Down an Unfamiliar Road

A WORD TO THE WISE

After David crowned his son Solomon as king, and before the LORD lowered the curtain on his life, he offered young Solomon a quick course on spiritual virtues and ethics. David knew from experience that bad analysis, biased counseling, and self-serving ideas were all too plentiful from people who want be noticed and gain influence. His advice to Solomon is just a relevant now as it was back then. Perhaps this inspired Solomon to ask God for more wisdom when he became king. He wanted to learn how to use God’s wisdom in assessing life’s situations. Before a person makes a choice they must be aware of all the options available to them. God may have given man a free will to decide, but He also gave him clear guidelines to follow.

“The person who doesn’t allow evil-minded people to influence their thinking; permit immoral people to dictate their lifestyle; or grant conceited people sway over their attitude, can count their blessings. Instead, delight in living by the Teachings outlined in the Word of the LORD Eternal, and recites those guidelines constantly. They are deeply rooted like a tree growing next to a river; always producing good fruit without growing tired and weary; and successful in all their endeavors. But people who don’t think this way are a different story; they are like the husk on an ear of corn that you throw away. That’s why these evil-minded people and immoral sinners will never be judged by the same standards or allowed to represent those who live right. The fact is, the LORD Eternal has placed His stamp of approval on those who live right, but the evil-minded are destined for complete ruin.” Psalm 1:1-6

Reflection: There was an old fisherman who kept getting lost every time he went out to sea. So his concerned friends bought him a compass so they wouldn’t have to worry so much. However, the next time he went out to fish he took the compass along, but he got lost again. After his friends finally found and rescued him they asked why he didn’t use the compass. “I tried,” he replied with frustration, “but I couldn’t get the needle to aim in the direction I wanted to go.” The old sailor felt so certain he knew which direction was east he tried to force his personal will on the compass. When it didn’t respond the way he wanted it to, he threw it away as worthless and lost any benefit its guidance offered. In the same way our spiritual choices become important because first we need to know in what direction we are headed and compare it to the way God wants us to go. Remember, any frustration or disappointments we experience in trying to follow God’s guidelines cannot be compared to the grief and sorrow awaiting those who get rid of God’s compass and go their own way.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part XII)

IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD

Sometimes it helps to be reminded of certain blessings so that we increase our appreciation for what we take for granted. Hopefully this will give you a new admiration for that Bible you hold in your hand or having lying on your desk or nightstand.

For the first several hundred years after the church was born in Antioch in Syria and spread throughout Galatia and Greece, there was no published New Testament. The churches would copy letters received written in Greek from the Apostles, copy them and pass them on. Printing was not yet invented so it took time and money to copy a manuscript, so there were few. The apostles would used Old Testament Scriptures to prove the deity of Christ and the right to call Him the Messiah.

Furthermore, Greek began to wane as a universal language, especially in Europe, so Pope Damascus I commissioned St. Jerome in 382 to take all of the known manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church that had been translated from Greek into Latin, called Vetus Latina (Old Latin), and provide a translation more suitable to the language of the day. So St. Jerome provided a new translation called the Latin Vulgate (Common Latin), which by the 16^th century would become the Catholic Church’s official version of the Bible.

This was the Bible that a Dutch Catholic priest named Desiderius Erasmus used for his studies of theology. Erasmus was also caught up in the Renaissance movement, and became a social critic and teacher. One key factor of the Renaissance was the resurgence of the Greek language, because true Renaissance participants were driven to go back to the original of anything in search of the truth, whether it be the writings of Pluto or Aristotle. For Erasmus, his vision was the New Testament because he was drawn to the Word of God as a source of undisputed truth.

However, when Erasmus began to read the Greek manuscripts he found that the Latin version by Jerome was not loyal to the original Greek, and unclear on many passages because it followed church teachings rather than Scripture. So in 1512, he began his work on his Latin New Testament. He collected all the manuscripts available to find the best ones. Then in an effort to be fair and open, he wrote his new Latin version side by side with the Greek. Said Erasmus, “It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin.”

But something else began to stir in Erasmus spirit. Like many before him, he saw the necessity of making comments along with the text to explain what the writer of the New Testament manuscript was trying to say. This led to his taking the opportunity of pointing out where the writings of Paul and the other Apostles differed from what the Roman Catholic Church was teaching and practicing during that time. So Erasmus used a form of paraphrase to develop his commentary on theology in the New Testament.

It was at this same time that a great invention was born called the printing press. Without this press, most of the work by Erasmus would have lain around in handwritten manuscripts to collect dust, except for those who might have any interest in the long tedious task of copying them to pass on. But the two came together and that would result in one of the greatest spiritual revolutions in the history of the church. So Erasmus’ work was first published in 1516 with a second edition in 1519.

This second edition of Erasmus’ parallel Greek/Latin translation with commentary fell into the hands of a German monk, Catholic priest, and professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg named Martin Luther. From 1510 to 1520, Luther lectured on the Psalms, the book of Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians. As he studied these portions of the Bible, he came to view the use of terms such as penance and righteousness by the Catholic Church differently than the way they were being taught. Over time, Luther became convinced that the path taken by the Catholic church had led it’s followers astray from the core truths of what Jesus taught.

