theology and thus have a somewhat casual view of sin as compared to our puritan forefathers. Owen quickly exposes both of those faults and it hurts. All of this is to say that it takes work to follow his mind, but any effort is well worth it.

If you are looking for a bit easier introduction to the writings of Owen, you might check out Overcoming Sin and Temptation which updates the language for the modern reader.

Going back to the quote from above, I hope you ask yourself as I do:

Do you often think of Christ? Do you desire to be with Him now? Does your life evidence this? If not, what are you doing about it?

Read John Owen, he can help you.

History, Sanctification

If you are very familiar with pop society of the past decade you have probably heard the claim that the deity of Jesus was not a confession or belief of the early church, but was rather an invention of the fourth century in accordance with Emperor Constantine’s desire for imperial unity.

“Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.” (Teabing, The DaVinci Code: Dan Brown)

“Jesus’ establishment as “the Son of God” was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” (DaVinci),

It is not my intent to provide a defense against Dan Brown’s work (for two reasons: 1. Others have already done a solid job of this – see Dr. Darrell Bock’s Breaking the DaVinci Code 2. The book was released 6 years ago and is no longer that culturally significant though I think Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are teaming up again to make another movie in the series).  Rather I wanted to merely provide some early church quotations to highlight the historical fact that there is a consistent belief in the deity of Jesus Christ throughout the first four centuries of Christian history.

A.D. 66 —“Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

AD 95—“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14)

AD 110—“There is only one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering, then beyond it—Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

AD 165—“And because he was God and is God…this is the Man who was sent by the Father to the world because he is God, both Man upon earth and God in heaven, and he is God over all creation.” (Melito of Sardis)

AD 180—“For we speak of His Word as God too and Son, and of the Holy Spirit likewise, united into one by power and divided in order thus: the Father, the Son, the Spirit.” (Athenagoras of Athens)

AD 190—“Inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things…. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us.” (Clement of Alexandria)

AD 200—“So from spirit comes spirit, and God from God, as light is kindled from light…. This ray of God…glided down into a virgin, in her womb was fashioned as flesh.” (Tertullian)

AD 245—“We do not fall into the opinion of those [monarchists], who reject that the Son is distinct from the Father… nor do we fall into the other impious doctrine which denies the divinity of Christ.” (Origen)

As you can see, it is simply untrue that the early church did not believe in the doctrine of the deity of Christ.  The church did struggle with articulating the concept of the relationship between Father and Son, but there is a huge difference between wrestling with how to express a truth and not believing that truth.

In light of a spreading heresy 4th century heresy known as Arianism which taught that Jesus was not divine, but was rather a creature, an ecumenical (meaning universal – churches from all over sent representatives) counsel was held to seek consensus on the Christian confession of the person of Jesus Christ.  Below is what was articulated:

The Nicene Creed (325 AD):
I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son(1);  who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the Prophets. And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

—————

1. The phrase “and the Son” was not accepted by the entire church and was a later addition which was a catalyst for the split between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) churches.  Theologians refer to this as the filioque clause from the Latin for “from the Son.”

Christ, History

I received the following questions from an e-mailer regarding the origin of Scripture and thought that an overview might be helpful to anyone who may occasionally read my blog.  This is a very concise summary of these issues and should only serve as a primer for the study of bibliology.  I am painting with very broad strokes here.

Here is a helpful site for further study of technical issues regarding the Scripture:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/theology/bibliology/

1. Why are the books that are in the Bible in it?
2. Why are some books not included?
3. Who decided all of this?
4. Why does the Catholic Bible have extra books?
5. Where do the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into everything, did we find anything NEW with them?

Why are the books that are in the Bible in it?
The theological answer to this involves some degree of circular reasoning.  Why are the particular books which are found in the Bible included in the Scriptures?  Because they are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, correction, etc. (2 Timothy 3:16).  How do we know that these particular books are inspired by God?  Because they are in the Bible.

