The flood of Noah drowned the entire earth, and covered all the dry land.  Let’s assume this means it rained at least 9000 meters in order to cover Mount Everest.  The atmospheric pressure at sea level before the flood matched our currect sea level, call it a pressure of 1 atmosphere.  Noah carried a brand new Vaisala weather station on board the ark.  When it finally stopped raining, Noah checked his atmospheric pressure. 

What did the gauge read?

And as I used to explain to my old students, explain your reasoning and show all your work. 

David and his household are introduced in 1 Samuel 16:18-19, and David is brought before Saul as a shepherd and appointed as a armor bearer and court musician (1 Sam 16:21).  It is in this way that David obtains permission from King Saul to fight Goliath (1 Sam 17:37).  Yet, David is later introduced a second time (1 Sam 17:12-14) as a shepherd whom Saul does not know (1 Sam 17:58).

The settings for the battle are identified twice (1 Sam 17:2, 1 Sam 17:19).  Goliath is introduced by name twice (1 Sam 17:4, 1 Sam 17:23).

David’s father Jesse is already well-known to the reader well before the battle with Goliath (1 Sam 16:1 ff.).  But Jesse is introduced a second time as if unknown to the reader (1 Sam 17:12-15).

David tended to Saul, and Saul loved David for his service (1 Sam 16:21), yet had no idea who David was after he killed Goliath (1 Sam 17:55-58).

With these hints, it is pretty easy to separate the two accounts from the original larger story.  Here I reprint them from the NASB, starting with Chapter 16 for full context.  Since the two separate accounts were spliced together, the verse orders are not contiguous.  While I don’t think this is perfect, and there is room for uncertainty (there is a slight problem with 1 Sam 17:31 where Saul calls for David right before battle that does not fit very well in that story), this is about the best I could do.  Any other ideas, hints or corrections are welcome.

Account 1

1 Samuel 16

 1Now the LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons.”

2But Samuel said, “How can I go? When Saul hears of it, he will kill me.” And the LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’  

3“You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for Me the one whom I designate to you.”

4So Samuel did what the LORD said, and came to
Bethlehem And the elders of the city came trembling to meet him and said, “Do you come in peace?”  

5He said, “In peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice.” He also consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.  

6When they entered, he looked at Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’S anointed is before Him.”  

7But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”  

8Then Jesse called Abinadab and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.”  

9Next Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.”  

10Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. But Samuel said to Jesse, “The LORD has not chosen these.”  

11And Samuel said to Jesse, “Are these all the children?” And he said, “There remains yet the youngest, and behold, he is tending the sheep.” Then Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and bring him; for we will not sit down until he comes here.”  

12So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance And the LORD said, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.”  

13Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah.  

14Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.  

15Saul’s servants then said to him, “Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you.  

16“Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well.”  

17So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me now a man who can play well and bring him to me.”  

18Then one of the young men said, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the LORD is with him.”  

19So Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David who is with the flock.”  

20Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread and a jug of wine and a young goat, and sent them to Saul by David his son.  

21Then David came to Saul and attended him; and Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor bearer.  

22Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David now stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight.”  

23So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him.

1 Samuel 17

 1Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim.  

2Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and camped in thevalley of
Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines.  

3The Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them.  

4Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.  

5He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze.  

6He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders.  

7The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield-carrier also walked before him.  

8He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel and said to them, “Why do you come out to draw up in battle array? Am I not the Philistine and you servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me.  

9“If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will become your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall become our servants and serve us.”  

10Again the Philistine said, “I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together.”  

11When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.  

32David said to Saul, “Let no man’s heart fail on account of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.”  

33Then Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth.”  

34But David said to Saul, “Your servant was tending his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock,  

35I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him.  

36“Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God.”  

37And David said, “The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine ” And Saul said to David, “Go, and may the LORD be with you.”  

38Then Saul clothed David with his garments and put a bronze helmet on his head, and he clothed him with armor.  

39David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them.” And David took them off.  

40He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.  

42When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance.  

43The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.  

44The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.”  

45Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted.  

46“This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,  

47and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD’S and He will give you into our hands.”  

48Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.  

49And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground.    

51Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.  

52The men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron.  

53The sons of Israel returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camps.  

54Then David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.  

Account 2

1 Samuel 17

 12Now David was the son of the Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons. And Jesse was old in the days of Saul, advanced in years among men.  

13The three older sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle. And the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and the second to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah.

14David was the youngest. Now the three oldest followed Saul,  

15but David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father’s flock at
Bethlehem.  

16The Philistine came forward morning and evening for forty days and took his stand.  

17Then Jesse said to David his son, “Take now for your brothers an ephah of this roasted grain and these ten loaves and run to the camp to your brothers.  

18“Bring also these ten cuts of cheese to the commander of their thousand, and look into the welfare of your brothers, and bring back news of them.  

19“For Saul and they and all the men of Israel are in thevalley of
Elah, fighting with the Philistines.”  

20So David arose early in the morning and left the flock with a keeper and took the supplies and went as Jesse had commanded him. And he came to the circle of the camp while the army was going out in battle array shouting the war cry.  

21Israel and the Philistines drew up in battle array, army against army.

22Then David left his baggage in the care of the baggage keeper, and ran to the battle line and entered in order to greet his brothers.  

23As he was talking with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine from Gath named Goliath, was coming up from the army of the Philistines, and he spoke these same words; and David heard them.  

24When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid.  

25The men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who is coming up? Surely he is coming up to defy Israel. And it will be that the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.”  

26Then David spoke to the men who were standing by him, saying, “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?”  

27The people answered him in accord with this word, saying, “Thus it will be done for the man who kills him.”  

28Now Eliab his oldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab’s anger burned against David and he said, “Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the wickedness of your heart; for you have come down in order to see the battle.”  

29But David said, “What have I done now? Was it not just a question?”  

30Then he turned away from him to another and said the same thing; and the people answered the same thing as before.  

31When the words which David spoke were heard, they told them to Saul, and he sent for him.  

41Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him.

50Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand. 

55Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this young man?” And Abner said, “By your life, O king, I do not know.”  

56The king said, “You inquire whose son the youth is.”  

57So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine’s head in his hand.  

58Saul said to him, “Whose son are you, young man?” And David answered, “I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.”  

But to me, it is not what is possible, but what seems most plausible. The Synoptic Gospels line up the events of Jesus life fairly well. The Synoptics line up the events of the cross pretty well also, despite the differing sayings of Jesus in all 3. They line up sort of well until…. guess where? The assumed original ending of Mark at verse 8 of the Resurrection story. That is when things get hopelessly confused in Matthew Luke and John. I think this is sufficient reason to think that Mark is the oldest Gospel and was used as the main source of information for Matthew and Luke. Mark and Matthew use really implausible story-telling devices. I think it is in Mark where the women are witnesses to the burial of Jesus at the tomb. Why did they go to the tomb alone on Sunday morning, knowing a rock they could never move was there?

In Mark, just as they muse, “who will roll away the rock for us?” right on cue, they look up and what do you know, the rock is rolled back.

Matthew elaborates on this greatly. The women come to view the grave, the stone does not simply roll back, no there is a massive earthquake, an angle comes out of the sky, either the angel or the earthquake has rolled back the stone, but the angel sits on it! Whoa, very impressive – but it reads to me like a story embellishment.

I hear that all 4 Gospels vary greatly because this represents 4 different vantage points. This is not plausible to me. How many witnesses were there to the resurrection scene? A few women at the most that I can see. Why would they tell 4 different eyewitness reports to 4 different Gospel writers?

And speaking of witnesses, who were they? In John, Jesus materialized in front of his disciples where? In Jerusalem behind locked doors!! That’s it? No outsiders allowed in to see the risen savior? In Matthew he appears at an isolated Mountain top in Galilee. Why the secrecy? We don’t believe modern-day conspiracy buffs when they are the exclusive witnesses to an event (no offence, I don’t know how else to phrase that!) “You didn’t see it? It was here, I swear!” Paul speaks of 500 witnesses – this does nothing for crediblility here, not in my eyes. It seems like an afterthoght – “First to Cephas. Then the 12. Then 500 other people!” But, who are they? It could have been 5000 people and this does not help the testimony any.

There is real confusion in the narratives as to whether Jesus was spirit or flesh. Yes, there is a difference – a huge difference. In John, Jesus was not to be touched – presumably because he was spirit. Later he can be touched, in other Gospels he is sometimes ghostly, sometimes flesh. Through in the narrative in 1 Cor 15 for even more competing doctrines and real confusion. I just see many competing doctrines in these stories about the nature of Jesus’ bodily nature. Read books like Tobit, 2 Enoch or Ehman’s ‘Lost Christianities’ for more info on this, it is a huge subject.

I could go on about where I think the most troublesome difficulties in this story are, but I don’t have the time right now. It seems the most probable to me that these are fictive devices, that we see story development and elaboration and embellishing when we read the Gospel Resurrection stories in the order that they were written. Hey, I could be wrong, but to me that makes the most sense. If God wanted to be convincing to me and a whole lot of other people, he picked a funny way of inspiring the 4 Resurrection narratives to be believable.

So the bottom line is, did Jesus rise from the dead? Is he resurrected? Anything is possible, and I do not discount the miraculous. But from everything I have read and from what makes most sense to me, I don’t think a man named Jesus physically rose from the grave. The narrative elements don’t seem likely to me. This is not easy to say, and I would like to be convinced otherwise – after all, I believed it my whole life.

.…and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.   Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.   If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.  – 1 Cor 15:17-19 (NASB)

Of course I believed in the Resurrection.  It is a foundational belief.  It is essential.  As CS Lewis would say, it is part of “Mere Christianity”. 

I have always been an avid reader, and I always saw books in the library or store that had titles that just screamed, “Open my cover and browse my pages if you dare.  For we are here to challenge your Christian beliefs!”  My church pastors had words for authors of books like this:  Pseudo-Intellectuals, who “professing themselves to be wise, they had become fools” (Rom 1:22).  They were likely angry apostates, out on an agenda to debunk The Word of God, the Anvil that has worn our many Hammers.  It was easy to pass by these books left on the shelf without thinking another thought. 

Upon entering graduate school, I was introduced to the Internet, and I was soon a little overwhelmed with the ease that I could obtain information.  More than I few times, before I knew better, I had accidentally hit a porn site while in the school computer lab, and I would be furiously clicking the “close” button before an administrator noticed!  The power of the Internet, the Information Superhighway, where articles and opinions were shoved in your face before you had a chance to see what was on the cover. 

While working in the lab late one night all those years ago, I stumbled onto this site, an article by Dan Barker, self-proclaimed minister turned atheist, which challenged the reader to take what he called the Resurrection Challenge.   The Resurrection Challenge was a challenge to harmonize the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Four Gospels, and the one in 1 Corinthians 15 to remove the (apparent) contradictions.  Dan Barker was a Christian minister who became an atheist simply because, he claimed, he found Christianity to be unbelievable.  Another angry apostate!  I read a few paragraphs of the article, but did not finish it.  Of course the Gospels could be harmonized – we are only talking about the inerrant Word of God here!  Sure the angels appear in different places in Jesus’ tomb, sure they said different things, but those details are so minor, so trivial, when considering he entire overarching theme of the Resurrection.  The funny thing is, I never took it upon myself to at see if the Resurrection accounts could be harmonized.  I knew they could, and that settled it.  I clicked the browser window closed and did not give the Resurrection Challenge another thought. 

Until last year.  I was hosting our small group Bible Study, and the seeds of doubt had begun in my own faith.  I was still a Christian, a believer in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  I was scrounging around the Internet looking for some resources, until I again stumbled on, you guess it, the long forgotten Resurrection Challenge.  This time, I read the entire article.  Then I grabbed a steno pad, pencil with sturdy eraser, and attempted the Resurrection Challenge.

I admitted defeat in about 5 minutes.

