Category Archives: Musings

Let the Redeemed of the Lord Say What Exactly?

Some verses from the Bible are so embedded in our collective conscience that they take on a meaning of their own — often quite different from the meaning the original author intended.  And sometimes the solution to properly understanding a text is as simple as looking closely at the context.

Such is the case with Psalm 107:2 –

“Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, Whom He has redeemed from the hand of the adversary”

This is a favorite verse of preachers who are looking to garner feedback from the congregation.  The assumption is that this verse is a complete thought that serves as a directive to the redeemed to say that they are indeed redeemed.  Are you redeemed?  Yes?  Well then, say so!

But the simple fact is that even the most basic exegesis and contextual interpretation leads to a completely different — and more important — conclusion.  Here’s what the text actually says —

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good,
            For His lovingkindness is everlasting.

Let the redeemed of the LORD say so,
            Whom He has redeemed from the hand of the adversary

 And gathered from the lands,
            From the east and from the west,
            From the north and from the south.

  They wandered in the wilderness in a desert region;
            They did not find a way to an inhabited city.

     They were hungry and thirsty;
            Their soul fainted within them.

     Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble;
            He delivered them out of their distresses.

     He led them also by a straight way,
            To go to an inhabited city.

     Let them give thanks to the LORD for His lovingkindness,
            And for His wonders to the sons of men!  (Psalm 107:1-8)

So, based on the context, what exactly are the redeemed instructed to say?  That the Lord is good and that His lovingkindness is everlasting.

And what’s the evidence that this is true? He gathered His own — His redeemed — from from all corners of the world, delivering them from the hand of their enemy.

In the historic context, this has to do with God delivering Israel out of Egypt.  For 40 years they wandered in the wilderness, hungry and thirsty.  They cried to the Lord and He delivered them.  He led them to the Promised Land and ultimately to Jerusalem, the place where He placed His name.

So what is the proper reaction?  They should thank the Lord for His lovingkindness and for His wonders to the sons of men.  (That phrase is repeated in verses 15, 21, and 31.)

The Psalm concludes with these words —

Who is wise? Let him give heed to these things,
            And consider the lovingkindnesses of the LORD. (Psalm 107:43)

From start to finish, the theme of this Psalm is God’s goodness and  lovingkindness.  That’s what the redeemed of the Lord are supposed to announce.  This Psalm is not advancing a form of self-assurance or confident boasting in our redemption.  It is meant to be a reminder of the various ways that God delivered Israel.  He is to be glorified for His goodness and His merciful work.  The emphasis is on Him, not on the redeemed.  The redeemed’s only participation in this whole historical account of God’s redemptive work is to admit to His goodness.

And THAT’s what the redeemed are to “say so.”

A nice note of encouragement

The digital world never ceases to amaze me.  People I might otherwise never meet show up in my email and make my day.

IsraelologySo, a little background.  Arnold Fruchtenbaum is the author of a book that I found very helpful and encouraging.  The somewhat daunting title of his book is: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology.  According to the Ariel Ministries website, “This study was created from Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s landmark research for his doctoral thesis.”

What makes it so special?  Well, twenty years ago I was working to understand Israel’s place in God’s economy.  Israel permeates the Bible and the vast majority of the sacred text either refers directly to, or is influenced by, God’s promises to His chosen people, Israel.  I was tracing the “seed” promises at that time.  David Morris was encouraging me to write a book called “Seedology.”  It was this time of study and wrestling that eventually led to writing the book “Is the Church Israel?

Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s book landed in my lap at a providential moment and sewed together pieces I was wrestling to reconcile.  To be blunt, this is an area of study that is often lacking in general theology and especially in Reformed Theology. Hence, the title of his book.

What I especially appreciated in reading Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s material and listening to some of his lectures is that he approaches the New Testament from a Jewish perspective — you know, the way Jesus’ original followers would have.  And that perspective is missing in far too much of 21st Century Gentile teaching and preaching.  So, all in all, a very helpful book.

Cut to: three months ago.

I was culling through email, as I do pretty much every day — answering questions, steering folk toward resources, thanking people for their encouraging words — when I saw a return address that said “Arnold Fruchtenbaum.”

My first thought: No way.

But, sure enough.  It was a short note from the good doctor saying how much he enjoyed my book.  You could have knocked me over with a feather.  He said some very kind things and asked it I had any plans to publish it.  I told him that the book was free on our website as a pdf download (which I suppose would be the only format he could have read) and that we were working on a Kindle version.

Then I decided to be bold, since he had opened the door, and asked for a quote I could use to promote the book on Amazon.  It took a few months.  He’s a busy guy.  But this past week I received a very nice email and a quote he said I could use.  Coolness.  Absolute coolness.