One of the most important factors for Luther was the doctrine of justification by faith. The one scripture out of Erasmus’ translation/commentary that impacted Luther most deeply was Galatians 3:11, how the just shall live by faith. In other words, justification was an act of God in declaring a sinner righteous by faith alone through God’s grace, not through any works done by man to gain salvation. So Luther began to teach that salvation is a gift of God’s grace and is obtained only through faith in the work of Jesus as the Messiah.

Even though they disagreed on other matters and doctrines, Martin Luther was so impressed by what Erasmus had done to start this debate through his translation and commentary, that he wrote him a letter that contained this expression of gratitude: “My dear Erasmus… I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot.”

With the Protestant Reformation gaining steam, Martin Luther was now confronted with the same dilemma Erasmus had. There was no Bible in the German language for the common person to read and study. So Luther took Erasmus’ new Latin translation and translated it into German. There were many Germanic dialects leading up to Luther’s day, so the one he chose for God’s Word would become the official language that tied the German people together through a common dialect in 1522.

English scholar and leading reformer in England William Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther’s doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year’s end had translated the New Testament into English. Tyndale had been forced to flee England, because of the wide-spread rumor that his English New Testament project was underway, causing inquisitors and bounty hunters to be constantly on his trail to arrest him and prevent his project from going forward. But God foiled their plans and in 1525-26 the Tyndale New Testament became the first printed edition of the scripture in the English language.

So anyone who passes off the development of our Christian faith as a matter of happenstance or the effect of karma, does not understand that God has been at work from the start. He does not react to situations because He has already prepared in advance before the circumstances occur. God foreknew that His church would need the written Word, so He arranged every part of this beautiful story. Therefore something planned by our heavenly Father many thousands of years earlier to provide a reformation for His church through the study of His Word, all took place in the span of 10 years. Does God know what He’s doing or do you still have doubts?

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part XI)

MISDEEDS LIKE SEEDS CAN PRODUCE A LOT OF WEEDS

With all the turmoil in our world today, especially between the Jewish state of Israel and Islamic territory of Palestine, every Christian should have a biblical and clear understanding of the basic causes. I hope this posting will give you the information you may desire.

Should any of this surprise us? Not really! In Genesis 16:12 we read what the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, Ismael’s mother: “He will be wild and free like a wild donkey. He will be against everyone, and everyone will be against him. He will be like a nomad moving from place to place, but always in the vicinity of brothers.” But Abraham had compassion for Ishmael and sought God’s blessing on him. So in Genesis 17:20 God told Abraham, “As for Ishmael, I will bless him also, just as you have asked. I will make him extremely fruitful and multiply his descendants. He will become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.” Then again in Genesis 25:18 Moses records this about Ishmael: “His descendants settled throughout the desert area from Havilah to Shur. This area begins near Egypt and goes toward Assyria. Ishmael’s people were often at war with the other descendants of Abraham.”

Born in about 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca, was a child named Muhammad. Some claim that he was a descendant of Ishmael through the prophet Adnan, yet others disagree. But one thing for sure, he was an Arab. He was orphaned at an early age when both his father died six months before he was born, and his mother died when he reached the age of six. According to the law among the tribes on the Arabian peninsula, he was not eligible to inherit anything. So he was sent to his paternal grandfather. For the next two years, he was under the guardianship of his paternal grandfather Abd al-Muttalib of the Banu Hashim clan. But when Muhammad turned eight his grandfather also died. He then came under the care of his uncle Abu Talib, the new leader of the Banu Hashim clan.

As a young man, Muhammad worked as a camel driver between Syria and Arabia. Soon he established a career managing caravans on behalf of merchants. Through his travel first with his uncle and later in his career, Muhammad came into contact with people of many nationalities and faiths, including Jews, Christians, and pagans.

As a youngster Muhammad used to accompany his uncle on his business trips to Syria. When this future self-proclaimed messenger of Allah reached the age of twelve, he journeyed with his uncle Abu Talib and traveled as far as Busra. There he met an heretical Christian monk named “Sergius,” who according to tradition foretold the adolescent Muhammad of his future prophetic career, because of the young boy’s interest in the bible stories he told him. According to Christian tradition, Sergius and his errant views inspired Muhammad’s writings which became the holy book of Islam, the Qur’an. Even certain Arabist authors maintain that Seregius’ works formed the basis of those parts of the Qur’an that conform to the principles of Christianity, while the rest was introduced either by subsequent compilers such as Uthman Ibn Affan or contemporary Jews and Arabs. In addition, John of Damascus (d.749), a Christian writer, states that Muhammad “having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, and having conversed with an Arian monk (Sergius), devised his own heresy.”

Muhammad learned from Sergius about Jesus, Joseph and Mary, whom he later venerated. But as a hermit, Sergius sought directions straight from God and spent long periods of time in places of isolation such as caves, seeking wisdom and guidance. Since Muhammad could neither read nor write, all of his instructions and knowledge came by way of stories told to him by Sergius.