Undaunted, I itemized most of the discrepancies that I found in the Resurrection Accounts just to see how many there were.  Some of the contradictions are listed in the original article, but I had to check for myself.  I was stunned at how divergent the accounts were.  Not only were they contradictory in nature, they were practically completely different stories!  This was not a case of several different eyewitness getting the story details slightly different, this was wholesale opposition.  The truth of one Gospel account had to imply the falsehood of the other.

I listed the portions of the Resurrection accounts which diverged from the other accounts, and gave up after a couple hours.  It really rattled me.  If God wants us to believe in the Resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ, why are all these accounts so different?  If God wants us to believe, why did he make his recording of events so inconsistent with each other?  If these were separate Police reports of the same event, would they even be considered?  What truth could be gleaned from them?

Read the original article here.  Take the Resurrection Challenge.  What do you draw from your conclusions?

A list of some of the contradictions is at the end of Barker’s article.  But he did not list one that I found, one that I consider perhaps the most troublesome and baffling contradiction in the entire Bible.  It concerns whether Christ rose in the Flesh, or rose in the Spirit.  Here I list two accounts from the Resurrection narratives:

Account 1)
In 1 Cor 15, Paul is speaking of the resurrection of the dead, following the example of the resurrected Christ. He makes this remark that states Jesus was risen with a Spiritual, and most emphatically not Physical body.

So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1 Cor 15:42-44 (NASB) – but read the whole chapter for good context.

Account 2)
The resurrected Jesus has just disappeared from Emmaus, and has appeared to the eleven remaining disciples in
Jerusalem. He mentions that he has a Physical, and most emphatically not Spiritual body.

While they (the eleven disciples) were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. Luke 24:36-43 (NASB)

The only way I have seen these two passages reconciled is with the tried and true Harmonization by Omission tactic.  I have heard the theory that Jesus could have risen as spirit, ascended to heaven while nobody was around, then came back to Earth as flesh.  I won’t even entertain that idea here, because to give it credibility is to be desperate to even include sheer brute force to make this issue harmonize. 

Some Christians concede that while the details of particular passages may differ, the essence remains consistent.  I don’t see a consistent essence in this case.  Everything differs except the amorphous detail that Jesus rose.  What message he left, who he saw, what form he took and what he did remains unknown, because not a single detail can be reconciled.

The essence of Jesus life through the Gospels seems to be consistent, at least through the Synoptics.  He taught similar things, he performed similar miracles, and events can be harmonized with a little ironing over rough details.  Why do the events diverge so greatly after the crucifixion?  There is general agreement that Mark is the first Gospel to be written, and many scholars agree that there is not much of a Resurrection story in that Gospel.  Many scholars agree that the Gospel ends at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing the sepulcher in fear.  The End.  If that is true, could it be that when Matthew and Luke were independently compiling their Gospels from Mark, and left with a paucity of Resurrection material, had to elaborate their own accounts from Oral Tradition and legend?  What about John?  Perhaps he had to derive things independently as well, thus four wildly divergent Resurrection accounts. 

That is the only thing that makes sense to me.  Is the Resurrection of our Savior Myth and Legend?

Tomorrow I will go to mass with my wife and celebrate Easter with her.  I want to believe, I truly do, but what am I to hold my faith on?  I am convinced that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is incorrect, so do I have nothing to go on but 2000 year-old hear-say?  I want to believe because I am afraid to discard a belief I have held my entire life.  I want to believe for the sake of my family, and the sake of my wife. 

I am afraid to say it.  But I must admit it.  This will be the first Easter that I celebrate as a non-believer. 

Here’s a general question for anyone — in terms of the Bible, what are the clear-cut, no way around it, ways that one knows one is saved? All I’ve really found is believe in the Son, and ‘publicaly confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in one’s heart in the resurrection.’ Other than that, it comes across as somewhat vague.

Here is my answer.  It started as a direct answer to Heather, but quickly morphed into a general rant so sorry for the crude structure.  Other answers and comments are, as always, welcome.

************************

Salvation, as preached from our Pulpits seems very simple.  Our Pastors generally have it down pat – and it makes sense if you follow their logic and not think too hard about it.  But I agree that if we put away our Four Spiritual Laws pamphlets and Chick Tracts and see what the Bible actually says about Salvation, it gets hairy.  It is no wonder theologians have struggled with these issues for centuries. 

Here are a few passages that come off the top of my head.  Mind you, there are more: 

John 3:16 says if we believe in him we will have eternal life.  Simple enough. 

Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace and not by works.  Cool. 

Matthew 19:16-22 has Jesus telling a young rich man that he will attain eternal life by following the commandments, selling all his possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor.  No mention of grace, or God’s favor.  OK, now it is getting confusing.  Are we saved by grace or not? 

Romans 6:3-5 says that we will be united with Christ Jesus in the resurrection if we are baptized into Christ Jesus.  This is said in the context of dying to sin.  No selling of your possessions here.  Again, what does baptism mean in this context? 

Titus 3:4-8 says that we are saved by the mercy of God through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.  God gives his mercy when we trust in him.  Do we trust in God that he will save us?  That he is merciful?  Trusting that God raised Jesus from the dead? 

1 Corinthians 15 defines the Gospel (The News) by which we are saved.  Hold firmly or believe on this word: That Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day and that he appeared to Peter, the Twelve, more to 500 people simultaneously, James, all the apostles, then lastly to Paul.  OK, so we simply believe these things – no word of giving to the poor or baptism for our salvation.  Which is it? 