So, I thought I’d share it with you all.  It’s not everyday that I get this sort of shot in the arm from someone I respect so highly.  Here’s what Dr. Fruchtenbaum wrote:

IsTheChurchIsrael_KindleCover“At a time when Replacement Theology is growing, at a time when more and more churches are turning against Israel, at a time when churches are losing interest in Jewish evangelism, Jim McClarty’s work makes an important contribution towards making believers understand God’s plan and program for Israel and provides valuable biblical tools to prove the church is not Israel, nor has the church taken over Israel’s covenantal promises and that God still intends to fulfill any promise He has made to Israel.” Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum.  President/Founder of Ariel Ministries.

I’ve added that endorsement to our Kindle page.  But, while we’re on the subject, allow me to remind you that we now have three books available on Amazon as Kindle downloads.  And you can get your copy of Is the Church Israel? via Amazon or via our website (under the “Read” link).

Thanks again to Dr. Fruchtenbaum for his kind words and for reaching out.

Arnold finished his email with this sign-off: “Yours for the salvation of Israel.”

I’m right there with you, brother.  I’m right there with you.

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.”  (Romans 10:1)

Contextualizing the Gospel to the Trendy Un-Churched

I’m just not a trendy guy.  I don’t like fashion trends, musical trends, or the latest trends in political correctness.  I especially don’t like church trends.  You know the type: whatever it takes to entertain the audience and bring them back.  PT Barnum had nothing on the current crop of trendy preachers.

I listen to sermons on a regular basis.  A friend asked that I watch some videos from a local preacher and offer some feedback.  He’s a young preacher (chronologically and experientially) and he’s leading a young, vibrant church, I was told.  Given the explosion of growth he was experiencing, I was curious to hear the sort of message he was propounding.

“Trendy” doesn’t start to describe it.  Because the congregation was filled with upwardly-mobile 20-somethings, the message was purposefully and specifically designed to appeal to their hipster sensibilities.  For instance, the apostles were referred to as “12 dudes” and Jesus was portrayed as a sort of life coach rather than the Lord of glory.  It was painful to watch.

A number of years ago, in an effort to draw a younger demographic, churches began offering an alternative form of church service, known as “contemporary worship.”  They traded their organs for electric guitars, skipped the robes in favor of blue jeans, and middle aged preachers spiked their hair and grew “soul patches” below their lower lip to show how hip and relevant they were.

Relevant.  That became the buzzword.  The church needed to make Jesus more relevant.  And that meant jettisoning the traditions of the church and embracing every movement, trend, novelty and “purpose driven” book/DVD/study guide that came down the pike.  The church became a marketplace for comedians, performance art, pop stars, and purveyors of psycho-babble.  And along the way, the gospel — the plain and simple recitation of the elements of Biblical truth and doctrine — fell by the wayside.

Yet, there was no sense of worry.  No panic.  After all, the seats were being filled and the coffers were growing fat.  In a word, it was “working.”  And the new buzzword became “contextualizing.”  For instance, when Mark Driscoll grew Mars Hill Church to megachurch status wearing Mickey Mouse shirts and biker chains, he said that he was “contextualizing” the message to the audience he was addressing.  Because it “worked,” others followed the model.  And a trend was born.

Driscoll claimed that his young, Seattle urbanite congregation was mostly “un-churched.”  That’s why he had to make church “relevant” to them.  And that brings us to the local guy I mentioned earlier.

He also claimed that his congregation was “un-churched.”  Hence, the various amusements and entertainments that accompanied his message. That’s why his message was sprinkled with language and story-telling conventions that weren’t found in the text, but which made the Bible more “approachable,” said he.

As I listened to him talk, I couldn’t avoid the impression that he thought the Bible, as written, was insufficient.  It had to be made more relevant to the listening audience.  It had to be “contextualized.”  It had to be accompanied by entertainment.  In short, it had to be improved.

Why?  Because the people to whom he was speaking were “un-churched.”

I’m a Bible guy.  I actually believe that the Word of God is sufficient to accomplish whatever God intends for it to accomplish.

"So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;  It will not return to Me empty,  without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)

It does not need to be watered down or made more relevant in order for the Almighty to do what He intends to do.  As Charles Spurgeon rather famously said, “The Word of God is like a lion. You don’t have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself.”

But here’s my point (and I do have one) — the Bible knows nothing of “un-churched” people.  I contend that the folk the trendy preachers are appealing to are not un-churched, they are un-saved.  And dumbing-down the Bible in order to make it relevant to the unsaved is utterly contrary to every Biblical example I can think of.  No prophet took that approach.  In fact, they so feared and revered God that they would always and only say whatever God instructed them to say.

But Balaam replied to Balak, “Did I not tell you, ‘Whatever the LORD speaks, that I must do’?” (Numbers 23:26)

Neither Jesus nor any of the apostles ever sugar-coated the message of judgment and salvation in order to appease the unbelievers. And, to my way of thinking, failing to preach the whole counsel of God, the way God Himself presented it, is a dereliction of duty.  It is a sure demonstration that the church has forgotten its purpose and calling.  The church exists for the proper care and feeding of the sheep, not for entertaining goats.