A somewhat wealthy widow in Mecca persuaded Muhammad to marry her and work in her business. It wasn’t until the age of 40, long after the monk Sergius was not around, that Muhammad decided to try the same technique of meditating in isolation, in order to receive further wisdom from God. So following Sergius’s example, he went to a cave just outside Mecca for such meditation. There he reports that the archangel Gabriel came and spoke to him. He reported that he was both humbled and amazed at such visitations. When Muhammad begin to share his visions, his wife was one of his first converts. As he won several converts, they began to write down what Muhammad was saying so they could share it with others.

This method served Muhammad well, because he found it easy to offer insights and instructions that he supposedly received from the archangel Gabriel, whenever he was confronted with a decision or the need to judge. One thing clearly seen in the difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is that Islam does not require repentance, nor are there any required sacrifices for sin. Good works are the basis for living a righteous life.

Through the method of private and public teaching Muhammad spread these visions and messages from the angel Gabriel in Mecca. A minority of people accepted him this way. They were not compelled to do so, but were impressed by his teaching and accepted him freely. But in Mecca his followers became a “despised minority.” The vast majority of the Arabian tribes did not accept him. Since he was monotheistic, he opposed all the gods and idols venerated in Mecca, so some of those living there devised to assassinate him in order to get rid of him. When Muhammad heard about it, he and his small band of followers fled to the northern city of Medina.

However, not all the tribes in the city of Medina accepted Muhammad’s messages either after he moved there for protection. Therefore, since Muhammad could not spread his new religion peacefully, he began to exert influence and power by forming an army, and began to raid those villages around him in order to convert them to Islam. One Arab writer named wrote in Bukhari, “The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors under the command of Abu ‘Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish. This was not only to spread the message of Islam, but also to plunder for needed financial assistance.

Muhammad was also involved in defensive and offensive battles. The Arabian tribes who had previously rejected Muhammad were now confronted again and ordered to submit to him. For most of the tribes he wanted to conquer, this was done by sending a military delegation to them. According to one source, before Muhammad’s armies would attack a tribe they would invite them at least three times to accept Islam first. If they accepted, Muhammad would stay among them to teach them Islam, its regulations, the Book of Allah and the sunnah (the traditional portion of Muslim law, based on the words and acts of Muhammad himself. If they did not accept, they were attacked and forced to submit to Muhammad and Islam. This type of missionary effort by Christians would be totally unacceptable in any country today.

We have a first hand account of such an event from Ibn al-Musaffa: “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) sent us on an expedition. When we reached the place of attack, I galloped my horse and outstripped my companions, and the people of that locality received me with a great noise. I said to them: “Say ‘There is no god but Allah,’ and you will be protected.” So they said it. My companions then ridiculed me by claiming: ‘You deprived us of the booty.’ Later, when we came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), they told him what I had done. So he called me in and said he appreciated what I had done, and said: ‘Allah has recorded for you so and so (a reward) for every man of them.’ Apparently this method has fallen out of use by Muslim extremist today.

Also, according to Anas b. Malik, Muhammad used to attack the enemy at dawn. But first he would would wait outside the village and listen for the Islamic call to prayer. If he heard such a call to prayer he would not attack, but if there was no such call, then he would attack in the name of Allah. Muhammad told his followers that he was commanded by Allah to spread Islam this way: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and say their prayers correctly, and give him the obligatory offering. If they performed all these things, then they would save their lives and property from being taken by me. Then anything else that might be taken would be done so by Allah according to Islamic law.

This then became the battle cry of Muhammad and his followers, “Fight those who believe not in Allah and until the last days. It is Allah who has sent his messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, even if these unbelievers do not like it.” As we can see, it was easy to become one of Muhammad’s enemy. If you did not acknowledge him as your ruler and prophet then you were his enemy. Those who joined Muhammad joined the fight against those who did not accept Muhammad’s religion.

This time of conquest was a great source of pride to Muhammad and his companions. Many poems were composed to celebrate their victories. Here is a section of a poem that Ka’b b. Malik composed before the Islamic conquest of Al-Ta’if.

If you offer peace we will accept it
And make you partners (with us) in peace and war.
If you refuse we will fight you doggedly. …
We shall fight as long as we live
Till you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet
Whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. …
And we cut off their noses and ears
With our fine polished swords from India,
Driving them violently before us to the command of God and Islam,
Until religion is established, just and straight.

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 587-588)

How did Muhammad spread Islam? As this survey demonstrates he used many methods. These included teaching Islam, reciting the Qur’an, warfare, money and gifts, assassinations, compulsion, torture, removing other religious options and incorporating much much of what he learned from the heretical monk Sergius into Islam. After Muhammad’s death his companions continued some of these methods. It is was considered wrong to exaggerate any one of these methods, because Muhammad used all of them to spread Islam. However, extremists today have chosen to ignore this advice.

So any politician or world leader who is naïve enough to think that extreme Islamic fanatics can be persuaded to sit down at a peace table and agree to live in harmony with Jews and Christians, do not comprehend the ingrained hostility bred into them by the teachings they receive based on the word of Muhammad the prophet from Allah. They are committed to turning the world into the domain of Islam by force and violence, even to the death. There is no giving up; there is no going back; there will be no compromise in order to live in peace with the descendants of Isaac. But unlike Muhammad, even these fanatics will not stop outside a village when they hear the call to prayer from the mosque inside, they will attack anyhow killing fellow Muslims who do not adhere to their line of thinking and interpretation of the Qur’an. So what chance do non-Muslims have?