These instructions are tough to put together, but it gets worse.  For instance, when baptism is mentioned, what does baptism even mean?  Is baptism necessary for salvation or isn’t it?  If so, is it by Immersion?  Sprinkling?  As an infant? As a cognizant believer?  As repentance?  As witness?  And if we have to believe in Jesus, we have to make sure it is the RIGHT Jesus.  Is Jesus the sole atonement for our sins?  If baptism is a requirement for salvation did Jesus die for all sins up until the time of baptism or also after?  Do we have to believe that Jesus was God Incarnate?  Or is it enough to believe that Jesus was the Son of God?  Am I wrong to believe that Jesus is a god outside of the Father?  No, that is clearly heresy.  Or is it?  OK, then can I believe that Jesus is another personality of The Father, like a schizophrenic God?  No?  Is Jesus a separate entity from the Father all together to form a united GodHead, much like a father and son form a single united family?  That is heresy too?  But what else is Three Persons in One Godhead supposed to mean? Then is Jesus the same as the Father but in a different form, like liquid and ice are both forms of water?  Is that the Jesus we are to believe?  This doctrine says that modalism is a heresy, is it?  I don’t know, you tell me.  Are we to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or does that not matter?  Are we to believe in Jesus as Savior?  Or are we to believe in Jesus as Savior and LORD? 

This may seem over the top, but it is really not.  Over the years, brilliant theologians wrestled with all these issues and countless more to ensure that they understood God’s Plan of Salvation.    

Here is an example to consider:  In my last article Trusting Jesus for my Salvation, I quoted Mark 16:16, which says that you have to believe and be baptized to be saved.  Period.  What do you believe? The resurrection?  The crucifixion?  That Jesus is the Son of God?  Do we believe a person?  An event?  A teaching?  Almost as troublesome -  How are you baptized? With water?  With the spirit?  Both?  What does that even mean?  When are you baptized?  As an infant?  On the deathbed?  As a literal confession of sins?  As a symbolic witness?  There is no mention of these thorny issues. 

This is just a smattering that comes off the top of my head.  There are other passages which mention works, baptism, repentance, the old Mosaic Law, …… 

Most Christians attempt to harmonize all these Salvation passages into a coherent unit, like putting together a jigsaw puzzle.  For the last few hundred years, we have been in a unique period in history.  We actually have the privilege of opening up the Scriptures and reading and interpreting them for ourselves, where the poor commoners in the Middle Ages had to rely on the word of their local priest.  And we now see for ourselves how difficult it is to put that Divine Jigsaw Puzzle together.  After reading the Bible for myself and being as objective as I can,  I honestly don’t think I even know what Salvation means anymore.   

Here is another example to consider:  God spent the better part of 20 chapters in Exodus giving Moses and the Israelites very detailed instructions on how to communicate with him by means of a portable structure: The Tabernacle.  The Tabernacle was to be where the Glory of God lived, where the High Priest would atone for the sins of the people, and where God would meet with his people.  God went through great effort to give Moses unambiguous direction on how the Tabernacle was to be built.  He gave specific size dimensions.  He gave encampment instructions for the twelve tribes.  He gave the materials to be used in the Tabernacle.  He described the rooms, the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place.  He gave great detail to the implements and ornaments to be used in the Tabernacle.  The colors, the metals, the types of skins, the curtains, the braids, the hooks, the pins were all specified.  The shewbread, the laver, the branched lampstand, and the alter were all detailed.  In the Holy of Holies was the very focus of the Tabernacle – The Ark of the Covenant, the construction of which was detailed in every way.  The lid was actually a separate item, the Mercy Seat.  The materials were specified, along with the cherubim engraved on top, which protected the Holiness of God in his meeting place.  The uniforms or vestments of the priests were also detailed.  The aprons, the breastplates, the helmets, the robes, the tunics, the … 

You get the idea.  I have not even commented on the ceremonial feasts, cleansings or offering instructions as given by God.  If God gave Moses this much detail on his Tabernacle to Moses, written like a bulleted list that even a caveman could understand, then why are we, the Saints of the Church Age given such ambiguity as to our eternal salvation?  If Jesus’ atonement by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection is the culmination God’s Plan for the Justification of humanity, the event the Old Testament prophets dreamt and wrote of, the event where Christ humbled himself to obedience to death and God exalted him to the highest place, the absolute Apex of the History of the Universe, if all that were true you think God would at least give us Clear, Consistent, Unambiguous, Non-Contradictory instructions on how to take advantage of that Plan of Salvation.   

But it is not simple.  It is very difficult.  God’s plan for Salvation is not a clear list like he made for Moses when the Tabernacle was built.  God took that effort for the Israelites, but not for us.  I have to wonder why God never made that effort for those whom he loves so much.  Unfortunately, we have no clear instructions and that is why we have countless Christian denominations, which all interpret the Bible, and in many cases, God’s plan of Salvation very differently.  He lets us put together a jigsaw puzzle of seemingly random passages that say very different things about salvation.  And you better make that puzzle fit and interpret these salvation passages correctly.  Don’t just find a church creed that teaches the interpretation of Salvation that you find palatable, or rely on the church interpretation that you were born into and have grown comfortable with.  Your eternity rides on how you decipher these passages.  Our eternity rides on knowing God’s Secret Handshake.     

Are you interpreting God’s plan of Salvation correctly?  Are you sure?  How do you know?  Are you really sure?  Are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny with the knowledge that you currently have and your particular interpretation of Scripture?  

**sigh** Hand me that simple Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet, will you?

Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.   And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.  He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.  These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” – Mark 16:14-18 (NASB)

There are many other portions of scripture like this (John 14:12, Matt 17:20, Matt 18:19, Matt 21:21, Mark 11:24, etc), where the followers of Jesus are promised that they will be able to accomplish miracles and wonders with the power of God.  I believed this as a youngster, but as I grew older reality set in.  The world around us tell us that these promised miracles never occur.  No matter how devout we are, no matter how much faith we have, the promises of the miraculous never occur.   

But it grew worse then that when I prayed for, not the miraculous, but base and simple things.  I prayed fervently for the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit to help me witness to my friends at work.  After a while, I felt as though I were merely talking to myself; pumping myself up with confidence, “I can do it with your strength, I can do it with your strength, I can do….”  But I felt no overwhelming power than that which I could muster up from my own being.  This worried me.  I felt that I was being ignored by God, despite my living as sinless and faithful life as I possibly could.

