“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
Why did Jesus only appear only to certain people after his resurrection? And why did he only walk on the earth for "forty days" (Acts 1:2-3) before he was "lifted up" into heaven (Acts 1:9-11)? Luke, like any good historian, was very careful to "investigate" and record these details in both of his accounts to the “most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:1-4; Act. 1:1-2). These details are not without their significance.
First let’s tackle the “forty days” question. We see the number 40 cropping up all over Scripture. The number 40 is not entirely symbolic but we often see that it represents a division in epochs of time. The earth was flooded for "forty days and forty nights" (Gen. 7:4); the spies explored the land of promise for "forty days" (Num. 13:25); the Israelites wandered the land for "forty years" (Num. 32:13), representing a generation (Psa. 95:10); the life of Moses is divided into three forty-year periods (Acts 7:23,30,36); several Israelite leaders ruled for "forty years," like Eli (1 Sam. 4:18), Saul (Acts 13:21), David (2 Sam. 5:4) and Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:42); Goliath challenged the Israelites twice a day for "forty days" (1 Sam. 17:16); Moses spent three consecutive periods of "forty days and forty nights" on Mount Sinai (Deut. 9:11, 25; 10:10); and before his temptation and his public ministry, Jesus fasted for "forty days and forty nights" (Mt. 4:2).
We see the number forty not just representing symbolic periods of time but also measuring other things like a “mikvah,” a collection of forty se’ah of water (about 200 gallons) for ritual cleansing (Lev. 15), and forty lashes being the limit of punishment administered by the Jews in the first century (2 Cor. 11:24).
This brings us to Acts 1:3. Jesus "presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God." By appearing very much alive and with "many proofs" for a forty-day period, Jesus was beginning a new epoch of human history: the age of his rule. In the very next chapter his disciples opened the gates of the kingdom of God to all who would believe and turn to the Lord (Acts 2:38; cf. Joel 2:28-32). This forty-day interim period equipped the "witnesses" (Acts 1:8) of the resurrected Jesus to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19).
By appearing alive for a period of forty days, Jesus facilitated the transition of human history into the age of new creation, new covenant and new life. In the past, prophets could only inquire of this mysterious age and angels longed to catch a glimpse of it (1 Pet. 1:10-12). Finally, after that forty-day period, the mystery that was once hidden was revealed in the revealing light of Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
But while Jesus was still on earth for that forty-day period, why did he only appear to a select few people? All evidence within Scripture points to the fact that Jesus only appeared to believers after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Paul pointed this out as a proof of the general resurrection to the Corinthian church, stating that most of the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus were "still alive" at the time of his writing (1 Cor. 15:6). This meant they could be contacted to verify the legitimacy of Jesus’ life after death. But in the summary list Paul gives in verses 5-8 only believers saw Jesus alive from the dead ("brothers" in v.6). While it is entirely possible he appeared to nonbelievers nothing is said of this in Scripture.
This brings up an interesting "what if?" and "why not?" scenario. When Jesus was "declared the Son of God... by his resurrection," (Rom. 1:4) why didn’t he go up to Pilate and say, “Hey, remember Me? The ‘King of the Jews’?” Why not, after being vindicated in the resurrection, pay a visit to the houses of the guards who drove the nails in his hands or who gambled for his garment? Why not go straight to the temple and look the Pharisees and Scribes in the eye? Or to the Sanhedrin, to Caiaphas, the high priest, and Annas? Wouldn’t that prove once for all that they were wrong about him? Wouldn’t witnessing the risen Jesus transform their stone-cold hearts and turn them back to the Father?
Sadly, no. In fact, Jesus told a story that said as much (Lk. 16:19-31). The plea was, "if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!" And the lesson was, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Lk. 16:30-31).
God never does things the way we would do them but he always has a good reason for doing things his way (Isa. 55:8-9). God saves people by the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17). The "word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18ff). It pleases God to save people by preaching a message that only the humble can receive. The wise of this world will stumble over it and reject it. The gospel has the power to save but it also has the double-edged effect of condemning those who reject it (cf. Heb. 4:12). Indeed, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
"Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?"
(1 Corinthians 14:16)
The word "amen" (Greek: αμεν) is a fascinating word. You would be hard pressed to find anyone on earth unfamiliar with it. But what does "amen" mean? Is it a ritualistic way to validate our prayers? Or is it merely a way of signing off and telling God, "Okay, my prayer is over now"? Let's take a quick tour through the Bible to find out.