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part X)

IF GOD COULD USE PHARAOH, WHY NOT USE CAESAR?

St. Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus is not the only epiphany that influenced the course of Christianity, there was another one you may want to know more about. After the Day of Pentecost mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles 2:1 between 30-36 AD, the Gospel began to spread across Asia and the Middle East. Churches were established and their numbers increased daily. This was aided by the freedom and safety of travel provided by the Roman Empire and facilitated by the universal language of Greece. Between 62-68 AD the Apostle Paul traveled to Rome to appeal to Caesar concerning the charges brought against him by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Between 95-100 AD John would have his great revelation on the Isle of Patmos and the second generation of Christian leaders would began to take the reins of the church.

Just before this period in history occurred, on March 15, 44 BC, the Roman world was shaken to it’s foundation with the assassination of Julius Caesar. Though the effect would prove to be staggering, no Roman was as profoundly affected as Gaius Octavius. Octavian served under Julius Caesar in the Spanish expedition of 46 BC despite his delicate health. And he was to take a senior military command in Caesar’s planned Parthian expedition of 44 BC, although at the time being only 18 years old.  But Octavian was with his friends Marcus Agrippa and Marcus Salvidienus Rufus in Apollonia in Epirus completing his academic and military studies, when news reached him of Caesar’s assassination.  At once he returned to Rome, learning on the way that Caesar had adopted him in his will. No doubt this only increased his desire to avenge Caesar’s murder.

Augustus was undoubtedly one of the most talented, energetic and skillful administrators that the world has ever known. The enormously far-reaching work of reorganization and rehabilitation which he undertook in every branch of his vast empire created a new Roman peace with unprecedented prosperity. Following in the footsteps of Julius Caesar, he won genuine popular support by hosting games, erecting new buildings, and by other measures to the general good. Augustus himself claimed to have restored 82 temples in one year alone. But further there were grand new buildings like the Theater of Apollo, the Horologium (a giant sun dial) and the great Mausoleum of Augustus. But during his final years Augustus withdrew more and more from public life. Intending to travel with Tiberius to Capri, and then on to Beneventum, he left Rome for the last time in AD 14. He fell ill on the way to Capri and, after four days resting on Capri, when they crossed back to the mainland Augustus at last passed away. He died at Nola on 19 August AD 14, only one month away of his 76th birthday. The body was taken to Rome and given a stately funeral and his ashes were then placed in his Mausoleum.

The Roman Empire then limped along with various successes and setbacks until 161 AD when Marcus Aurelius became emperor of the Roman Empire. He brought stability and prosperity back to the great nation. Some historians called it the happiest time to be Roman, and rightly so. It was the center of a world economy, the bastion of the greatest fighting force on earth, and it had influence over a great part of the civilized world. It would be termed by some as the “Golden Age” of the Roman Empire.

But when Marcus Aurelius died in 180 AD the nation was plunged back into squabbling and discord with some 38 different politicians vying to be the next emperor over the ensuing 100 years. It resulted in economic chaos, higher and higher taxes for a swelling bureaucracy and national debt that taxed the middle class out of existence. Rome ended up with a large but inefficient army because of no leadership or vision.

Then in 284 AD Diocletian became emperor. He was able to stabilize the situation and bring it back to some normalcy, but at a great price. He ordered a career freeze. In other words, no one could change career fields. If your father was a baker, you would be a baker; if your father was a carpenter, you would be a carpenter, and so on. There was a price fixed on all products. Consequently, the profit margin was good for some but bad for others. All individual rights were eliminated, the government was in charge of every aspect of the Romans life. Diocletian also removed all religious tolerance, and ordered, much like Nebuchadnezzar had done, that only the gods of Rome were to be worshiped and venerated. And along with this came severe persecution of Jews and Christians.

Diocletian didn’t like being cooped up in Rome, he liked being out and about conquering. So he divided the Empire into regions and appointed leaders over these areas. One of these was Flavius Valerius Constantinus, a Roman army officer, and his consort Helena who was a Christian. He became the deputy emperor in the west in 293 AD. He had a son named Constantine, who was sent east, where he rose through the ranks to become a military tribune under emperors Diocletian and Galerius. In 305 AD Flavius Constantius was raised to the rank of Augustus, senior western emperor, and Constantine was recalled to campaign under his father in Britannia. When his father Flavius died, Constantine was acclaimed as emperor by the army in 306 AD.

Constantine didn’t like what was going on back in Rome, so he followed in the footsteps of Julius Caesar and decided to march on Rome and conquer it so that he could help return it to glory. But unlike Julius Caesar who crossed the Rubicon River on the east side of the Italian peninsula, Constantine headed out of Britain down through France and over the alps along the western side of the peninsula. And instead of reaching the Rubicon River, he came to the Tiber River in order to cross the Milvian Bridge. But much to Constantine’s surprise, the current emperor of Rome, Maxentius, decided to leave Rome and come out to Milvian Bridge to engage Constantine.