Many attempts are made to reconcile these portions of Scripture with this fact of reality.  I have heard that the promises only apply to the original Apostles.  I have heard that the promises are applicable to Christians as a whole, and may not apply to individual members.  I have heard that we cannot perform miracles today because we are a sinful and faithless bunch of Christians.  I have heard ‘casting out demons’, ‘serpents’ and ‘deadly poisons’ allegorized to mean things like alcoholism, and ‘speaking in new tongues’ allegorized to mean speaking in love.  All sorts of attempts have been made to excuse the Bible for what we witness in our natural world.  

I have long ago lost patience in trying to rationalize these troublesome portions of Scripture, because I found in it something far more serious.  There is a small phrase in the Great Commission that really concerned me:

 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

If Jesus did not keep his promises concerning the obviously miraculous, or even simple and mundane requests in prayer, what kept him from keeping the promise of salvation?  If the promises were only given to the Apostles, was his promise of salvation only to the disciples?  If everything in the Great Commission is allegory, should Jesus’s promise of salvation be allegorized also?  If that is true, what does salvation even mean? 

I was thrown into a real crisis of faith.  If all these elaborate arguments needed to be made to excuse the Bible’s broken promises for the believer, if these promises of the miraculous are never fulfilled, or my mundane prayers seemed to be ignored, what is to keep Jesus from fulfilling his promise of Salvation?  Was I really at the whim of a God who will show mercy on just those whom he will choose? (Exodus 33:19, Rom 9:15).  Was I saved by God’s grace or not? 

In the end, I decided to just forget all that troublesome clutter and just have faith in Jesus.  I guess that is called ‘resting in his grace’.  I decided that these passages of Scripture were probably never going to be reconciled in my lifetime, but if I were just to be saved by the grace of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I should just trust in that and not worry about the complications. 

In other words, I pretended those broken promises did not exist.  I ignored the contradictory passages of Scripture that promised great things and never delivered.  Frankly, I ignored those passages out of fear.  Who am I to question God? 

Now that I am out and openly questioning these difficult passages, I again ask these same questions.  The Scriptures which make promises of this type make no sense to me.  Can I trust Jesus for salvation when trusting in him in other promises avails nothing?  Is the concept of salvation just an allegory for the disciples’ ears?  Is there even any such thing as Salvation? 

[footnote:  Now that I have done more reading, I am well aware that many modern Scholars consider Mark 16:9-20 to be spurious.  If that is true, that opens up a whole nother can of worms, but that does not negate plenty of other passages of Scripture which promise us Salvation through Jesus and answer to prayers.]

This is what the kernal of Christianity is all about, so if we are going to ask tough questions of God, it won’t get much tougher, or much more crucial, than the topic of our salvation.  And with that out of the way, here are our guest writers, JennyPo, joeyanne and Heather – take it away!

jennypo Says:
March 28th, 2007 at 1:12 am

Heather sez:
God ‘foreknows’ and ‘predestines’ a lot of people who will choose Him. Now, one can say that God is still demonstrating free will because He simply knows who will pick Him – except there’s Paul’s conversion story. He received a direct vision from God which turned his life around and make him a follower of Christ. Before that vision, the Bible makes it clear that Paul was adamant in trying to wipe every last Christian off the Earth. The disciples didn’t really choose until they had proof of Jesus’s claim to the Messiah – which was the resurrection.

Heather, you continue to give me great questions and thoughts! I know that numerous Christian leaders who have taught that God chooses who will be forgiven by him. This is nothing short of ridiculous considering the teachings of the Bible, and it comes (as do most of these kinds of ideas) from taking pieces of the Bible at the expense of others.
“God…is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish…” (2Peter 3:9)
Both Old and New Testaments refer to people who are “chosen” or “set apart” by God. The question we have to ask is, what were they “chosen” for? In the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s “chosen people”. They become chosen at birth because they bear Abraham’s blood, and God promised Abraham that he would make Abraham’s descendents a blessing to the nations of the world. The New Testament marks an expansion of God’s plans for human beings, and it is no longer only Abraham’s descendants who are chosen. Under the new covenant (or testament), they are “chosen in Christ”. Those who are born into God’s family because of the blood of Jesus are immediately ushered in to something more than mere forgiveness – they are “elect” or “chosen” for a great purpose… They are not only forgiven, but God reveals that his plans for them are much bigger and that he has been planning their future since before he laid the foundations of the earth. They are destined (predestinated) to become the children of God. “…he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ…” (Ephesians 1:4-5)
God, unlike any other creator, has designed a peer – someone who will be able to love him back as he loves, at a cost and at will. In the context of the chapter, the word “predestinated” means that the future for those who have chosen Christ is non-negotiable. It isn’t dependent on their faithful church attendance, on their dedication to God. Quite simply, it isn’t going to be taken away if they mess up. God has already made his plan, and it applies to all who have accepted forgiveness in Jesus.
I hadn’t even considered Paul’s conversion in relation to our free will until you brought it up, but Heather, doesn’t it just demonstrate God’s understanding of our choices? God doesn’t zap Paul into hell for torturing his followers – instead, he looks at the choice Paul has made within his heart. Why has Paul been persecuting Christians? Because he believes they are blaspheming and misrepresenting God! It is his love to God that moves him to protect Judaism in this way. He is wrong, but God doesn’t read his actions – he reads Paul’s heart. Were Paul acting out of hatred, I don’t believe he would have been convinced, even by the vision of a blinding light, to sit on his pride and go join the people he has just been beating up. God will read our hearts, too. That’s why Thomas got answers, while Simon (the smug Pharisee who invited Jesus to dinner and mocked him in his heart for associating with a “bad” woman) got rejected.
As for the disciples’ choice, how about Peter in Luke 9:20 – “‘But what about you?’ [Jesus] asked. ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God’.”
As a side note, one of the most convincing aspects of the whole Bible for me is the fact that its main characters (and those who would seem to be its greatest promoters), including Jesus’ disciples, are portrayed in such great weakness and confusion. Were the Bible a piece of propaganda (or let’s face it, even an ordinary historical account!) it is amazing that its greatest propagators, from the Jews of the Old Testament to the disciples of the New Testament, should have been content to allow the world to see them so faithless. Is there a Christian living today who would allow such an embarrassment? Where are the revisionists and the spin doctors? Could they have been so unselfish as to have promoted their dead friend at their own expense? Could they have allowed such a threat to the credibility of their message?

