Do Christians Need to Keep the Law?

I have often heard it said that Christians do not need to keep the law — and by law they mean the Mosaic law, or primarily the Old Testament law — and that therefore believers are not required to keep the Ten Commandments. But is this the view of Scripture?

Some even go further, suggesting that believers in the New Testament church age do not look to the law for sanctification. Yet the testimony of Scripture is directly the opposite.

In our Lord’s high priestly prayer in John 17, He prays to the Father on behalf of His disciples, saying in John 17:17,

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

Clearly, the Lord Jesus is referring to the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures that existed at that time — the Word of God. And it is equally clear that the Word of God includes the law of God.

In Psalm 119:142, we read,

“Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.”

In Psalm 119:151,

“Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth.”

And in Psalm 119:160,

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”

The literal sense of verse 160 is, “The sum of thy word is truth.” Thus, the same expression appears in the Lord’s prayer — “Thy word is truth” — showing that our Lord’s prayer that His disciples be sanctified through the truth is a direct echo of the Psalmist’s words concerning the law and Word of God.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ Himself is described as “the truth” in John 14:6,

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

And the Spirit of God likewise is said to be “the truth” in 1 John 5:6,

“…and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.”

Thus, the Spirit of God sanctifies the believer; Christ is our sanctification; the law, the commandments, and the whole Word of God are instruments of sanctification. We are washed by “the water of the word” (cf. Ephesians 5:26).

Let us look into this more closely. Not only did our Lord Jesus Christ pray that His disciples would be sanctified by the truth — that is, the Word of God — but we also read throughout the New Testament that believers are called upon to fulfil, to keep, and to obey the Word, the law, and the commandments of God.

In Matthew 5:17–19, our Lord declares:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Clearly, our Lord Jesus Christ affirms the abiding validity of the moral law and commends His disciples to do and teach it.

In Matthew 7:12, He summarises the moral law, saying:

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

This so-called “Golden Rule” is, in essence, the summary of the moral law.

In Matthew 19:17–19, in His conversation with the rich young ruler, Jesus said:

“…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Here, our Lord did not list any ceremonial commandments, but the moral commandments contained in the Ten Commandments. A similar emphasis appears in Luke 10:25–28, where Jesus says,

“This do, and thou shalt live.”

Turning to Paul’s writings, we find the same emphasis. In Romans 2:13, he writes:

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”

This does not mean that men are justified by the works of the law, but rather that it is the doing of the law — and not merely the hearing of it — that corresponds to true righteousness. Those who are truly justified by faith are those who will also keep the law.

Again, in Romans 3:31, Paul asks:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

Faith does not abolish the law; it upholds and establishes it.

In Romans 8:3–4, Paul teaches:

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

The Spirit of God enables believers to fulfil the righteous requirements of the moral law.

In Romans 13:8–10, Paul writes:

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet;
and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

Here again, love is the inward principle by which the outward commandments are fulfilled.

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul describes his ministry to both Jews and Gentiles:

“To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

Believers, then, are not lawless; we are under the moral authority of Christ — “under the law to Christ.”

In Galatians 5:14, Paul declares:

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

And again, in Galatians 6:2:

“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.”

The moral law is fulfilled in love, the law of Christ being the law of love, perfected in the believer’s life through the Spirit.

In Ephesians 6:1–2, Paul directly cites one of the Ten Commandments and applies it to Christian children in the present age:

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;).”

Here Paul explicitly appeals to the Ten Commandments as the rule of Christian obedience.

James teaches along similar lines. In James 1:25, he writes:

“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”

The “law of liberty,” which is the moral law as fulfilled in Christ, is to be obeyed.

In James 2:8–12, we read:

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all…
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Christians, then, remain accountable to God’s moral law, described as royal and liberating.
And in James 4:11,

“He that judgeth the law… thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”

Believers are called to do the law, not to sit in judgment upon it.

John likewise speaks emphatically on this subject. In 1 John 2:3–4, we read:

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

In 1 John 3:22–24, he says:

“And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”

And in 1 John 5:2–3:

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

Before he became a believer, Peter could speak of the law of God as a yoke and a burden upon the neck (cf. Acts 15:10); but John, as a believer, can now speak of the commandments of God as “not grievous.”

Indeed, the whole of Psalm 119 expresses the psalmist’s love for the law, the Word, the statutes, the precepts, the commandments, and the judgments of God. Only true believers love the law of God and desire His Word.