The great historian Eusebius tells us, “Being convinced…that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and assistance ….While he was…praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven… He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle. … And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.

So while Constantine waited and contemplated what to do, he prayed as his mother Helena had taught him. He reported that he had a vision and looking up into the sky he saw the Greek letters Chi = X superimposed over the letter Rho = P which formed the symbol ☧. As a result, he ordered that all of his troops paint this symbol on their helmets and carry banners with it boldly displayed.

So on October 28, 312 AD they engaged Maxentius at Milvian Bridge. Constantine was victorious and Maxentius who had built a temporary bridge made out of boats to get across and surprise Constantine, was drowned along with many in his army as they tried a hasty retreat.

When Constantine reached Rome, the entire Senate went out to greet him as conqueror. They wanted to build a monument to him, but he allowed it only if they did not include any names of Roman gods or other deities. He declared himself a Christian and proclaimed that the Roman Empire would become a Christian nation. So the Arch of Constantine was erected in celebration of the victory, and in the center over the arch were inscribed the words: To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus: because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms, the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.

Under Diocletian and his successors, Jews and Christians had been so persecuted and viciously treated that if something was not done soon, they would be driven to extinction. And just like the Apostle Paul on his way to Damascus who saw a great light and heard a voice that introduced him to Jesus Christ and gave him directions for his life, so Constantine saw a light and heard a voice that encouraged him to finish what he had set out to do.

So we must ask ourselves, what would have happened to Christianity if Paul had not had his Damascus Road experience, and Constantine had not had his Milvian Bridge experience? We don’t need to ponder it because we know what happened as a result of these two divine encounters. So much of what has become the great movement of Christianity today has at times boiled down to the actions of one person, such as Jesus of Nazareth, Saul of Tarsus, and Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine who was a Christian in a pagan society. I’m sure that when the books are open in heaven, we will find out that there were many, many more.

So ask yourself, in your family, in your neighborhood, in your town, in your city, in your state, in your school, in your work place, if God ever wanted to use you to make sure the chain is not broken, would you be willing to risk it all and be obedient.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part IX)

A CLASSIC CASE OF FAULTY JURISPRUDENCE

When ardent proponents of separation of church and state turn to the constitution for support of their anti religious stance, and quote the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” they often fail to quote the entire line that goes on to say, “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the religious leaders in Jerusalem knew they had to do something to stop this worker of miracles who was becoming more and more looked on as the Messiah. So they turned to their constitution (the Law), and found an amendment to the Ten Commandments that read, “Any prophet who falsely claims to speak in my name or who speaks in the name of another god must die” (Deu. 18:20).

So they set out to prove that Jesus was illegally claiming to speak on God’s behalf and was therefore deceiving the people. Being religious leaders, if they did not stop this self-appointed prophet from succeeding they would be held accountable for their inaction. But like the proponents of separation of church and state of today, they too did not read the whole text. Because in Deuteronomy 18:18-19 it says clearly, “I will raise up a prophet like you (speaking to Moses) from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. I will personally deal with anyone who will not listen to the messages the prophet proclaims on my behalf.”

Thus the religious leaders found themselves between a rock and a hard place. If this truly was the Messiah then they would be held accountable by God for not listening to His message. On the other hand, if He was a false prophet, they needed to make sure He paid for it with His life.

Most Christians know about Jesus’ trial before Pontius Pilate, but many do not realize that this was a case of double jeopardy. Before He ever went before Pilate, Jesus had another trial before the Jewish Council in Jerusalem, and it has some interesting turns and twists.

John tells us that after Judas marked Jesus as the man they were looking for, which was done so they would not be charged with making a false arrest, the soldiers, their commanding officer, and the Temple guards tied Jesus’ hands, or as we would say today, they handcuffed Him. The first thing they did was take Him to Annas, the father-in-law of the current High Priest Caiaphas. Within most criminal justice systems a preliminary hearing, or evidentiary hearing, is a proceeding after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. In such hearings the judge must find there is probable cause that a crime was committed. This was a crucial moment in the religious leaders’ attempt to silence this Jesus of Nazareth who was a growing threat to their authority and power within the Jewish community.

This hearing took place at the residence of Annas the son of Seth. He had been appointed as the first High Priest of the newly formed Roman province of Judea by the Roman legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius in 6 AD. Annas officially served as High Priest for ten years (6–15 AD), when at the age of 36 he was deposed by the procurator Valerius Gratus because he wasn’t pro-Roman enough. Yet, even though he had been officially removed from office, he remained as one of the nation’s most influential political and social individuals. Some also believe that Annas was behind the attempt to kill Lazarus after Jesus raised him from the dead (see John 12:9-11). That’s why other scholars also believe that Jesus chose Annas as His “Rich Man” in the parable about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. Annas had five sons, but in the parable they were portrayed as the five brothers.

Once inside the residence, Annas began asking Jesus about his followers and what he had been teaching them. Jesus was a genius at handling such open-ended questions thrown at Him on the spur of the moment. They were designed to trip Him up; to have Him say something that was self-incriminating. That way they wouldn’t need any witnesses or other evidence.