joeyanne Says:
March 28th, 2007 at 9:06 am

Heather, I have been thinking of your comments on forgiveness all day (thank you for that!). I think you hit the nail on the head with the story of the prodigal son. Only, I think, you missed one important point. The father in that story did forgive without any “action” on the part of the son. But, and this is a big but, the son didn’t come into the “good” of that forgiveness until he “came to himself”, realized his sin against God and against his father, and went to his father in his humbled spirit. The forgiveness didn’t depend on the son’s receiving of it, but the son could not experience the benefit of that forgiveness without accepting it. (repentance) In the same way, God has forgiven all of us for the sake of His Son, because of the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross. However, we cannot experience the “good” of that forgiveness without repentance and acceptance of that forgiveness. I realize this is still only a picture of God’s amazing grace, but it shows the meaning.

Heather Says:
March 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Joeyanne,

Believe me, the logic gets annoying sometimes. There are times when I want my brain to just shut off.

I did read the article, and it will no doubt not surprise you that I have thoughts.

The arguments I see at the post are that sin leads to death, forgiveness is only found in the shedding of blood for the remission of sins, and that God being just has to punish sin. Which is saying that He can’t just ‘forgive’ sin, but must punish something in order to forgive – that’s how I’m reading it. There was a reference in the article that, “Okay, I could make this easy and just forgive everybody, but I’m going to make the rule that first, I have to kill my son and then everybody has to believe in him”. But that is basically how it’s coming across. God can only remove/forgive sin through killing His Son, and the only way around being sent to Hell is to believe in Jesus.

Sin leads to death – I would agree with this, and the Bible is big on it, too. So is that being interpreted that Jesus had to die because sin leads to death? I would say that the two aren’t automatically related, though. If we go back to the prodigal son, sin did ‘kill’ him in a way, given what it did to his life. Anyone who is caught up in hatred or lust or envy can be ‘killed’ because of how it internally changes them. Even Paul mentions that in his reference to the old man/new man. Which is why we need to be rescued because of how self-destructive sin is.

Remission of sin only in the shedding of blood – this one is the catch and it gets a bit tricky There are many OT references to God asking for Israel to return him, and He will cleanse their sins, without any blood sacrifice. ‘Shedding of blood’ isn’t listed as a requirement, so I’m curious as to where it came from in the epistle. In fact, there are references that God doesn’t want anymore sacrifices at all in the O. If we go back to the Prodigal son, we don’t see this in effect, and most of the Synoptic Gospels basically infer that returning to God with a humble heart or repentence is enough for forgiveness. Even when the disciples and Paul are preaching, it is in effect, “Repent, turn from your sins, and they’ll be erased” or “be immersed in the name of Jesus.”

God is just – this is going to depend on how one interprets justice. In the OT, many of the prophets referred to the justice as a good thing, because it equaled freedom from oppression and equality. Yet this viewpoint leaves God’s justice as something to be feared. I see God’s justice as more restoring everything, not a retributive justice.

Then I get into the punishment. What exactly did this punishment consist of? Jesus dying? Because we all still die, but only physically. The soul is eternal, so then how can death be the punishment if, in rejecting the forgiveness, hell is the punishment? It would be difficult to say that Jesus was sent to hell for three days, since he also tells a thief that ‘today you shall be with me in Paradise.’ In John, Jesus says that, “again, I am leaving the world and returning to the Father.” Or in Luke, “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit.” If it’s that God poured His wrath on Jesus, what does that consist of? Jesus does seem to suffer, but no more than any other person who would be crucified would suffer.

What if there was a different possibility? Given the disciples’ reactions at the Resurrection, it seems apparent that had Jesus died of old age, or even not resurrected, there wouldn’t have been much of a movement. What energeized them was the resurrection itself, and allowed them to fully grasp everything for the first time. Jesus was killed by sin and for sin to show that 1) the end result of sin is always death and 2) sin never trumps God’s power. Ever. No matter how much sin there is in your life, God can handle it, and remove it, and make you new. The resurrection was his ultimate proof that God has the last word. But he needed that bloody, public death, with all the mocking people because he needed to bring the sin in the forefront, in order to showcase its destructive power to the hilt, and how ineffective it is, in the end.

“I believe in an omnipotent God who gave us the Bible as His great communication to us. I believe that every word, (down to every last comma) is inspired by God.” – joeyanne

“Actually, I don’t think the Greek texts had grammar — that was left to the interpreters. For instance, the phrase would look like this: ‘godisnowhere.’  Which can be interpreted as ‘God is now here’ and ‘God is no where.’ Yes, it would be up to the context and such, but it was still determined by interpretors.” – Heather

Technically, Heather is correct.  Search on Google Images for some of the ancient manuscripts, especially some of the papyrus fragments and take a look at them.  They are usually solid columns of faded text, with no spaces, no punctuation and no case.  With troublesome stuff like ‘godisnowhere’, I am sure the interpreters have to put it in context and do the best that they can.

But I also understand what joeyanne is trying to say.  Chuck Missler holds the view that we will never fully understand Scripture.  But when the Messiah comes, he will interpret the words of Scripture, in fact he will interpret the letters, in fact he will interpret the very spaces between the letters.  Missler is smart enough to know there is no punctuation in the original text, but he has a sort of Biblical mysticism view where even the placement by God of an individual jot or tittle reveals profound truths.  Many Christians hold this view towards Biblical Inerrancy, as did I.  I now think that viewpoint is fallacious, and I am trying to rid myself of that view, in one way by writing these articles.

With all that in mind, I am going to change the subject.