First off, it's helpful to note that the word "amen" was transliterated (instead of translated) directly from the Hebrew into the Greek New Testament. Transliteration is the conversion of a text from one language to another where the original word is copied phonetically, as opposed to translation, where a new word is provided that best fits the original word's meaning. "Amen" continued to be transliterated into Latin and straight into English and many other translations. This means that "amen," unlike most other words, has remained virtually unmolested through the ages to become a practically universal word. It has been called "the best known word in human speech."
The Greek word for "amen" is almost identical to the Hebrew verb "to believe" ('aman), or to confirm or be faithful (Gen. 15:6). Thus, "amen" came to mean "sure" or "truly," an expression of absolute trust and confidence. Therefore, when "amen" is used before a discourse it is testifying to the trustworthiness of what is about to be said. For example, when Jesus said, "For truly, (lit. "amen") I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (Mt. 5:18) he was testifying to the absolute truthfulness of his declaration.
When the word is used at the end of a discourse it is an affirmation of what has been said. This is generally how we use it today. In this case, "amen" means "so it is," "so be it" or "may it be fulfilled." It was a custom in the synagogues to voice the "amen" in response to a prayer or the reading of holy Scriptire that was passed on to Christian assemblies (1 Cor. 14:13-16). When the "amen" is voiced after a prayer, a reading of Scripture, a lesson from the Word, or a prophecy, the offerors made the substance of what was said their own. By way of verbal affirmation, the congregants joined themselves to what was said. One man could voice a prayer, but when the group offered up their collective "amen," God received it from all.
But "amen" is not some magic mantra that ensures God's acceptance of our communication. It is a reminder to us who utter it that the message must be brought into conformity with God's will. "Amen" is a direct reference to Jesus, who taught us to pray, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Mt. 6:10). Jesus modeled his life after submission to his Father's will. His prayer in Gethsemane ended with, "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done" (Lk. 22:42; cf. Jn. 4:34; 8:29). This humble attitude of surrender drove Jesus to endure the shame of the cross, to experience death itself and, through death, eternal life and glory (Phil. 2:5-11). Thus, Jesus himself is the ultimate "Amen" whose life is in perfect agreement with God's will. Indeed, this is how he refers to himself to the church at Laodicea, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness" (Rev. 3:14; cf. 1 Cor. 1:20).
The apostle Paul made this same point to the Corinthians. He had made plans to visit them (1 Cor. 4:19) but his plans didn't work out (2 Cor. 1:12-16). He truly meant to visit them but decided it was in their best interest to wait, giving them time to get their act together and repent (2 Cor. 1:23-24). Sadly, Paul's enemies used this against him to say he couldn't be trusted so he was put in the delicate position of defending his integrity to a group of Christians who owed him their spiritual life! He rejected the idea that he was the kind of person who would say "Yes" and mean "No" because he modeled his life after Jesus, God's ultimate "Yes and Amen."
"...I wanted to come to you first, so that you might have a second experience of grace. I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and to come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me on my way to Judea. Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” at the same time? As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." (2 Corinthians 1:15-22)
There was no duplicity in Paul's heart, his word or the message he preached because he modeled his life after Christ, God's "Amen" whose name is "Faithful and True" (Rev. 19:11) and who embodies "The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13; Jn. 1:1-2, 14). All of God's promises in the Old Testament find their "Yes" or fulfillment in Jesus (Lk. 24:44). Jesus is God's final, definitive proof that he is faithful to keep his promises (Jn. 14:6; 16:13). The gist of Paul's argument is this: "If the promises of God find their certainty in Jesus, then you can rely on me as his chosen apostle and on the message he has commissioned me to preach."
Following Christ means living "amen" lives. We must be people committed to keeping our word (Mt. 5:33-37). We must not "boast in [our] arrogance" but instead pray, "if the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that" (Jas. 4:15). We should also have confidence that God will hear and answer our prayers when "we ask anything according to his will" (1 Jn. 5:14). The next time you voice the "amen" understand it is not a mere formality to be observed but a solemn affirmation of your agreement. The "amen" is a reminder of our Savior, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness," and how every aspect of our lives must come under his gracious rule. Are you living an "amen" life?