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

One last thing: Paul repeatedly called for unity in the church.  Genuine Christian unity is the result of sound doctrine.  Teaching the Bible is the only way to create unity within a congregation. If everyone believes differently, unity is impossible.  When the preacher demonstrates a low view of Scripture, or when he teaches by example that the Bible is flexible or is merely an outline on which we can hang our own opinions, that attitude will be reflected by the congregation.  And confusion ensues. Sound doctrine leads to healthy, grown-up Christianity.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-5)

Altering the gospel in order to make it more appealing to the unsaved is a fool’s errand. This is serious work we’re engaged in, not to be taken lightly.  And a proper reverence for God’s word is critical to the task.

Then again, I’m a less-than-trendy Bible guy who pastors a local non-mega congregation.

But, I’m happy to be that way.

Of Birds, Evolution, and Faith

I was watching a nature show on TV when they turned their attention to the black heron, a medium-sized African bird who is keen on fishing.  They showed video of the heron draping its wings forward, cape-like around its body, casting a shadow over the shallow bank of a pond.  Small fish gathered in the shadowy water, allowing the heron easier access to lunch.

The commentator said, “The heron has evolved this behavior and ability to create an umbrella with its wings in order to catch fish more effectively.”  Black heron

And that got me thinking.  We are told repeatedly that animal behavior is the result of evolution.  But, we should pause when we hear such things and ask ourselves whether that’s even logical.

Think with me …

What we’re being asked to believe is that an early ancestor of this bird was doing a bit of fishing and came to realize that fish preferred shadows to direct sunlight.  But there was very little he could do about it since his wings were built for flying rather than for shadow-casting.  Nevertheless, he held on to that bit of information and managed to share it with friends and progressive generations of herons after him.  As thousands of years passed, generation after generation of herons tried with all their might to bring their wings forward, block the sun, and attract their meal.  They were apparently not dissuaded by the fact that couldn’t do it and that this particular technique was of no immediate help to them. The plucky birds continued their attempts until, by mere force of will and determination, they changed their own genetic code.  Eventually, their wings grew wider and more flexible, allowing them to accomplish their long-awaited wing-wrapping behavior.  Amazing tenacity, you herons, you.

Now, before you’re put off by my approach, isn’t that exactly what the commentator meant by saying that the heron had “evolved this behavior and ability”?  Isn’t evolution something that happens gradually, over long stretches of time?  And isn’t all evolution driven by the need for food and the preservation of the species?  Well then, how did a bird who couldn’t do something know that it would be beneficial to do it?  And how did that knowledge change the genetic makeup of that particular type of bird?

Darwinian evolution tells us that behaviors and physical traits that do not benefit the survival of the species eventually fall away.  Survival of the fit, and all that.  The heron’s inability to cast a shadow with its wings would not have eventually produced the ability to do it.  It would have resulted in adaptation: the herons would have eaten something else or learned to fish with the abilities it had.  Either that, or die.

Where, I wondered, did those early herons get the idea that throwing a shadow on the water would be beneficial?  Careful observation?  Are birds really that logical?  And, if they couldn’t do anything about it, how were they capable of passing that information along, generation after generation for thousands of years, until one day one young heron was able to do it?  And since his newfound ability would have been a mutation, how was it passed along to all herons so that they could all benefit from this unique fishing experience?

Now, here’s my point.  When we say that we believe in a Creator, we are often chided and belittled for our naiveté.  Belief in such a Being is said to be based in faith, not in fact.  But, when we’re told about vision-casting, supremely logical, prescient, genetically self-altering birds …. that’s science.

In response, someone will counter, “Natural selection!”  But, natural selection is not a thing.  It’s not a force.  It’s a phrase.  If it IS a thing, if it IS driving all life forward and directing the herons to eventually learn how to fish better, then it’s a creative force akin to the God spoken of in the Bible.  “Natural selection” is really just the evolutionist’s version of a creator.

So, the evolutionist spins around in a quasi-scientific Catch-22.  Evolution cannot explain things like the eyeball.  Only a complex, working eyeball produces sight.  But we’re asked to believe that non-sighted animals somehow understood what sight was and that it would be beneficial in hunting and finding a mate.  So, the eyeball evolved, despite the fact that every early stage of development would not have produced any sight at all.  Nevertheless, “natural selection” kept developing eyeballs until one day sight occurred.  And the seeing animal was so excited, he managed to pass that ability along.

OR — eyes exist because God decided they would and He knew what He was doing.

I find that much easier to believe than the alternative.

Thank you, herons, for a valuable object lesson.

Daily Assurance

I woke up this morning with the phrase “daily assurance” rolling around in my noggin.  Perhaps it’s an echo of what we taught Sunday morning about asking our Father for daily bread.  We don’t get to ask for tomorrow’s provision, only today’s.  In the same way, God provides us with daily confidence and assurance that He is present, mindful, and involved in the events of our lives.

Jesus instructed, “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Matt. 6:34)  There is tremendous wisdom in that.  As my old professor used to say, no one ever had a nervous breakdown worrying about today.    But we’re anxious over tomorrow, next week, a month from now.  So we should remember the phrase, “Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.”