But Jesus took it in stride and responded, “Everyone knows what I teach. I have preached regularly in the synagogues and the Temple, where the people gather. I have not spoken in secret. Instead of asking me this question, ask those who heard me. They know what I said.” Then, one of the Temple guards standing nearby slapped Jesus across the face. “Is that the way to answer the high priest?” he demanded. Annas approved of this slap in the face, they did the same thing to Paul (see Acts 23:2). In response Paul confirms the fact that Annas was not the High Priest (Acts 23:5).

By doing this, the Temple guard had openly proven the bias and injustice that this hearing represented. It only made sense to request witnesses. That was how the process of justice was supposed to work. The Jewish law only required two witnesses to agree and it would be accepted by the court. So Jesus does not allow the guard’s indiscretion and bad behavior make Him defensive or say something that could be held against Him, so He looks back at Annas and says, “If I said anything wrong, you must prove it. But if I’m speaking the truth, you have no reason to punish me.”

Annas realized he was totally unprepared to find any witnesses or gather evidence, especially at this hour when the Passover Feast was coming up shortly and something had to be done before then. So John tells us Annas had Jesus handcuffed again and sent him to his son-in-law Caiaphas, the current High Priest (John 18:12-24). Caiaphas was his Greek name, his full Hebrew name was Yosef Bar Kayafa. But this really put Jesus in real danger of not receiving justice, because as a Sadducee, Caiaphas did not believe in the resurrection. So he was especially dumbfounded when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. He preferred to destroy this man who challenge to his beliefs, instead of supporting justice under the law for a falsely accused individual.

Now Matthew and Mark give us the scene that took place at Caiaphas’ residence. Matthew says, “Then the people who had arrested Jesus led him to the home of Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of religious law and the elders had gathered. Meanwhile, Peter followed him at a distance and came to the high priest’s courtyard. He went in and sat with the guards and waited to see how it would all end.” Mark writes, “They took Jesus to the high priest’s home where the leading priests, the elders, and the teachers of religious law had gathered. Meanwhile, Peter followed him at a distance and went right into the high priest’s courtyard. There he sat with the guards, warming himself by the fire.”

But what about this Caiaphas? Was he going to be an impartial judge? Was he going to listen to both sides of the case? If so, he’d have to listen to Jesus who serving as His own defense lawyer. John gives us a clue. He tells us that Caiaphas was the one who told the other Jewish leaders earlier, “It’s better that one man should die for the people.” Oh yes! That’s right! Preceding this account in his Gospel John tells us that after Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead (11:47), “the leading priests and Pharisees called the high council together. ‘What are we going to do?’ they asked each other. ‘This man certainly performs many miraculous signs. If we allow him to go on like this, soon everyone will believe in him. Then the Roman army will come and destroy both our Temple and our nation.’ Caiaphas, who was high priest at that time, said, ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about! You don’t realize that it’s better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.‘”

It appears that Jesus’ request for witnesses had been conveyed to Caiaphas, because Matthew goes on to say, “Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council were trying to find witnesses who would lie about Jesus, so they could put him to death. But even though they found many who agreed to give false witness, they could not use anyone’s testimony.” Mark had the same record, “Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council were trying to find evidence against Jesus, so they could put him to death. But they couldn’t find any. Many false witnesses spoke against him, but they contradicted each other.”

Things were getting desperate by this time, but the prosecution seemed to catch a break when Matthew tells us, “Finally, two men came forward who declared this man said, ‘I am able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” Mark reports the same incident, “Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony: We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.’ But even then they didn’t get their stories straight!” This was especially frightening to Caiaphas, because as high priest and chief religious authority in the land, among his many important responsibilities was having control of the Temple treasury, managing the Temple police and other personnel, as well as performing religious rituals. If Jesus did succeed in destroying the Temple it would leave Caiaphas and his cohorts penniless and powerless.

Now it was crunch time for the prosecution, even with the advantage they had in the fact that Jesus did not have a lawyer and was representing Himself. Matthew describes it: “Finally, the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, ‘Well, aren’t you going to answer these charges? What do you have to say for yourself?’ But Jesus remained silent.” Mark noted the same questioning, “Then the high priest stood up before the others and asked Jesus, ‘Well, aren’t you going to answer these charges? What do you have to say for yourself?’ But Jesus was silent and made no reply.”

By this time things got heated, tempers began to flare, so Matthew writes, “Then the high priest yelled at Him, ‘I demand in the name of the living God – tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.’” Mark gives a more demure exchange, “Then the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?‘” What more evidence did Jesus need than the crowds who followed Him, the miracles He performed in healing the sick, walking on water and calming the storm on the sea, casting out demons, and raising the dead. He knew they wanted to find Him in violation of Deuteronomy 18:20. Matthew informs us that Jesus replied, “You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Mark records, “Jesus said, ‘I Am. And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.‘” Here we have the opportunity of putting what Matthew recalls and what Mark remembers together. After He was asked by the high priest if he was the Messiah, Jesus replied, “You said it, yes I am.”