The notion of the afterlife as described in the Bible is very ambiguous.  Most of our beliefs and images of heaven and hell actually come from literature and church tradition from the Middle Ages, and are found nowhere in the Bible.  For instance, the Bible never speaks of a human soul or spirit ascending to heaven to be with God upon death.  Despite the funeral eulogies that we hear, that idea is never in there.  The Bible teaches that upon death, a person goes to Sheol or Hades, which just means ‘the grave’.  Because of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke, some people imagine Sheol to be a sort of holding tank or waiting room, sort of like hanging out at the DMV I guess.  At some point in the future, when the Kingdom of Heaven arrives, the dead shall be Resurrected out of the grave to somehow face judgment.  The Bible is very vague and dare I say contradictory how this judgment takes place, but the point is that this judgment by God decides a person’s fate to either eternal bliss or eternal torment.  But until the Kingdom of Heaven arrives, people are in the grave. 

So all our loved ones are not in heaven.  They are waiting in the grave to be bodily resurrected and face the judgment of God.  I believe that is strictly Biblical.  As far as I know, there is one and only one place in the Bible that even hints of ascending to heaven immediately upon death.  And it is an example of how comma placement, as discussed by joeyanne and Heather, can be Divinely inspired.  And wouldn’t you know it, it is from the last sayings of Jesus on the cross that I posted yesterday.  Divine intervention or coincidence?  You decide. 

Jesus said to the repentant thief on the cross, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”  Now this puts the Biblical Inerrantist in yet another contradiction pickle.  Are we to ascend to Paradise upon death or not?  The rest of the Bible teaches that we wait in the grave for the Resurrection.  Are we ascending to heaven upon death, then come back down to our dead bodies in the grave during the Resurrection?  What is the sense of that?  The whole thing is a bit of a mess.

If you are absolutely hell-bent on removing all contradictions like this from the Bible and  keep every jot and tittle inspired by God, you can use an old apologist trick which I like to call the Sliding Tittle Tactic.  Here is how it goes.  Jesus said this:

“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” 

But because there was no punctuation in the original text, it can be changed willy-nilly to meet your needs.  So what Jesus really meant was this:

“Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise.” 

See?  We just slide that little tittle over by one word and our contradiction is gone.  Jesus is not saying that the thief will be in Paradise that very day!  No, he will meet the thief in Paradise at some undetermined time in the future, but he is saying it – Today.  Get it?  Because Jesus, while hanging in agony on the cross, found it necessary to mention to the thief that he was speaking to him, not Tomorrow, but – Today.  That he was making his grand statement of forgiveness, not last week, but – Today.  Absurd?  Of course it is, but we have solved that nasty Biblical contradiction and kept the text Divnely inspired just by moving a comma.

I have actually heard this taught from the pulpit several times over the years.  I cannot imagine using this ridiculous excuse to somebody who asked me about this tricky passage, and keep a straight face while doing it.  And thankfully, I don’t think anybody actually has!  Face it, the explanation is ludicrous!  The Sliding Tittle Tactic is rarely used by Apologists, but I can think of three other places off the top of my head where it comes in handy, and I am sure there are others.

I die hard but am not afraid to go.
- Last words attributed to George Washington, December 14, 1799

This being the Lenten season, we Christians often reflect on the 7 statements of Jesus while he died on the cross.  Let’s take a look at them:

1) Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34)
2) Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise. (Luke 23:43)
3) Woman, behold, your son – Behold, your mother (John 19:26-27)
4) Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34)
5) I am thirsty (John 19:26)
6) It is finished (John 19:30)
7) Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)

 I used to hear sermons on these statements, usually during the Lenten season.  One pastor broke this up into seven different sermons – one statement per week!  You really have to have the gift of gab to expound on “I am thirsty” for an entire sermon, but I have heard it done. 

But I am suspicious.  I long ago noticed that except for statement 4, every one of these statements comes from different Gospels.  And the statements of Jesus are almost completely different in each Gospel, especially the last words spoken.  Why did the Gospel writers write them so differently?   

Mark and Matthew are nearly identical, so I will only quote Matthew:

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ” Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”, that is, ” My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, “This man is calling for Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. But the rest of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.”  And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. – Matthew 27:46-50

Matthew/Mark have Jesus crying out to God.  I have heard many pastors tell me that this was the moment where the sin of humanity was laid on Jesus, and the Holy Father, finding sin unacceptable in his presence, turned away from Jesus.  That is actually not a bad theological argument. 

Luke however, has completely different last words:

And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into you hands I commit my spirit.  Having said this, He breathed His last. – Luke 23:46

OK, I can see how this could be harmonized with Matthew/Mark.  They have Jesus crying out indistinguishably immediately before dying, so this could be what Jesus was actually crying out.  But another problem arises.  God has forsaken Jesus in Matthew/Mark, but Jesus then commits his spirit into God’s hands?  Is Jesus forsaken of the Father or not?

With John though, we start getting some real problems:

A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.  – John 19:29-30

Now we have two separate and distinct claims to Jesus’ last words, that in Luke and that in John.  What is going on here?

Faced with this dilemma, every inerrantist I know uses the famous Harmonization by Omission technique.  I used that technique too, since there are not many other options open to the Fundamentalist.  The argument is that the gospel writers only chose those statements of Jesus that emphasized those characteristics that they were interested in.  So they chose what they wanted and discarded the rest for some inexplicable reason.  “It is finished” does not fit Luke’s needs so he ignores it, Mark has no need of “Into your hands I commit my spirit,” so he leaves it out.  After thinking that argument through, it is really straining to me, especially considering the last words of Luke and John are obviously written to mean his literal last words!