The prophet Jeremiah wrote the book of Lamentations.  And he knew what he was talking about.  He had a rough go of it; nearly forty years of telling the truth and not a single recorded convert.  In chapter 3, after penning a litany of afflictions, Jeremiah turns his eyes to the only refuge available.  And it’s in that context — the list of woes and troubles — that Jeremiah provides the title of the hymn “Great is Thy Faithfulness.”

This I recall to my mind,
            Therefore I have hope. The Lord's lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail.  They are new every morning;  Great is Your faithfulness.  “The Lord is my portion,” says my soul, “Therefore I have hope in Him.” (Lamentations 3: 21-24)

I have been known to half-jokingly warn: Cheer up, saints, it’s going to get worse.  But not this morning.  Rather, cheer up, saints, because our God is good and His mercy is new in this cycle of the earth’s rotation.  The same God who keeps the universe spinning promises that He will provide the mercy necessary to sustain you, forgive you, and comfort you.

And I know me.  Before this day is out, I will be utterly dependent on that mercy.  I am grateful that it is renewed daily.  That knowledge refreshes my soul.

Three Days and Three Nights

Resurrection Sunday is next month.  April 20, to be exact.  And the world will once again turn some amount of attention to the historic account of Jesus rising from the dead and the various traditions and assumptions that have grown up around that event.  It’s also a time for debate, denial, and criticism of all things Christian on the part of the media, atheist groups, and other religions.

I contend that the resurrection of Christ is a historic fact, based on evidence and eyewitness testimony that stand the test of scrutiny and courtroom-level examination (as Simon Greenleaf demonstrated in his 1874 book The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. )

I also hold to the Wednesday to Saturday, three day/three night scheme as opposed to the traditional assumption that Jesus died on a Friday and rose Sunday morning.  You can download a free pdf timeline and Word file chart that lays out the events that the Bible says took place between His death and resurrection on our website.  Here are the direct links:

Passion Week Timeline Chart

Passion Week Word Document Chart

Well, I wrote all that as background to the email exchange that follows.  One of our friends in India — a barrister who has been building a Christian lending library, who is also responsible for our book By Grace Alone being translated into Telugu — was recently debating the validity of the gospel accounts of the resurrection with local Muslims.  As is typical of their debating style, the Muslim apologists were attempting to add doubt and confusion to the biblical narrative, particularly as concerns the timing of the death, burial, and resurrection.  So, given the time of year, and knowing that other folk may have wrestled with these things, I thought I’d share our exchange here on the blog.

It began like this:

Dear brother in Christ,

Greetings in the precious name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I am experiencing the Lord's love and care without ceasing, and I hope the same with you and the church there.

I have not been able to keep in touch with you as frequently as before, but you are always on my mind, and I have in fact been largely promoting your book "By Grace Alone" which I had translated in Telugu, and I am sure it is a great blessing to many. May the Lord richly bless you for that great contribution to His Church.

I am writing now to request for your urgent intervention to solve a huge dilemma that I was recently confronted with. You are perhaps aware that I have been holding on to the "Wednesday Crucifixion"  scheme as you do as well. I have taught this in many places and have been able to convince many about it. But of late, I have been trying to reconcile this theory with certain facts of Scripture, without which the position on "Wednesday Crucifixion  would not be tenable. They are as follows:

1. Mark 16:9 clearly states that Jesus was risen on the first day of the week which is Sunday. If the burial was on Wednesday evening as we argue, He was risen on the fourth day, which would plainly conflict with Matthew 16:21 and such other places which teach that He was to rise on the "Third day".

2. The two disciples who communed with Jesus on the very day of His resurrection, as they walked along on the road to Emmaus expressly say, "Today is the third day since these things were done", which they of course said referring to the crucifixion  This could not be said on a Sunday, about an event which happened on a Wednesday. In other words, if Jesus spent a literal "three days and three nights" period in the heart of the earth, the following period since his resurrection must be the fourth day, which is surely a difficulty to be reconciled with the "third day" resurrection.

I humbly seek your urgent help to solve this issue, because this subject is an essential part of a rebuttal I am presenting against a Muslim in our state on the 6th of March. You are aware that the sign of Jonah is their favorite argument against the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and they insist for explanation as to how Jesus was "Three days and three nights" in the heart of the earth.

Will await your kind response at the earliest.

Yours in Christ,

G.

Hello Brother ,

Before we get into the details of your question, I would just like to say how happy I am to hear from you again.  I trust that you and your household are well and thriving in His grace.  I am glad to read that you are continuing your evangelistic efforts and your defense of the gospel of God’s free and sovereign grace.  And I am glad that the book you translated continues to be distributed and read.  I thank God for His blessing and wonderful providence.

The argument concerning the exact period of time that Jesus was in the grave is a common tack for Muslims.  I hear it here in America often.  They think that it is a much stronger point than it actually is.  The phrases “three days and three nights” and “on the third day” can be harmonized quite easily by paying attention to the larger biblical context.