At this point, someone may be tempted to object, saying, “But does not Paul himself tell believers that we are not under the law?” For example, we read in Romans 6:14,

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”

Because of this particular expression—“we are not under the law, but under grace”—many have misconstrued Paul’s words to mean that we are therefore not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, or any part of God’s law given in the Old Testament. This, however, is clearly not the case, for such an interpretation would contradict the many other passages in the New Testament which speak of believers fulfilling the law of God. Moreover, it would make Paul appear to contradict himself, which is impossible.

In the same Apostle’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 9, we read in verse 20:

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.”

Now, someone might say that Paul merely meant he conformed to Jewish customs in order to evangelise those who regarded themselves as under the law. Yet observe what he says in the very next verse (1 Corinthians 9:21):

“To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

These words are extremely significant. Paul makes it clear that at no point did he consider himself to be “without law to God”—that is, lawless—but rather “under the law to Christ.” Thus, even under the New Covenant, Paul affirms that he remained under divine moral obligation, now as one subject to the authority of Christ.

What, then, did Paul mean in Romans 6:14, when he wrote, “ye are not under the law, but under grace”? The immediate context provides the answer. He is speaking about the dominion of sin. “For sin shall not have dominion over you,” he says, because as believers in Christ, we have died to sin’s claims and, consequently, to the law’s condemnation. The law demands the death of the sinner, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). But since Christ has satisfied the law’s demands on our behalf—having died for us and in our stead—we are counted as having died with Him. Therefore, being united to Christ in His death and resurrection, we are set free from sin’s tyranny and from the law’s sentence of death.

In this sense, we are no longer “under the law”—that is, under its condemnation—but “under grace”—that is, under God’s favour in Christ. Yet this deliverance from the law’s curse does not mean that we are freed from obedience to God’s moral will. Far from it. The very promise of the New Covenant refutes such an idea. In Jeremiah 31:33, God declares:

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Notice that He does not say, “I will take away My law,” but rather, “I will write My law in their hearts.” The righteousness of God is everlasting; His moral standards do not change. Sin remains sin—covetousness, murder, adultery, and every form of evil are always abominable in the sight of God. Therefore, the moral requirements of His law stand for ever. Christians who suppose that they need not keep or fulfil the moral law of God are sadly and profoundly mistaken.

---

Now at this point, somebody might be tempted to ask: why is it that Christians need to keep the law or obey God? After all, we are saved by grace and not through our works. Yet the Bible is clear: although we are not saved on the basis of our good deeds, our righteousness, or our works, we are saved in order to do good works. We do not keep the law to gain life; rather, we keep the law because we already have life in Christ.

This leads naturally to a very important question that is often debated: can a believer lose his salvation? Personally, I believe that the question itself is framed incorrectly, and therefore the answers usually given are mistaken. Such a question does not appear in Scripture, particularly the phrase “can a believer lose his salvation.” The New Testament does not speak in terms of “losing salvation.”

Instead, let us ask a question that is scriptural: can a believer be cut off? This is a phrase that does appear in the New Testament. Consider Romans 11:19–23. Paul writes:

“Then thou shalt say, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.”

Here, Paul clearly teaches that New Testament believers who do not continue in the goodness of God may be cut off.

A similar point is made in Colossians 1:21–23:

“And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unreprovable and unblameable in his sight: if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye have heard.”

Paul here emphasises the tremendous blessing that God provides by reconciling believers and presenting them holy, unreprovable, and innocent before Him. Yet he introduces a condition: this presentation depends upon believers continuing in the faith, being grounded and settled, and not being moved away from the hope of the gospel. In other words, there is a real possibility that New Testament believers may not continue in the faith that is rooted and grounded.

The same principle appears elsewhere. Consider 2 Corinthians 6:1:

“We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.”

Clearly, it is possible for believers to receive the grace of God in vain.

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 15:1–2 states:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.”

Here, Paul warns that faith may be in vain if believers do not hold fast to the gospel.

In Galatians 1:6, he writes:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.”

This demonstrates that it is possible for believers to be moved away from the grace of Christ toward another gospel. Later, in Galatians 4:11, Paul expresses concern:

“I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

Throughout these passages, the New Testament consistently warns that while salvation is by grace, believers must continue in faith, remain grounded in the gospel, and persevere in obedience. Otherwise, there is the real possibility of falling away or receiving grace in vain.

---

Let’s summarise some of the main warning passages in the NT that call for perseverance and continuance in the faith for NT believers in order to their full and final salvation.