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount he teaches us about the true righteousness of the kingdom, a righteousness that "exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" (Mt. 5:20). This would have been surprising to the early disciples because the scribes and Pharisees were known for their strict obedience to God's law. They calculated that the Law contains 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions and they aspired to live by them all. And yet, Jesus says, their righteousness disqualified them from participation in the kingdom. Why wasn't their righteousness good enough?
Kingdom righteousness far surpasses Pharasaic righteousness not in terms of quantity (as if Christians must fast three times per week because the Pharisees fasted twice per week, Lk. 18:12) but in quality. Kingdom righteousness is greater in the sense that it is deeper. It penetrates beyond our actions and words to our thoughts and motives. It goes beyond the letter of the Law to its intent.
Jesus was accused of being soft on the Law of Moses because he endorsed practices that many of his contemporaries viewed as lowering its spiritual and moral standards (Mt. 9:10-14; 12:1-13). In addition to his (apparently) unorthodox approach, Jesus spoke in his own name and with his own authority (Mk. 1:27; 2:23-3:6). This led many to believe that he was setting himself up as an authority over against the Law of Moses. But this view couldn't have been further from the truth.
Jesus clarifies his attitude toward the Law by stating that he did not come to "destroy [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them" (Mt. 5:17). He did not come to downplay the Law or lessen its demands. On the contrary, he came to bring them to completion and show their true meaning. He believed in the absolute authority of God's word and taught that its demands touched every facet of human life. His reverence of the Law extended not only to each letter but to each pen stroke (Mt. 5:18).
Jesus went on to illustrate his view of the Law, and to describe the true righteousness that the Law meant to inspire, in a series of antitheses (Mt. 5:21-48). Each one begins with a contrast introduced by the same formula: "You have heard that it was said... But I say to you." In each of these contrasts, Jesus is not contradicting the Law ("It is written...") but rather the scribes' and Pharisees' twisted interpretation of the Law ("It was said..."). The scribes and Pharisees were guilty of doing the very thing they accused Jesus of doing, relaxing the commandments of the Law (5:19) to make them more attainable.
- The scribes and Pharisees restricted the Law's commands - For example, they restricted the prohibition of murder and adultery to the physical acts alone, whereas Jesus shows the intent of the Law included the prohibition of the attitudes of heart that lead to the physical acts themselves.
- The scribes and Pharisees extended the Law's permissions - They widened the permission of divorce beyond adultery to include the husband's every whim. They widened the permission of retribution beyond the public law courts to include personal revenge. Jesus reaffirmed the Law's original intent by restoring the Law's permission of divorce except on the grounds of adultery (while also restoring God's original design for marriage) and he strictly prohibited all revenge in personal relationships.
This abuse of God's word and this shallow righteousness are not the way of the Christ. Kingdom righteousness never seeks to lessen the Law's demands or extend its permissions to make obedience more attainable. Rather, disciples of Christ should seek to uphold the demands of Scripture with all their uncomfortable implications without trying to limit their scope or find loopholes to escape them. Kingdom righteousness goes deep and concerns itself with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Law.
But who can live this life of heart-motivated obedience to God's word? Who can be "perfect" even as our Heavenly Father is perfect? (Mt. 5:48) The rest of the New Testament makes clear that, left to ourselves, this "righteousness" is beyond us. Righteousness is only found by faith in Christ who has fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law for us who live according to God's Spirit and not according to the flesh (Rom. 8:1-4). In this age of the New Covenant, the function of the Spirit within the heart of the forgiven sinner is to write God's law there and help us obey it (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:27). Therefore, Paul's statement in Romans that "Christ is the end of the Law" (Rom. 10:4) does not mean Christians are now free from its moral demands, for the exact opposite is the case (Rom. 3:31; 8:4). It means that acceptance with God does not come through obedience to the Law but through faith in Christ. The Law itself bore witness to this good news of salvation by faith (Rom. 3:21).
Because we have been shown the unfathomable love of God in his forgiveness of our sins in Christ we are free from the slavery of sin to live a life of freedom; freedom not from the demands of Scripture to live however we want, but freedom to live the full, forgiven, abundant life of obedience to God's commands. Only Jesus exhibited this perfectly, which is why the gospel calls for "the obedience of faith in Christ" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) rather than "faith in our obedience."