That was all the high priest was looking for. Now he had his evidence, he had what he needed to procure a conviction. So Matthew lets us know that in typical religious indignation, “The high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, ‘Blasphemy! Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy.’” Mark has the same story, “Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, ‘Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy.’”

Then turning to the Council and those gathered there as ad hoc jury members, Matthew and Mark both report that the high priest asked them, “What is your verdict? ‘Guilty!’ they shouted. ‘He deserves to die!‘” Then a most unprofessional and undignified scene unfolds. Matthew says, “Then they began to spit in Jesus’ face and beat him with their fists. And some slapped him, jeering, ‘Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who hit you this time?‘” Mark heard a little bit more about what happened, “Then some of them began to spit at him, and they blindfolded him and beat him with their fists. ‘Prophesy to us,’ they jeered. And the guards slapped him as they took him away.”

But wait a minute, what about cross examination. Did not Jesus have the right to bring up Deuteronomy 18:18-19 in his defense? What about His witnesses? The cleansed lepers; the widow of Nain’s son; the Centurion’s servant; the blind man at the pool, the woman at the well in Samaria? But it was not to be. Luke tells us that “at daybreak all the elders of the people assembled, including the leading priests and the teachers of religious law.” John who was there remembers, “Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas ended in the early hours of the morning.”

It was time for sentencing. Luke says, “Jesus was led before this high council, and they said, ‘Tell us, once again, do You claim to be the Messiah?’ Jesus knew the plan God had laid out for Him, but He also knew how cold and hard their hearts were. So he looked back at them and said, “Even if I tell you, you won’t believe me. And if I ask you a question, you won’t answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated in the place of power at God’s right hand.”

Luke says, “They all shouted, ‘So, are you claiming to be the Son of God?’” Jesus replied, “That’s your charge against me.” The smug religious leaders turned to each other and said, “We don’t need any more witnesses, we heard Him say it ourselves.” John remembers, “Then he was taken to the headquarters of the Roman governor.”

Now they had to prove to Pontius Pilate that they had a blasphemer on their hands. However, He would now be tried under Roman Law, not Jewish law. They never got their wish to have Him pronounced guilty. Instead, Pilate tried a little maneuvering with a Passover tradition of releasing one convicted criminal and they chose Barabbas over Jesus. This is no mystery. They couldn’t have chosen Jesus anyhow because Jesus didn’t qualify. He was not a convicted criminal. Pilate found Him not guilty. So they had really only been given one choice, and that was Barabbas!

When Pilate asked somewhat sarcastically, what am I going to do now with this man who calls Himself your king? They crowd responded almost as if it had been choreographed, “Crucify Him!” That cry and subsequent crucifixion changed the course of history and the world forever. It was not a moment of defeat, it was a moment of triumph. The prosecution did not win the case, nor was the defense given a win due to a mistrial. Jesus came to die on the cross for the forgiveness of sin and nothing would stand between Him and His destiny. Even though Annas and Caiaphas continued to persecute the fledgling church (see Acts 4:5-7), it was said later among those in the Syrian Church that Caiaphas had been converted to Christianity. It seems that the resurrection of Jesus, the testimony of Peter, and the miracles that continued in Jesus’ name was enough to convince him that this man truly was the man from heaven, the Messiah, the Son of God.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part VIII)

WHEN A MOMENT BECAME A MOVEMENT

If you are a Bible reader, then you know about a man called John the Baptist, who was a relative of Jesus, through Elizabeth, and chosen by God to be a forerunner of the expected Jewish Messiah. He was described as someone who came out of the desert crying out, “Get ready for the Messiah!” But his message was not the only thing preparing the way for the movement that Christ founded to spread all over the civilized world with ease. The unity that existed through the conquests of the Roman Empire must also be taken into account. It was said, “All roads lead to Rome,” and that made it possible for the Gospel to reach Rome in record time.

Some 63 years Before Christ was born, the Roman Empire had reached its apex as a world power and was in charge of the world’s trade routes, shipping lanes, and monetary exchanges. It was governed by a democracy led by the 600 member Roman Senate who were appointed by district governors, and they elected the chief consul who was not only the executive head but also the commander in chief of Rome’s military. But at this juncture it was in trouble politically because of mass corruption in Rome.

Their constitution was also under attack, because some said it had been formed in the small city-state of Athens to govern their affairs, so how could it be expected to meet all the demands of a world super power like Rome. Rome was also ensconced in a war in the Middle East as they tried to expand the empire into what had been the Persian and Babylonian centers of power (now Iraq and Iran), that was draining its resources as well as being undermined their unwillingness to commit all the forces needed to win it.

In the capitol city of Rome political contributions were now controlled by powerful business interests, and no one could get elected to higher office without agreeing to the demands of these big businesses, which then allowed lobbyists from these businesses to dictate policies and regulations passed by the Senate. Not only that, but a huge debt and mortgage crisis hit the Roman Empire at this time. Credit was frozen and people were losing their homes and property. Large debts had been accumulated by individuals and companies to the point where many were considering bankruptcy. And politicians were appealing to the Senate to bailout business supporters who were going under, because they had supported their campaigns.