1. Warnings About Falling Away / Apostasy

Hebrews 2:1–3

“Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;”

Warning: Neglecting the gospel leads to accountability; God’s salvation must be carefully preserved.

Hebrews 3:12–14

“Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;”

Warning: Apostasy is possible; perseverance in faith is required.

Hebrews 6:4–6

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

Warning: Falling away after being enlightened has grave consequences; reinforces need for perseverance.

Hebrews 10:26–31

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Warning: Willful rejection of truth after knowing it brings severe judgment.

2. Warnings Linked to Conditional Continuance

Romans 11:20–22

“Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”

Warning: Continuing in God’s goodness is necessary; otherwise, believers may be cut off.

Colossians 1:21–23

“And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unreprovable and unblameable in his sight: if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye have heard, which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.”

Warning: Presenting believers holy before God depends on continuing in the faith; a conditional aspect is clear.

1 Corinthians 15:1–2

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.”

Warning: Salvation is secure in grace, but faith may be in vain if believers fail to hold fast to the gospel.

Galatians 1:6

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:”

Warning: Believers can be moved away from the grace of Christ toward false teaching.

Galatians 4:11

“I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

Warning: Spiritual labour among believers can be frustrated if they do not persevere.

3. Exhortations to Persevere / Endure

Matthew 10:22

“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

Matthew 24:13

“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

Revelation 2:10

“Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”

Revelation 3:11

“Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.”

Exhortation: Perseverance is tied directly to reward and salvation experience.

4. Warnings Linked to Obedience / Works

James 1:22–25

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”

James 2:14–26

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

Exhortation: Faith without works is dead; obedience demonstrates living faith.

1 John 2:3–6

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.”

1 John 3:6–10

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Exhortation: Practising righteousness distinguishes children of God from children of the devil.

1 John 5:3–4

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

Exhortation: Obedience, love, and righteousness are evidence of genuine faith and perseverance.

The Lord Jesus was correct in saying Abiathar was High Priest during the time of David

Click link below to read the article

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6t-WJor5PmZT0xBN0hBLTB1LU0/view?usp=sharing

For my Review on "The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years" in PDF click the link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6t-WJor5PmZS2V2MzJ3WG9TOTg/view?usp=sharing

The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years

A Review

The series of volumes published by Christian History Project, “The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years”, is an impressive collection of well-designed and beautifully crafted books that will, without doubt, be very appealing to the populace. Its shape and format, along with its glossy pages with stunning full colour photographs and artwork could hardly fail to attract attention.

However, the true value of a book does not lie in the way it looks; and here particularly, is the truth of that old adage – “Judge not a book by its cover”! And so, as objectively as is possible, I present my response to the first of the books in the series – “The Veil is Torn, A.D. 30 to A.D. 70: Pentecost to the Destruction of Jerusalem”.

Being interested in History, particularly, with the History of the Christian Church, it was with much excitement that I borrowed this book and began reading it. However, to my surprise and, yes, dismay too, I found the book woefully disappointing. I trust by the time you are done reading my response to just a few issues I noticed in beginning the first chapter of the book, you will have to agree with me that the author/s and/or editor/s have failed in presenting a balanced and accurate ‘history’ of the early Christians. For convenience, throughout this review, I will use the word ‘author’ to refer to the writer and/or editor/s involved in writing this particular book.

First Things First

A good historian writing history should present ‘facts’ – and facts are gathered from events that have been accurately recorded and preserved down to our present times. Indeed, this is so very basic to any historian, that we take it for granted that every time we take up a book that deals with any kind of history, we are being presented with facts. It is another matter that the author would usually present his or her own personal views and opinions on how the facts are to be explained. In point of fact, this assessment of facts and sifting of evidence is really what makes the author credible in the eyes of the reader. Facts it is that the reader is looking for, and facts it is that a good historian would present – at least when writing a book that purports to present a history.

So how does ‘The Veil is Torn’ fare; does it present historical facts that readers would be interested in and can reply upon, does it verify such facts and/or corroborate them with quotations and references to older and reliable histories and/or documents that have come down to us through reliable witnesses. And reliable witness, whether an eye witness or the witness of one who was judicious in his accounts, is what is most relied upon by a good and competent historian. Most world-class historians rely upon verifiable and authoritative sources in compiling their histories.

Present-day historians usually rely on dependable authorities such as Flavius Josephus the Roman-Jewish historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, and a host of other reliable historian of the past to glean from their writings (and I did notice both of these historians were listed in the index, which tells me that the author at least referred to these historians). No historian “makes up” history; they either record first hand events they wish to make a note of, or they search and sift through available records of the past and present their findings to people of their day.