This leads us to one last distinction about this deep righteousness: the scribes and Pharisees "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" (Lk. 18:9) whereas those who possess kingdom righteousness are "poor in spirit" (Mt. 5:3) and recognize their total dependence upon God's grace and mercy to make them righteous (Lk. 18:10-14). May God give us the insatiable craving for this inner righteousness and find total satisfaction! (Mt. 5:6)
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
One of the difficulties of being witnesses to Jesus is the pushback of culture. Christianity is, by its very nature, counter-cultural and our postmodern culture can be resistant to the absolute claims of Christ. This presents a major obstacle in reaching their hearts and minds with the truth of the gospel.
Many are rejecting any standards of absolute or objective truth in favor of relative truth and relative morality (What is true for you may not be true for someone else. Or what is right and moral may vary depending upon the situation.). Spirituality is traded for secularism, the process by which religious ideas, institutions and interpretations lose social significance. Any talk of God or the supernatural is pushed to the outside leaving a purely secular mindset.
Exclusive religious truth-claims have been traded with pluralism, which is a competing number of views as a worldview in which no one worldview is dominant. To many people Islam (though it is an exclusive religion) is just as true as Christianity or any other religion. This is the mindeset that believes we’re all working toward the same goal, we’re just going about it in different ways.
Privatization is also becoming more popular; this is the act of internalizing those things which society does not feel should be expressed. In other words, you can worship whatever version of God you want just don’t do it in public or evangelize. Faith is individualized and privatized.
If you have any understanding of Christianity you can see the problems with these views. So what do we do when we encounter pushback from a culture that rejects absolute truth-claims and exclusive faith that, by its nature, is public and not private?
What offends people is the binary system which separates humanity into two groups of people: those who have the truth and those who do not. Most people find this a naive oversimplification. For example, if a Christian makes a claim to know THE truth (Jn. 14:6) then the logical conclusion people draw is that they are living in error and ignorance. This is usually followed by accusations toward the offender of being narrow-minded and insulting. In our post-modern world, it is taboo to persuade people to believe something outside of ‘their’ truth because truth is relative to the individual. So, how do we respond?
Before a dialogue can commence, let alone progress, we must point out the inconsistencies of such thinking.
Logical inconsistency - If someone ever accuses you of being narrow or insensitive about trying to persuade them to believe what you believe they have just committed the crime they are accusing you of. By demonizing you for spreading your version of truth what are they doing but spreading theirs? How is a Christian trying to persuade a person to believe in the gospel so different than an unbeliever proselytizing believers to unbelief?
Philosophical inconsistency - Post-modern thinking is philosophical quicksand. Christians may be accused of separating the world into those who have the truth and those who do not, but our post-modern friends may turn around and say, “I’m one of the good people who don’t push my beliefs on others and you’re one of the bad people who do!” This is the height of hypocrisy and irony. There are two kinds of people in this world; people who make exclusive truth-claims and others who make exclusive truth-claims but don’t know they’re doing it!
Emotional inconsistency - But the fallacy is not only logical and philosophical. It is also emotional. Imagine you had a child suffering from multiple sclerosis and you found a treatment that helped tremendously. How would you respond? You would naturally want to tell other parents whose children were suffering from this disease about the cure. Love for your neighbor (something our Postmodern friends will preach) would demand that you limit the suffering of others by sharing the good news of a cure. How absurd would it be to accuse such a person of being narrow-minded, insensitive or trying to push ‘their’ truth on others!
Christians spread the gospel not simply because it is mandated by God but out of sincere love for their neighbor. It is compassion and love that motivates evangelism. We who have been rescued from the slavery of sin and death proclaim the good news of freedom and healing in Christ so others can benefit from God’s gift.
So what holds a person back from not telling others about the salvation found only in Christ? I would suggest it is due to either one of two things: a lack of love for our neighbors or a lack of conviction about Jesus.
Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian once said, "I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.... How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?"
Comments like this should cause every Christian to examine his or her conscience to see if they truly believe that Jesus really is “the way, the truth, and the life.” We may not come upon a traveler beaten within an inch of his life like the good Samaritan but we see our friends, neighbors, coworkers, family members and acquaintances spiritually battered and bloodied by the ravages of sin. Let us love our neighbor enough to tell him about the gift of God available to him through Jesus (Lk. 10:30-37).