But, let me start by pointing out that none of Jesus’ contemporaries, nor his many critics among the Jews, made this argument.  That’s an important historic reality.  If Jesus had said publicly that He would be in the grave for three days and three nights, and then His disciples claimed that He rose in anything less than that, His critics would have pounced on that discrepancy as proof that He was a liar and a charlatan.  Yet, we find nothing of this argument in the annuls of history.  Why?  Because the discrepancy does not exist.  This an argument based on anachronistic understandings of ancient idiomatic phraseology.

The phrases “three days and three nights” and “the third day” are used interchangeably in the New Testament.  And, since that’s true, they must mean essentially the same thing.  The advocates of the Friday to Sunday scenario recognize this linguistic fact and use to explain how Jesus could fulfill three days and three nights in the time period between Friday evening and Sunday morning.  But, this fact equally supports the Wednesday to Saturday Evening scenario since it allows that every time Jesus (and the NT writers) used the phrase “the third day” they were saying the same thing as “three days and three nights.”

Let’s look at the Biblical evidence. Here is a good example of how the Jews counted days, based on an Old Testament account of an Egyptian slave:

1Samuel 30:12-13 — And they gave him a piece of fig cake and two clusters of raisins, and he ate; then his spirit revived. For he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights. And David said to him, “To whom do you belong? And where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man of Egypt, a servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind when I fell sick three days ago.”

In the space of two verses, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days ago” are juxtaposed against each other.  So, let’s pick a day for this meeting.  Let’s say it happened on a Saturday.  Then, Friday would be yesterday.  Thursday would be the day before yesterday.  And Wednesday would be “three days ago.”  That would also be exactly three days and three nights — Wednesday to Thursday, Thursday to Friday, Friday to Saturday.

The same thing occurs in Matthew 27:63-64 — (The Pharisees speaking to Pilate said) “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After (Gr. meta) three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until (Gr. heos) the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 

The Pharisees quoted Jesus as saying that He would rise again after three days.  (The Greek word “meta” means “after.”)  Yet, they asked for a guard “until the third day.”  Well, if they released the guard on that third day and Jesus rose after the third day, then they have accomplished nothing.  What’s the solution?  The two phrases mean the same thing.  They are interchangeable.  “Until the third day” means the same thing as “after three days.”

Also – and this is an important point – the time indicator “after” (the Greek “meta”) is in the original Greek text.  The reason that is important is that the prepositions “in” or “on” the third day do not exist in the original text.  They are added by the translators for readability.  Most references to “in the third day” or “on the third day” only say “the third day” in the Greek text.  So, when the NT writers indicated that He would rise “after” three days, that was a definite time indication. But, they do not say that He rose “in” or “on” the third day.  They merely say that He rose “the third day.”  And, as I have demonstrated, those two phrases are used by the NT writers as meaning the same thing.

Here is another Old Testament example:

Esther 4:16 says, “Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king,

But, Esther 5:1 says, “Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace.

So, the Jews understood that the phrase “the third day” was equal to “three days, night or day.”  In other words, they did indeed fast for three days, night and day.  That’s a specific time indication.  But, Esther appeared before the king “the third day,” which can only mean that the three days and nights of fasting had been completed.

Now let’s look at some parallel passages to really drive this point home.  These three verses are describing the same event.  But, notice how the three synoptic gospel writers describe the crucifixion/resurrection timeline. These verses are quoted from the New American Standard Version of the Bible, but every respected translation follows this pattern, because the Greek text is clear:

Mark 8:31 – And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after (meta) three days rise again.

Matthew 16:21 – From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up (on) the third day.

Luke 9:22 – saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up (on) the third day.”

Matthew and Luke employ the phrase “the third day” (remember, the preposition “on” is not in the Greek text).  But, Mark recounts the exact same saying of Jesus by using the phrase “after three days” (and the Greek word “meta” IS in the Greek text).

So, despite how awkward it may sound to an English-speaker living in the 21st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring “the third day,” “after three days,” or after “three days and three nights,” yet still be referring to the same exact period of time.

But, that fact does not necessarily prove either side of the argument; neither the Wednesday to Saturday nor the Friday to Sunday scheme is established by that bit of linguistic detail.  So, we have to appeal to the authority on the topic.  Jesus Himself said, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9).   So, I contend that He was in the grave at least 72 actual hours and the phrase “the third day” is simply a euphemism for the completion of that time period. That’s also how the Pharisees under Him in  Matthew 27:63.  And only the Wednesday to Saturday scenario allows for everything that the Bible recounts as happening between His death and resurrection.

As for your second concern, the question of whether Jesus was in the grave three days exactly or also some part of the fourth is a typical Muslim argument.  We know that He arose on the first day of the week, but we are not told exactly when that occurred.  It could have been anytime after Saturday afternoon/evening, as the new day was beginning.  Any argument that claims otherwise is arguing from silence.  All we know is that when the women arrived at the tomb, toward the dawning of the first day of the week, while it was still dark, the grave was empty.  The angel said that Jesus had already left and would see them in Galilee.  So, as long as He arose sometime after Saturday afternoon, at least 72 hours after his interment, He told the truth about His three days and three nights “in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40).  But the exact hour of His resurrection, we simply don’t know.