The First Chapter

Reading through the very first chapter of ‘The Veil is Torn’ entitled ‘Madman or God?’ was nothing less than a shocker. The back cover of the book informs readers the purpose of the book – “Its purpose is to tell the story of the Christian family, so that we may be knowledgeable of our origins…” However, judging from the contents of its very first chapter, it seems that the book has terribly failed in its purpose. Perhaps on second thoughts, I should rephrase that sentence. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the author has distorted the story and presented facts in a way in which he wished it to be told.

The second paragraph of the first chapter reads, (page 11)

So now, there they were, these men, three dozen or more, mostly in their twenties, streaming from that house into the street, babbling like lunatics, and yelling out something about “the Coming of the Holy Spirit.” They were drunk, obviously. A drunken debauch, and it was not even yet noon. Was this any way to celebrate Pentecost, the Jewish feast that welcomed the first harvest?

Since the book is claimed to be “written and edited by Christians for Christians of all denominations” (excerpt from the back cover), I may safely assume, no doubt at my own risk, that the writer is a Christian and so is at least familiar with the accounts in the New Testament (from henceforth, NT) of the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles and early disciples as recorded for us in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The NT has been proved time and again as a reliable and accurate record of eye witnesses and their associates. So reliable are the NT records that most of us are able to determine the accuracy of other records depending on how much or how little they differ from the NT records.

Now, comparing the words just quoted above with the earliest record that we have of these accounts in the NT, what do we find? – Glaring defects, deviations and differences, in not just the details but an alarming sense of deliberate distortions of the truth. And if there has been not this deliberate distortion of the truth, when compared to the NT record, we would be forced to conclude that the writer has been grossly misinformed. Indeed, the conclusion that the writer is ignorant of the facts has to be decided against, since he does mention a broad outline and overall picture of the NT events, in their historical setting. However, even a cursory reading of the book will expose the writer’s true beliefs and ideas. For really, it is beliefs that make a man; and his beliefs are evidenced in his words. For indeed out of the heart does the mouth speak!

Without much further ado, let us then consider the words just quoted.

So now, there they were, these men, three dozen or more, mostly in their twenties, streaming from that house into the street, babbling like lunatics, and yelling out something about “the Coming of the Holy Spirit.”

Note the following facts presented in these words

1.    There were about three dozen men or more involved

2.    They were in their twenties

3.    They were streaming into the street

4.    They were babbling like lunatics

5.    They were yelling something about the coming of the Holy Spirit

Let it be said right at the outset that of the above 5 points, perhaps only the second one is correct. And even so, it be clear that at least the apostle Peter was at least 30 years of age as he had to pay the temple tax; the rest of the disciples of the Lord may have been in their early twenties. In any case, we’ll let this point pass. As for the rest – There were more than three dozen men, they were not streaming into any street, they were not babbling, they were not acting like lunatics, and they were not yelling just something!

 Three Dozen Men or More

The writer is describing the ‘event’ or ‘scene’ immediately following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as recorded for us in its true details in Acts of the Apostles chapter 2.

However, upon comparison with Acts 2, we notice that the writer has blundered very badly, to say the least. Listen to what the historian Luke records as the events of the Day of Pentecost unfolds in Chapter 2

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” (verses 1-15)

How anyone having read Acts 2 could ever conclude as did the author is beyond me. In Acts chapter 1 verse 15 we are specifically informed, “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) and Peter goes on to address them, “Men, brethren”. Clearly, we are allowed to conclude that there were then really at least 120 men gathered together with the 11 apostles in the ‘upper room’ on the Day of Pentecost. That there may or may not have been any women at that time is beside the point. From where then did the author get the picture of “three dozen or more” men? Of course, 3 times 12 = 36 and 120 is more than 36! So after all, the author is correct. However, the point I’d like to raise is at the very heart of the matter. It is just this – the way we explain facts with words. For this is, besides the truth that facts are of prime importance, the second most important issue. Indeed, from my own experience and perspective, the most important issue. For example, if I were to suggest that Canada has a population of thirty-five thousand people or more – this would hardly be taken as a fair statement. At the time of my writing, Canada’s population stands at about 35.16 million, which translates into more than 35,000,000. So for sure my statement is true in that we have 35,000 people or more. Anyone can see, that I’ve only added the word more as a precautionary safeguard so that I have something to fall back on when pressed for it. But it would also mean that I perhaps wished to downplay the actual figure! However true I might argue my statement is facts have been so completely distorted that you might either conclude me as a very biased person or grossly misinformed.