“But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, ‘These are the people of the Lord, and yet they had to go out of his land.’ But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.”
What does it mean to "profane" God’s "holy name"? It does not mean merely to curse, swear or blaspheme God’s name as our modern word “profanity” might suggest.
To the Israelite, all of life was divided into two broad categories – the “holy” and the “common”. Most of life was common. There was nothing wrong with this. Ordinary people, places and things were simply common. If they were set apart for sacred use (‘sanctified’) then that made them "holy." The entire nation of Israel was holy, set apart from the rest of the nations of the world for God’s special purpose (Ex. 19:4-6). But for the most part, ordinary things in life were either clean (normally) or unclean (because of some ritual or moral defilement).
So, the word “profane” is not necessarily derogatory or negative, it just means common or ordinary, no different from anything else in that category. Now we are getting closer to answering our question about what it means to "profane" God's "holy name." All holiness flows from the Lord, the one who is uniquely other, separate and exalted above everyone and everything. He is utterly distinct from all other things and his name cannot be classed among other things or other gods. He can never be common because he could never be one in a class of many. He is in a class all by himself, which is the very definition of holiness.
The Levitical priests were given the important task of instructing the Israelites about the distinctions between the holy and common (Lev. 10:10-11). But in Ezekiel’s day, far from teaching the distinctions, the priests taught that there was no distinction, thus doing violence to God’s law and profaning his name (Ezek. 22:26).
Babylonian exile was another huge step in the wrong direction for the nations to take notice of the Lord's holiness. You could imagine the discussions when God’s people were taken to Babylon.
“Who are these vagabonds?”
“These are Israelites taken from Judah by Nebuchadnezzar.”
“What is the name of their God?”
“I heard they call him ‘Yahweh.’”
“So, they are Yahweh’s people but they’ve been kicked out of Yahweh’s land? This Yahweh doesn’t sound very powerful. He’s probably not that much different that all the other nations’ gods our king has conquered. Praise Marduk!” (cf. 2 Kgs. 18:33-35)
This is how the ancient world thought about gods. The defeat of a nation meant the defeat of its god. And gods were only effective within the boundaries of their land. The Judean exiles were proof, according to the wisdom of the nations, that either Yahweh had abandoned his people because he was powerless (what Moses feared in Num. 14:16) or he was malicious (what Moses feared in Ex. 32:12). Either way, to the Babylonians, Yahweh was defeated and was no better than the rest of the national gods that had succumbed to the might of Babylon. Yahweh’s name would be mocked as a loser.
In exile, “wherever they came, they profaned my holy name.” (Ezek. 36:20) Instead of being Yahweh’s priesthood, shining his holiness to the rest of the nations (Ex. 19:4-6), Israel had become the exact opposite, a landless, roving band who profaned God’s name and gave his reputation a black eye wherever they went.
The New Testament authors show how God “had concern for [His] holy name” (Ezek. 36:21) and acted to save us in Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-20; 2:24-25) by calling us with a “holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9). In this act of salvation God turns the tables in his (and our) favor. In Christ, we are saved from forever profaning God’s holy name and liberated to proclaim his holy name to the world abroad.
As Peter says, Christians “are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (1 Pet. 2:9-10)
This holy calling in Christ makes living a holy life reflective of our holy God possible (1 Pet. 1:15-16). In Christ, we are taught to distinguish between the holy and the profane, proclaiming his excellencies in words and deeds that are befitting a royal priesthood and a holy nation. And others should be able to tell the difference. In fact, Peter expects others to see the difference in the life of a Christian and ask about it (1 Pet. 3:15). No one should ever say of a Christian, “These are the people of the Lord, and yet… they don’t look any different than anyone else.” To wear God’s holy name and be viewed as common by others is to profane God’s holy name. Ironically, this kind of religious hypocrisy is one of the most commonly lodged complaints against Christians today and one the most vehemently denounced sins by Christ himself (Mt. 7:1ff).
The more unique we are to our neighbors, the clearer we are reflecting God’s holy image. So dare to be different. "Do not be like them" (Mt. 6:8), "go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor. 6:17). Be the salt of the earth and the light of the world bringing glory to God (Mt. 5:13-16). This is the challenge for Christians - to live in the world but be distinct from it.