These arguments are typical Muslim constructs that are designed to create doubt — not actually prove anything.  They have no evidence for their contentions outside of forced readings of the text and assertions of contradictions that no early critics of the Bible even mentioned.  Remember that the early church had much more at stake in this enterprise than we do.  They were laying down their lives to preach this gospel.  Their critics were fierce and many.  Yet, none of the critics made the arguments that the Muslims are so keen on.  If the eyewitnesses and people intimately connected with the actual events did not raise these objections, then bringing them up 2000 years later does very little undermine the validity of the Bible.

I hope that helps a bit.

Grace, peace, and all good things,

Jim Mc.

Dear brother,

I am extremely grateful for taking pains to explain and clarify my doubt. The observations you have made on the "Third Day" are very helpful indeed. 

However, in the context of the Saturday resurrection argument, I still see the need to explain Mark 16:9, which unlike Matthew 28:1 does not simply state that the women discovered the empty tomb on the "First Day" of the week, but that He actually arose on the "First Day" of the week. So unless I am troubling you too frequently, I would seek for an explanation with specific reference to Mark 16:9. Please also uphold the ministry here in your prayers. Thank you once again for your ongoing help and encouragement.

Yours In His Service,

G.

Hello again brother,

You are never troubling me and I’m happy to discuss this with you.

There is no question that the Bible says that Jesus rose on the first day of the week.  What the Muslim and the critic are doing is creating a difficulty where none actually exists.  They are arguing that Jesus was in the grave too long; Wednesday afternoon to Saturday night/Sunday morning is more than 72 hours.  But, nothing in the Bible requires Jesus to rise from the grave exactly 72 hours after He was placed there.  He did have to stay in the grave at least 72 hours.  That’s the point of His statement, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”  But, in order to satisfy Jewish teaching and tradition, He had to be dead for at least three days before coming to life again if it was going to be a truly miraculous demonstration.

By the time of Jesus, Jewish custom and rabbinic tradition held that a person was not truly, genuinely dead until after three days.  That’s why Jesus stayed away from the tomb of Lazarus for three days.  Had He raised Lazarus sooner, people would have assumed that Lazarus was not truly dead, but merely swooned.  Once Jesus arrived at the tomb, “He found that he had already been in the tomb four days.” (John 11:17)  In fact, Lazarus was decaying and his own sister said he was stinking because he’d been dead for four days (v. 39).  And this was all in keeping with Jewish traditions concerning death.

The Midrash Rabbah (rabbinic teaching on the Tanakh) says this, based on the teaching derived from Job 14:22 —

“Bar Kappara taught: Until three days (after death) the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back (into the body); but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it.”  

In other words, Hebrew tradition was that it took three days for decay to set in after death.  At that point, the soul abandoned the body and the person was truly dead.  That’s why visiting the tomb of Lazarus after four days seemed repulsive; decay had set in and the body stank.

The Jews had a similar legal principle when it came to identifying a body.  A person could only identify a dead person during the first three days, while the “countenance” of the corpse was intact.  The law testified —

“You cannot testify to (the identity of a corpse) save by the facial features together with the nose, even if there are marks of identification in his body and garments: again, you can testify only within three days [of death].” -Mishnah, Yebamot 16:3a-e. 

 In the Midrash, these two ideas were also linked —

 “For three days (after death) the soul hovers over the body, intending to re-enter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs, as it is written (Job 14:22), ‘When his flesh that is on him is distorted, his soul will mourn over him.’ Bar Kappara said: The full force of mourning lasts for three days. Why? Because the shape of the face is recognizable, even as we have learnt in the Mishnah: Evidence is admissible only in respect of the full face, with the nose, and only within three days (after death).”

Confirming this belief is a passage in the Semahot (a treatise on mourning), which says —

“One may go out to the cemetery for three days to inspect the dead for a sign of life, without fear that this smacks of heathen practice. For it happened that a man was inspected after three days, and he went on to live twenty-five years; still another went on to have five children and died later.”

So, Jewish tradition was that a soul could reunite with its body within three days, but no more.  Once the soul realized that the body was decaying or rotting, it left for good.  That happened somewhere in the area of the third day.  That being the case, a resurrection after that time period was truly miraculous.  If the soul had actually departed and then returned to an otherwise rotting corpse, this was not a mere resuscitation.  It was genuine evidence that a completely dead man came back to life — like Lazarus or Jesus.

But, the point is this:  Jesus did not have to raise at exactly 72 hours. But He did have to be dead at least that long in order to be truly dead.

  • He had to die on Passover, which He did.
  • He had to be in the grave as the Feast of Unleavened Bread began, which He did.
  • He had to rise on the first day of the week, since that was the Feast of Firstfruits, which He did.
  • And He had to fulfill the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, which He did.