So what do we make of the author’s statement that he believes there were 3 dozen men or more? Surely, he did not arrive at this number from the NT. Neither has he taken the trouble to let his readers know from where he got this number. I noticed too that there aren’t too many technical notes and/or footnotes in the book, which is probably okay since the book was meant for the general crowd. (I did find a bibliography at the end of the book. And under the very first section ‘General’ there were listed 13 works, the last of which was the NT in Modern English by J B Phillips. I found this fact most peculiar. Why would anyone not list the NT as the very first source of information? Apparently, all the other writers carried more weight than the NT according to the Publishing and/or writing committee!)

Be that as it may, to reduce the number of men from 120 to 36; and then to add a few more dozen – seems too trivial a point to harp about. And so with a smile, I proceeded – only to note further errors and discrepancies.

Lunatics Roaming The Street!

According to the author, these men were “streaming from that house into the street, babbling like lunatics…” Not even this is from the NT. The NT says nothing about the apostles and/or the 120 disciples who were gathered on that memorable morning of the Day of Pentecost ‘streaming’ out into the street. What house and which street – the author does not venture to inform the reader. Curious it is that an author should open a book and chapter without any notice of a ‘house’ and a ‘street’. But we’ll ignore this. However, the author is rather particular and sure that they did stream out into the street (Interestingly, the NT does record the name of a street called ‘Straight’).

The author has taken the liberty of informing his readers that these men were “babbling like lunatics”. Again, this is hardly the way the NT writer presents it. In fact, far from ‘streaming’ into the street or streets, they remained in the upper room where they were gathered for prayer. What the author refers to “babbling” is what is described as the gift of speaking in foreign languages, a gift bestowed by the Sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit. And with regards to the proclamation that the apostle Peter makes concerning this ‘Gift’, the author falsely classifies as “babbling like lunatics”. Even worse, the author has the temerity to denounce them as drunken men. Furthermore, he states that these men were babbling “something” about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Whereas according to the NT, far from babbling something about the Holy Spirit, these men were supernaturally endowed by the Holy Spirit. And they spoke in foreign languages – languages which others many since there were many gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost from around the world who spoke and understood these languages perfectly. And their surprise was precisely this – how could these plain ordinary Galileans speak foreign languages which they have never learnt. Now then, the NT does record for us that there indeed were others who mocked saying, “These men are full of new wine”.  Interestingly, the Greek word ‘others’ actually refers to other people of a different kind. And in the context, this can only mean other people who did not understand any of the foreign languages that were being spoken supernaturally by the disciples and apostles. Little wonder, they mocked! How true that fools mock what they do not understand.

Furthermore, the NT does not record anything of what ‘these men’ were saying or had said. However, it does record for us Peter’s words on that memorable morning. Far from babbling, he stood up along with the other 11 apostles and boldly explained the Gift of the Holy Spirit. More importantly, he spoke to the assembled, curious and puzzled crowd about God’s offer of forgiveness of sins through the Lord Jesus Christ.

So why does the author depict such wonderful events of the Day of Pentecost as recorded for us in Acts chapter 2 in the way he did? Of a truth, this the author alone can explain. Nonetheless we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the author wishes to discredit the accounts of the NT writer regarding the events surrounding the Day of Pentecost. One wonders as what makes a man want to deliberately (we cannot for a moment image that a learned and qualified author, who is also a Christian is ignorant of the NT) distort and or misrepresent facts when writing past history.

However, as readers we may and should judge all that we read with the utmost care, especially books that claim to give us a ‘knowledge’ of history. And if the very second paragraph of the first chapter is so full of errors and distortions, what could we expect further on. The remaining portion was not any better.

Streaming Lunatics… or Dancing in Celebration?

I turn to the next page and here’s what I find. Continuing to describe the aforementioned scene of the Day of Pentecost, the writer informs us, (page 12)

His (the Lord Jesus Christ’s) followers, now dancing around the street and babbling about “the Holy Spirit”, somehow became persuaded he (the Lord Jesus Christ) had returned from the dead. “Risen” was the word they used. Indeed, they insisted upon it, telling others they had repeatedly seen and talked to him and convincing them to join their celebration.