Here is another option that I think makes more sense and one that I am leaning toward.  An important person, a person from a dramatic story or a great historical figure is sometimes easily remembered by their Great Last Words.  I guess the same could be said these days for famous epithets written on grave markers.  They are usually clever or dramatic phrases that, real or imagined, are sometimes used to remember famous people by.  Mark and Matthew were written with Jesus crying out to God in agony!  Maybe Luke and John did not think Jesus should go out on such a humiliating note – imagine being forsaken of God himself!  They are writing about their Messiah leaving the Earth.  This is a dramatic moment – what saying is Jesus going to be remembered by?  What final words is Jesus leaving to his followers?  Could it be that Luke decided that instead of being forsaken by God, he embellished Jesus to be accepted by God, releasing his spirit into God’s hands?  Maybe that just fits Luke’s idea of Jesus’s relationship to God.  In contrast to the Synoptics, John portrays Jesus as dying quietly, almost stoically.  A simple and painless “It is finished” would better show Jesus’s godlike characteristics.  No crying out to God to be found in John.  The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as God Incarnate – would a Jesus as God wail to God for forsaking him as his dying last words?  That does not make much sense in the Gospel of John, not to me anyway.

Is this the way it happened?  Were Jesus last words fabricated by the Gospel writers? At the very least embellished?  I have no idea – but it seems plausible to me.  There is a contradiction in the last words spoken by Jesus, and it must be worked out somehow.  And my simple argument, an argument that would have offended me as a Fundamentalist greatly just a year ago, makes much more sense than the tired old Harmonization by Omission trick that I used to use so much.

So is the Bible the inerrant, wholly inspired word of God?  I think not.  And I am getting more comfortable with that idea.

That was the best ice-cream soda I ever tasted.
- Last words attributed to Lou Costello, March 3, 1959 

Many Fundamentalists share the cliché “I am not religious, I just love the Lord”, or something very similar.  I know, I used to have a pin clipped to my hat that said that very thing, and I wore it for years.  Before my day at work, I used to tell Jesus that I loved him, that he was the world to me, thanked him for dying for me and that I would be forever grateful.  I told Jesus that I loved him non-stop on my bike ride to work, as I prayed for the strength of the Holy Spirit to help me witness to my unbelieving friends.  Another popular cliché emerging at the time was “Jesus is not about religion, He is about relationship”.  I took that to heart and strove to have a relationship with my Savior.  I prayed “without ceasing”, which was not that hard to do since I lived alone at the time.  I played worship music cassettes and sang along, hoping to honor Jesus.  Of course, loving Jesus was difficult sometimes, because it always felt like a one-way relationship.  I did all the conversing, and had to listen for God in that elusive “still, small voice”.  Yes, that voice could have really been my own, but I took it on faith that God was communicating to me through his Word and through daily testings and trials, so I left it at that and accepted it.  I was as sincere, believing, diligent, obedient and faithful as a Christian could be. 

But something still bugged me.  Why did I love Jesus? I would sometimes ask myself.  The answer troubled me, so I tucked it away and forgot about it, but it eventually snuck back to haunt my thoughts.  Through apologetic studies, I trained myself to answer why I believed in Jesus, but I never heard a single message on why I should love Jesus. 

The Psalms are filled with songs of love and devotion to God.  I am commanded to love the “Lord thy God” with various combinations of my heart, soul, mind and strength (Deut 10:12, Matt 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) as the greatest commandment.  To Love the Lord and love my neighbor as myself was interpreted as encapsulating the entire Law into two commands! (Luke 10:26).  That is an incredible statement by Jesus!  God takes love, and in particular my love towards him, very seriously.  So my intentions for love had better be correct.  Paul spends the better part of 1 Corintians 13 telling us that without charity (agape) our works before God are pretty much useless.   

So, just like I cannot believe in just any old Jesus like the Mormons do, but the real Jesus as proclaimed in the Gospels, so too I must love Jesus with whole and sincere love (agape).  I must love Jesus more than anybody, because he is worthy.  As Pastor Skip Heitzig used to tell us, “He does not want to be number 1 on a list of 10.  He wants to be number 1 on a list of 1.  Because if you really love Jesus, is there really much room for anything else?”   

Why do I love Jesus?  I have grappled with that question for years.  The answer is because he died for me, and because he saved my soul from eternal death.  And that, I believed, was the correct theological answer.  But is that pure love?  Is it sincere agape that will be acceptable to God?  I love my wife more than any human on this world.  I would gladly give my life for her – as many of you would do for your own spouse, I am sure.  Why do I love my wife?  Not for repayment for anything that she has done to me, I love her because of who she is.  I love her simply because she is my wife.  Why do I love my mother?  Same thing.  I love her, not because there is anything in it for me, but because of who she is.  I am not a poet, so this is difficult for me to convey, but just imagine the love that you have for your wife, your husband, your mother or children.  Ask yourself why you love them.  Is it conditional?  Is it because they merited your favor?  Is it because they earned your love?  I had a terrible dad growing up.  He was an abusive, violent drunk.  He has done nothing in this life to earn my love.  If anything, I could be justified in this world to hate him.  But all these years later, I love him.  I love him for some inexplicable reason – I love him, not because of anything he has done, or anything that I could possibly get out of it, but simply because of who he is. 

In contrast, what do you call loving somebody because they have done something for you?  Conditional, insincere love.  Passing love.  Surely not the agape which Paul told us about.  I am to love Jesus more than all – and my reason for loving him was conditional.  I love him for dying for me, and saving me from eternal death.  Do I love him because he has done that, or for virtue of who he is?  Try a thought experiment.  What if Jesus had not died on the cross.  What if he gave us the Sermon on the Mount and other ethical laws from God, demanded that we love him, and ascended into heaven?  What if we did not have the threat of hell to be saved from?  Jesus would still be the same God as presented in our Gospels.  Would we love him?  Would we still love him if there was nothing in it for us? 

What if Jesus commanded that we love God, but did it with no promise of heaven, and no threat of hell.  What if Jesus just left it ambiguous as to what lay in the afterlife?  Would we love him? I suspect not.  I truly think that the only reason any of us claims they love Jesus is, not by simple virtue of his greatness and who he is, but because there is something in it for us.  Or to be more cynical, we love Jesus because he is fire insurance.  Why else would he command us to love him?  When was the last time your wife, your father or mother, your children, anybody commanded you to love them?  If we are loving God because he commanded us to do it, how in the world can that love be sincere?   

As a Fundamentalist, these thoughts troubled me greatly for years because it is central to our faith but I could never overcome it.  What are your thoughts?