The historical answer (which is subject to the theological) is based upon the initial criteria for the canon (the word “canon” is derived from the Greek word meaning “measure” or “rule”) which were as follows (taken from a final exam that I wrote for a class on the history of doctrine):

“The criteria for inclusion of books within the canon were primarily four.  First, books must have had some manner of apostolic heritage.  In order to be considered, only those books which were attributed directly to an apostle, or a person closely associated with or mentored by an apostle were included.  Matthew was a disciple/apostle and thus his writings were included; Paul was an apostle and thus his writings were included; Luke was a close associate of Paul; James was the brother of Jesus and a bishop in the Jerusalem church; etc.   Second, working from the included base of the Old Testament since Christianity arose from the seedbed of Judaism, only those books which complemented and expounded upon the Old Testament shadows were considered.  If a book contradicted the Old Testament it was excluded from consideration.  Third, books must be universally recognized, not merely being useful in certain demographical or geographical contexts.  Finally, the gospels in particular must be centered upon the bloody and gory crucifixion of Christ Jesus.  Books which did not meet each of these criteria were therefore not included in the conversation, which really was a series of monologues during most of the early church period.

Why are some books not included?
Again, first reason is circular.  Theologically, some books were not included because they were not inspired.

Historically they were not included because they do not meet listed criteria above.  This was no conspiracy like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code would have us believe.  Rather, all of the “Gnostic gospels” (the “gospel” of Thomas, the “gospel” of Judas, etc.) clearly contradicted the very gospel which was proclaimed by all the apostles (and Galatians 1:6-9 speaks very candidly about the danger of promoting that which was/is contrary to that which was proclaimed by the apostles).  BTW, “gnosticism” was a sect which perverted the picture of Christ by introducing a number of dualisms.  They taught that the material world was evil while the immaterial or spiritual world was good.  Such a disdain for the physical world led to a denial of the incarnation and subsequent denial of the atonement.

Furthermore, these Gnostic texts were all written in the 2nd century whereas our Scriptures (New Testament) were all written in the 1st century.  The Gnostic gospels were therefore written a generation or two after the death of the last apostle (John) and thus we can confidently say that they were not authored by the supposed authors (Thomas and Judas were both dead well before either supposed “gospel” was written).  In addition, these text do not center on the cross of Christ (remember that the atonement is neglected because it was foolishness to the gnostic mind to conceive of a God incarnate suffering in the flesh) as most of them present Jesus as a spirit being who merely possessed a human body, but was not truly human and did not truly die for our sins.  Obviously, since this is an attack on the heart of the gospel, church fathers easily recognized that these books were not the product of men inspired by God.  (By the way, you can see John writing against early forms of Gnosticism in 1 John – showing that the apostles were clearly opposed to what was themes which were developing in parts of the church as perversions of Orthodoxy).

Who decided all of this?
There was rather general consensus throughout the early Church on most books of the Bible.  There was some debate as far as the authorship of Hebrews and a couple of other issues like that, but we have fairly consistent consensus.  No ecumenical council met specifically in order to decide the canon (until the Reformation – though various councils which were called for other purposes did comment on the issue of canonicity).  Rather, as the individual letters moved throughout the empire, more people accepted them as authentic.  We have to remember that each letter was written individually and therefore it is highly unlikely that anyone would have possessed each and every book of the Bible until well into the 2nd century.  Once again, this is no conspiracy, just the nature of writing in those days.  They didn’t have printing presses so the task was laborious, not to mention quite expensive.  Plus, the average person could not write and maybe had some elementary ability to read, but certainly not much.  It was very much an oral culture.  BTW, we have quotations and allusions to most if not all of the books of the Bible by church fathers by the early 3rd century.

Why does the Catholic Bible have extra books?
They have the exact same New Testament.  Nothing is different there.  The issue is the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.  The Roman Catholic Church includes those books which were written during the intertestamental period.  Early church fathers recognized that these books were “helpful” but not “inspired” and always included this distinction when listing them.  However, some Catholic doctrines (like purgatory) receive some level of support within the apocryphal books and therefore the Reformation-age Catholic church in particular officially declared the books to be in the canon in order to protect certain doctrines.

Where do the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into everything, did we find anything NEW with them?
The Dead Sea Scrolls were a very important find for critical analysis of the text, but didn’t really offer anything novel.  Rather, before the discovery of the scrolls, our earliest authentic copies of the Old Testament were from the 9th century.  Some of the scrolls found at Qumran were from the 2nd century B.C.  Given that the text was almost exactly the same as our later copies, we can have great confidence in the scribal copying process of the past.  Therefore, the Dead Sea Scrolls are very important for biblical studies as a witness to our previously held beliefs regarding the validity of the extant texts.

Culture, History, Scripture