So now the author informs us that these men were actually dancing. The NT says nothing of this, nor does any other reputed historian who has made any record of these events. All of this is no doubt a fantastic fabrication and a figment of an overly active imagination, which perhaps is okay. However, this simply won’t do, where facts are concerned. Besides, isn’t the author contradicting himself? How could a few drunken men streaming into the street, babbling something, be also described as dancing? and be also be to convince others to join them in their celebration ? This simply doesn’t make sense. If such a thing happened, this without question would be worthy of being the most ‘historic’ event!

Babbling Something…?

The author obviously is also rather fond of saying, and rather glibly, that these men were ‘babbling’ all along. However, as already pointed out, the NT says nothing of the kind. Peter words were far from babblings, nor are the utterances of the others who spoke in foreign languages by the power of the Holy Spirit anywhere close to being classified as ‘babblings’. If the people present at that time did not think so, what right does anyone living today think they have the right to say so? Again, as already pointed out, it was only those to whom the languages were incomprehensible that these men seemed like drunken! But please note that drunken men do not speak coherently in any given language!

It is rather strange, given the author’s point of view, that these men could, despite all odds, convince others to “join their celebration”. It is odd too, to think that they themselves had somehow become persuaded that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death by crucifixion, is alive again. And yet it does not seem to have occurred to the author to mention the real reason for this strong belief the apostles and early disciples had. The NT makes it abundantly clear, if anything, that the apostles and most of Jesus’ followers had no sure hope that the Lord Jesus was to return from the dead. So skeptical were they at first to believe the report of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Himself had to appear to them time and again. And one of them even had to be rebuked for his unbelief. Besides, the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Thomas, and many of the women who were part of the company of the disciples, along with many other witnesses of the risen Lord, some of over 500 were alive during the time of Paul – these all boldly testified that they had indeed seen the risen Lord. Let it be noted that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not based on human testimony merely, but on the authoritative Word of our God and the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Dead for Six Sabbaths?

The author’s careless choice of words is most damaging and misleading. For example, the author very loosely says (page 12),

…the man Jesus, of Nazareth…had been dead for six Sabbaths.”

If the author had written from the perspective of the Day of Pentecost, then it would have been more accurate to say that 7 Sabbaths had passed since the day Jesus was crucified, for Pentecost was 50 days after the Passover. But this error aside, fact is Jesus was not now dead for six Sabbaths. He had risen on the 3^rd day after His crucifixion, just has He had said He would. Well, given the author’s perspective, at least he should have said, the body was missing for six Sabbaths. But no, although acknowledging that the body was indeed missing after just a few days – according to the author, after 2 whole days – he yet makes this statement most carelessly that it “had been… six Sabbaths”. Clearly, he has no excuse for such loose and careless words which are inaccurate.

The author has not clearly presented the facts as recorded for us in the NT. From whatever other source he has gathered his information, the author has definitely failed in providing the reader an accurate account of the historicity of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, he has not written out the history of the events of the day of Pentecost accurately. Far too many loose ends exist and far too many errors and slips seem to be the order of his writings.

Jesus... Against the Temple?

The most damaging element of the book however is the way in which the author writes about the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Here are some of his words about the Lord Jesus.

…the man was plainly anti-Temple as well. He said, the imperishable building itself,…was doomed. That made him equally offensive to the high priests whose job was operating and preserving the Temple, and their party, the Sadducees.

Anyone ignorant of the true facts as presented in the NT would naturally assume from the above that Jesus had condemned the temple and its sacrificial institutions openly in the presence of the high priests (here again the author keeps blundering in referring to a plurality of High Priests, whereas the Jews could only have 1 High Priest at any given point of time!). However, one searches the NT in vain to find any such condemnation the Lord Jesus Christ made before the High Priest or any of the other priests. Nor did Jesus ever utter any statement derogatory of the Temple. He did foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple building, but only to his immediate disciples did He devolve this. And even then, it was with much feeling and sorrow that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. Far from condemning the temple, Jesus had the greatest respect for the Temple, which He rightly designated, ‘My Father House’. Clearly, Jesus was not anti-Temple.

Inspired or Ingenious?

The author quotes Caiaphas, the high priest (this time he at least gets it right in the singular noun - the high priest) as saying, (page 13)

“Better one man should suffer than the whole people”

The quotation marks appear in the book and so I may safely assume the author intends the readers to believe these words to be the very words spoken by the High Priest himself. Furthermore, the author clearly gives the reader the impression that Caiaphas’ advice was his own reasoning by adding,

Harsh, certainly. But could you argue with his reasoning?