He could have risen at any point after Saturday afternoon and fulfilled everything that was required.  If He was in the tomb for 75 hours or 78 hours, it makes no difference and is of no consequence.  He has still fulfilled everything that was necessary to prove Himself the long-awaited Messiah.

Anyone who attempts to make an argument out of the Wednesday to Saturday scenario based on Him being in the tomb longer than three days and three nights is missing the point.

Our Lord is faithful.  And He has proven His Himself as the fulfillment of prophecy and Scripture concerning the Christ.  The Muslims are without merit when they attempt to undermine the evidence.

Grace and peace,

Jim Mc.

So long, Dude.

Growing up, I was always a dog guy.  Our family had several dogs, but never cats.  I remember being bit on the ear by a cat when we lived in Dallas.  I was maybe 8.  So, I never liked cats.  Mean critters.  Bitey.  Noisy.  Unfriendly.  And they use their claws in ways that dogs simply don’t.  I prefer dogs.

Or, at least I did.  In my early 30’s, I got married.  And with the woman came cats.  It was like a package deal.  And, in my desire to please the woman, I learned to live with felines.  Over time, while I never officially became a “cat person,” I did discover that some cats made good pets.  But, some cats — not many , but some — can be good companions and beloved members of the family.

017_DR

Some 20 years ago, when the kids were in daycare for a couple hours a day, a neighbor was giving away kittens and was down to the runt of the litter.  No one was interested in him.  He was unhealthy, tiny (with huge ears that made him look like a bat), and had no tail.  The kids brought him home and I was, once again, talked into allowing another creature to join the household.  For the next 20 years, that little tailless fellow became a fixture in the McClarty home.

Originally, James named the new kitten Hobbes (after Calvin and Hobbes).  But, we rarely called him by his name.  Early on, he became “Dude.”  As in, “Dude, get down.”  Or, “What, dude?”  The name fit him.  As he grew in size and strength, he strutted around, chest out, scrapping with the other cats, and basically ruling the roost.  You know … dude behavior.

Other cats, dogs, birds, rabbits, a goat, and a chinchilla came and went in the interim.  But, there was always Dude.  In fact, in my darkest days, when the house was empty and I was at my worst, Dude followed me, room by room, checking on me and making sure I knew that he was available if I needed someone to pet.  We became old men together.  I used to tell people that Dude was basically “me in a cat suit.”

DudeThe last few months have been tough for old Dude.  He’s been losing weight.  This morning he was skin and bones.  He weighed less than five pounds and really came closer to three.  He’s been crying a lot, expressing his pain.  Being a manx, his hips have always bothered him.  He stopped eating.  He was withering away.  A few nights ago, after the kids were in bed and the house was still, I sat with him for a while.  I looked him in the eye and waited for some sign that he was ready to go.

Well, this morning I picked him up and put him on the sink counter — his favorite place to drink.  He could no longer jump or climb.  He had taken to sleeping on the floor since he could no longer make it up onto the bed.  He shivered at night because there was no more meat on his bones.  In the mornings I’d find him doing his best to cuddle into any old clothes I’d left lying around.  So anyway, I put him on the counter and showed him the water.  His eyes have been getting cloudy, so he wouldn’t drink unless I swished the water and proved to him that there actually was something there.  He put one paw in the water.  Then he withdrew.  He just stared at me.  He was done.  I cupped his sunken head in my palm and said, “I know.”

Today we said good-bye to Dude.  It was a peaceful, graceful process.  We wrapped him in a towel and took him to the vet.  He was always fidgety when he was held.  But not now.  He settled into Megan’s arms and rested quietly.  The vet said it was standard procedure to give the animal a mild sedative so that they don’t struggle when the needle is introduced into a vein in their hind leg.  She gave Dude the sedative.  I held his head and stared into his eyes.  His organs began shutting down, one by one.  I watched him drift away. When the vet returned to stop his heart, he was already dying.  She commented, “That was such a light sedative.  He was ready to go.  It was time.”

The vet claimed that animals tell you when it’s time.  You can see it in their eyes, she said.  I believe her.  I saw it in Dude’s eyes the other night. He was tired of the pain, the struggle, the cold.  He had run his course.  20 years is a good run for a cat.  But, he was out of steam.

As soon as she began to push the plunger, Dude succumbed.  It was instantaneous.  No struggle.  No fight.  Just quiet.  Just sleep.  Just life ending.

Sleeping DudeSo long, Dude.  Thanks for being a part of the family.  Thanks for making my kids laugh when you ran in circles chasing the laser pointer.  Thanks for keeping me company when I felt the most abandoned.  Thanks for … well, for being a dude.  You can’t do any better than that.

Elder Ward’s Ordination Note

I was in my bedroom clicking away on my MacBook Pro, my back to my daughter, as she perused the various volumes on my bookshelf.  After a moment, I heard her lightly sobbing.  I turned to find her holding a small book that harkened back to my ordination in 2000.