Upon examining the NT evidence, we find something rather interestingly different. However much I dislike J B Phillips’ translation of the New Testament in Modern English – although it would be more accurate to call it a loose and free paraphrase – I will quote the words of Caiaphas in full in their context for the benefit of the reader.

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was High Priest that year, addressed the meeting: "You plainly don't understand what is involved here. You do not realise that it would be a good thing for us if one man should die for the sake of the people - instead of the whole nation being destroyed." (He did not make this remark on his own initiative but, since he was High Priest that year, he was in fact inspired to say that Jesus was going to die for the nation's sake - and in fact not for that nation only, but to bring together into one family all the children of God scattered throughout the world.) - John 11. 49 ff.
[Note: Brackets are part of the original translation by Phillips]

            The NT is very clear that Caiaphas’ words meant that one man should die for the sake of the people. But the NT also makes it equally clear that Caiaphas did not thus speak out of prudence or long-range insight but spoke those words by inspiration, because he was the High Priest that year. It was the Spirit of God who was speaking through Caiaphas in this instance.  The author fails to make this known to his readers.

The Resurrection A Ruse?

            The author has obviously taken the liberty to write out his own imaginations. But this will not do – no, not when you intend to write history. It would be alright to use wonderful imaginations in writing fiction, not history. Here’s another sample from the book from page 13,

Toward dawn two days later, something happened. That seems conclusive enough. But what? The guard fled, the stone was moved, and the body disappeared. How this occurred, the authorities simply did not adequately explain. Clearly, they said, his followers must have bribed the guard, somehow rolled away the great stone and stolen the corpse. The obvious solution – to produce the man’s body and have done with this nonsense – failed. The fact is, search though they certainly did, they couldn’t find it.

According to the author, something did happen – only he is unwilling to accept the united testimony of the NT writers that the Lord Jesus Christ was indeed raised from the dead on the third day after being crucified. The author more than once says that the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus was after ‘two days’. Why this insistence in putting it in this way? Of course when one says, “toward dawn two days later” it is obvious that the third day morning is meant. However, I do find this insistence on the part of the author rather peculiar, of not willing to say that it was on the third day after the crucifixion that the Lord arose; or for that matter – according to the author’s point of view – the body was missing. Be that as it may, the author is definitely opposed to the view that the Lord Jesus Christ indeed rose from the dead. Or is he trying to sow the seeds of doubt and contradiction in our minds as to the exact number of days the body of Jesus was in the tomb. After all, the Lord Himself more than once, and plainly affirmed, that He would be crucified and be buried and rise again from the dead after three days.

Roman Guards Ignoring their Duty!

The author agrees that the guards fled and that the stone was moved. However, he fails to ask the important question of why the guards should have fled? For a Roman soldier to either flee or abandon his post while on duty meant the death penalty. And therefore no Roman soldier would wish to be caught sleeping or being negligent while on duty. There is an interesting episode in Acts 16 (verses 26-29) that bears on our present discussion.  We read of a Philippian Jailer who was suddenly awakened out of his sleep because of an earthquake; and fearing the prisoners had escaped was about to kill himself, but didn’t do so because Paul called out to him from within the prison cell. The point is clear, if the prisoners had escaped, the Roman Jailer would pay for it with his own life. And yet, despite this terrible death penalty, we are supposed to believe that the Roman guards stationed at the tomb of Jesus fled on that particular Resurrection Sunday morning! And let’s remember we are here talking about more than a few fully armed Roman Soldiers – not ordinary weaklings. Besides, the tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ was ‘secured’ with a Roman Seal. For anyone to tamper with or break a Roman seal also meant the death penalty – crucifixion upside down! So who would even think of doing such a thing? And for what purpose would anyone want to break a Roman Seal and enter a dead man’s tomb, first thing in the morning? The disciples of the Lord Jesus were in the least frame of mind to venture out for such a deed. It is more than likely and probable that the disciples were fearful that they themselves would be the next ones to be apprehended and executed. Here’s how the Gospel writer John puts it,

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (John 20.19)

For the benefit of those who might wish to know how the verse reads in J.B. Phillips’ translation, which hopefully, the author would have consulted –

In the evening of that first day of the week, the disciples had met together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood right in the middle of them and said, “Peace be with you!”