Ordination Book I asked, “What are you reading?”

She sniffled, “Elder Ward.”

“Oh, you found his note in my book?”  She nodded and read the last two sentences out loud.  Then we were both teary eyed.

Elder loved my daughter.  I remember once, as we entered his office, how he rose from his chair and approached me with wide open arms.  At the last moment, he ducked me and hugged my daughter.

He laughed as I said, “I get it.  Given a choice between her and me, I’d pick her every time.”

Megan and Elder Ward

I hadn’t read Elder’s words in years.  I realized that I hadn’t read them since his home-going in 2007.  So that made his private words to me all the more precious.  And now I am sharing them with you.

(The text of his note is written out after the image.)

 

 

Elder Ward Ordination Note

Elder’s note says:

Dear Jim,

Beloved of God and dearly loved by me. I will pray for you all the days of my life. Preach, teach, love — love, teach, preach and when you have done that, do it more. I need not tell you, but contend for “the faith.”

Count “IT” all as joy.  He who is for you is more than all the world against you. Be a Preacher, be assured God will be God.

Buy the truth and sell it not. I pray our paths will cross in this world many time(s). Never forget, you have a brother in Lexington, Ky. If when you hear I have closed my eyes in death, know one left praying for you.  It will be my joy to see you around the throne of God when all the saints get home.

Waiting Until He Comes,

DJ Ward

_____________________

It’s good to have friends like that.

And I miss him every day.

 

Goodbye 2013

Today, as I type this, it’s December 30, 2013.  The Internet is currently littered with articles and blog posts recounting the highlights and “worst of …” events of the past year.  It’s a time for reflection and looking forward.  Depending on your worldview, the future may look bleak, or so bright you gotta’ wear shades.  But, one theme that seems to ring loudly at the end of each calendar year is the tendency to give voice to our regrets.  Being human, it’s hard to ruminate over our lives without feeling the pangs of our fallen condition and the reverberations of our mistakes.

So, as we stare 2014 in the face, please allow me to offer a bit of Christian perspective.

I don’t know where the quote originated, but I like the phrase, “No one will ever get well until they give up their dream of having a perfect past.”  Folk are often haunted by their past.  We live with the current results of the choices and behaviors of our bygone days and there’s not a person alive who wouldn’t like to go back and fix something they messed up. But it’s unchangeable.  It’s set in stone and remains exactly what it is.  No amount of grieving or regretting can alter what has already occurred.

So, what should we do?  Too often people think that they can atone for their past mistakes by feeling really bad about them.  I’ve had people tell me that they don’t deserve to be happy because of errant decisions they made at some point in the past.  But, is that even effective?  Obviously not.  No amount of feeling lousy on their part can change the reality of what has already been.

The simple reality is that we cannot fix ourselves.  It is our intrinsic inability that got us into this mess in the first place.  Only unmitigated ego assumes that a broken person can fix his own broken condition.  And that realization, despite being a tad frightening, is a very good place to be.  Because this is where Christianity shines most brightly.

Christianity begins with the realization that we are incapable of saving ourselves from ourselves.  After all, if we cannot solve our own problem, then the solution must exist somewhere outside of ourselves.  That’s the very essence of what repentance is.  It is turning from our way of thinking and behaving, taking sides with God against ourselves, and admitting our utter dependence on Him.

But, equally and wonderfully, Christianity also offers the only full and complete cure for our lousy histories: a clean slate.  The salvation that Christ accomplished not only paid our sin debt, it cast our history of rebellion and stupidity “as far as the east is from the west.” (Psalm 103:12)

Or, as Micah put it —

“Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.  He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea.” (Mic. 7:18-19)

Or, as the writer of Hebrews states —

“For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Heb. 8:12)

So, here’s my point (and I do have one).  Why are you making yourself sick by hanging onto the things that God has forgotten?  Why are you punishing yourself over things that Christ has already been punished for?  Why are you clinging to your hurtful past when it has been effectively erased, removed, and atoned for?

In Christ, we are new creatures.  We have experienced a new birth, from above. Old things are passed away. (2Cor. 5:17)  So, it’s okay to be happy.  In fact, it’s okay to be joyous.  Celebrate the fact that, despite your efforts to condemn yourself, God’s plan and design kept you from your self-destruction and saved you from His judgment.  And that’s a pretty good reason to be happy and grateful.

You see, the answer to everything that’s wrong with us does not reside within our flesh, our strength, our wills, our intelligence, or our abilities.  The answer is Christ and Him alone.  But, He’s a complete answer, a fully-effective cure, and a sufficient present to erase our past.

So, here comes 2014.  Bring it on.  May the new year be full of blessings and good news.  But, if it’s not, it’s good to know that we are in the hands of a sovereign who does everything for His greatest glory and our greatest good.  And that means, despite whatever circumstances may come, we will end up exactly where He has determined to take us … safe, sound, whole, forgiven, and well.

I’ll see you in the new year.