It is clear that the disciples did not frighten the Roman guards stationed at the tomb of Jesus. No. The only reason the guards fled, and yes, they did flee in terror, was because of what the NT revels. Here are the words of Matthew,

In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.”– (Matthew 28. 1-7)

Again, for the benefit of those wishing to know how J B Phillips puts it,

When the Sabbath was over, just as the first day of the week was dawning Mary from Magdala and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. At that moment there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from Heaven, went forward and rolled back the stone and took his seat upon it. His appearance was dazzling like lightning and his clothes were white as snow. The guards shook with terror at the sight of him and collapsed like dead men. But the angel spoke to the women, “Do not be afraid. I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here—he is risen, just as he said he would. Come and look at the place where he was lying. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead. And, listen, he goes before you into Galilee! You will see him there! Now I have told you my message.”

Clearly, it was the appearance of the Angel from God, which appearance was frightening indeed, that the Roman guards fled from the tomb. Notice too that it was the Angel who rolled away the large stone that covered the entrance of the tomb.

Now that the Roman guards had abandoned their station, they were in danger of the death penalty, because they had failed to ‘guard’ the tomb. So what does the NT tell us as to what became of the guards? Matthew tells us,

Now when they (the women who had come to the tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ) were going, behold, some of the watch (the Roman Guards) came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day – (Matthew 28. 11-15)

J B Phillips reads,

And while they were on their way, some of the sentries went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. They got together with the elders, and after consultation gave the soldiers a considerable sum of money and told them, “Your story must be that his disciples came after dark, and stole him away while you were asleep. If by any chance this reaches the governor’s ears, we will put it right with him and see that you do not suffer for it.” So they took the money and obeyed their instructions. The story was spread and is current among the Jews to this day.

Clearly, the Roman guards knew what awaited them since they had fled the scene of their duty. However, the Jewish authorities appeased them and, having bribed the Roman Governor, made them secure – i.e. they ensured their safety.

Now to return to the author’s words – notice again not only his choice of words, but the order in which he states the facts. The author says,

The guard fled, the stone was moved, and the body disappeared. How this occurred, the authorities simply did not adequately explain.

The author obviously wants, or at least seems, to give the impression that it was only after the guards had fled the scene that the stone was moved. Besides, it would be more to the point to say that the stone was not merely moved, but rolled away (again, it could be argued that to be moved is technically correct as it was rolled away. However, the author’s choice of words again betrays his own impressions and ideas, at least those which he desires to convey as historical). The author then goes on to tell us that it was only after the guards had fled, and the stone then moved (rolled away) that the body disappeared. Disappea­red? Is he not implying that the dead body was all along still inside the tomb up until the time the Guards fled, and after the stone was moved? Obviously, according to the author the body was still in the tomb before the stone was moved. This is a most serious error.

The NT makes it clear that the Angel did not roll away the stone to allow the disciples (the women) to take away the body of the Lord. Nor did the Angel have to roll away the stone to let the Lord Jesus out of the tomb. No. The Lord Jesus Christ had bodily been resurrected even before the Angel could roll away the large stone. The Angel rolled away the large stone to let the women who had come to the tomb understand that the Lord had risen indeed. As is clear from the NT quotation above, the Angel rolled the large stone away because the women would not have been able by themselves to do.  It is also clear from the NT that the women had concerns about rolling away the large stone. Another Gospel writer Mark informs us that when the women were on their way to the tomb they did contemplate this issue –

they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? (Mark 16.3)

Back to the author’s words; he further writes,

How this occurred, the authorities simply did not adequately explain. Clearly, they said, his followers must have bribed the guard, somehow rolled away the great stone and stolen the corpse. The obvious solution – to produce the man’s body and have done with this nonsense – failed. The fact is, search though they certainly did, they couldn’t find it.

The authorities just referred to actually did not at all explain the how of these events, particularly the mystery (as they would consider it) of the missing body of the crucified man. Nevertheless, the author wishes to give the impression that they did explain; albeit an insufficient explanation. Again, from where does the author get this piece of evidence? Surely, here he is voicing his own opinion that they did do so. But let’s grant this.

However, the author is clearly in error when he says that the authorities themselves reported that the disciples bribed the guards. Moreover, the author asserts, without any reliable evidence, that they (the Jewish authorities) ‘searched’ for the body of the Lord Jesus. It is certain and clear that they did no such thing. And why would they search for the body, when all along they would have known the truth – the truth as was reported by the Roman guards themselves!

It is absurd on the part of the author to write any of these things. However, I’m sure he is forced to use his imagination as he obviously does not accept the NT record as accurate. And no wonder then, he has to put forward his own ideas and conjectures on how these events would have transpired.

… to be continued, the Lord willing