The Senate was run by two political parties. One, a liberal party that spread money around in order to buy votes, and the other a conservative party that struggled to maintain traditional family values. But most critical, the average Roman citizen had lost all confidence in both the chief consul and the Senate, as well as the bureaucrats to solve the nation’s problems and get them out of this mess.

In the midst of all this, a rather ordinary politician named Julius Caesar had worked his way up into the leadership in the Roman Senate, and with the help of two other powerful senators had been appointed as top general of the Roman Army. His first challenge in 58 B.C. was to overpower and conquer the Gauls (which is now France) to the northwest, who were their most feared enemies. In six years he beat them into complete submission to Roman rule.

So in 51 B.C., after the conquest of Gaul (now France) was completed, Julius Caesar became the defunct ruler over vast provincial territories. He had gained such great fame and fortune that back in Rome the Senate and bureaucrats feared him. So they made it clear to Caesar that if he attempted to extend his influence and power to Rome by returning to run for office, he must leave his position in the Army and dress in civilian clothing. But they also let him know he might be immediately arrested and prosecuted for war crimes in any attempt to gain higher power. Beside that, those who had supported him before, now wanted nothing to do with him.

So, Julius Caesar had a decision to make. Should he stay where he was and continue to build his own empire, or should he march into Rome as a conqueror and take over the capitol city by force. So it was on January 10, 49 B.C., after being pushed to the limit, he crossed the shallow Rubicon River and commenced what would become a civil war. His old friend and supporter Gnaeus Pompeius, better known as “Pompey,” who had become his bitter nemesis, found himself with many of his legions in Spain, so he and the Senate retreated. Caesar quickly advanced to Rome, set up a hastily organized Senate and had himself declared dictator.

So on July 25, 46 B.C., the victorious and now unchallenged Caesar wrote a letter in which he listed his political aims as “tranquility for Italy, peace for the provinces, and security for the Empire.” His program for accomplishing these goals – both what he actually achieved and what he planned but did not have time to complete – was seen as very sound and farsighted by many of Rome’s constituents.

First he had a resolution passed that eliminated all interest payments on debts and gave the debtors time to pay off the principle without penalty. Taxes were lowered to where the average citizen only had to take their wages from two days of work out of the year to pay their taxes. He resettled all military veterans abroad without causing others to lose their jobs as a result. He reformed the Roman calendar. He revised the welfare payout of grain that was imported into the city so that no one could hoard it. He reduced government regulations so that it strengthened the middle class. And because the country had grown so large, he decided to increase the membership of the Senate from 600 to 900 so that everyone had good representation. He issued coins with his likeness, and put the wealth of the empire as a standard behind their value.

But his methods alienated many of the nobles and wealthy patrons. They said that Caesar governed autocratically, more in the manner of a general than a politician, thus he was charged with being a dictator. Although he nominally used the political structure, he often simply announced his executive orders to the Senate and had them entered into the record as senatorial decrees without any debate or vote. This of course led to a revolt within the Senate, and they ambushed him on March 16, 44 B.C., with his friend Brutus, whom he called his son, striking the final fatal blow with a knife.

But let us go back and think about Julius Caesar walking back and forth in deep meditation on the northern banks of the Rubicon River northeast of the Apennines mountain range. Had he decided to stay where he was and not attempt to raise the Roman Empire to greater heights, all signs pointed to an eminent economical, political and military collapse or Rome that would have changed the face of the civilized world at that time. There would have been no single empire tying the world together in a way that promoted the free transportation of goods, travelers, people, and ideas.

So what was it that prompted him at that crucial point to cross the river? Was it his ego, his pride, his sense of conquest? Or was there an inner urging coming from a source he may not have been familiar with; an inner voice that spoke to him and said “go for it.” The same inner urging that caused the heathen despot Nebuchadnezzar to recognize the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego as the Most High God; the same urging that caused the heathen emperor Darius to allow the captured Jews to returned to Jerusalem to rebuild their Temple? Had Julius Caesar failed to follow the impetus there would have been no Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem to decide the fate of the Messiah to die on the cross, nor would a Roman citizen named Saul of Tarsus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, have been able to travel unhindered in order for the Gospel to the heart of the Roman Empire because of his citizenship and appeal to Caesar. Whatever it was, those standing nearby saw Julius pause, then look across the river in contemplation, and then suddenly declare in Greek with a voice loud enough for all those around him to hear what we would call today, a leap of faith, “Let the die be cast” and then led the army across the river.

Those who believe in chance, happenstance, accidental good luck, or karma may be persuaded to chalk it all up to simply being in the right place at the right time. But those who believe in the preordained and prearranged plan of God to have the message of His Son coming to earth to die as mankind’s Savior to be spread around the world, it is a matter of faith to believe that this was another part of God’s plan which He carried out through Julius Caesar.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part VII)

WHERE MYTHOLOGY MEETS REALITY

When we examine the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, especially His miracles of healing and raising the dead, sometimes it makes us wonder why He was received so wildly in some places, but rejected to caustically in others. Why did His opponents say He was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub? Why did the Pharisees object to His healing on the Sabbath? Why did His raising people from the dead cause the Sadducees to want to kill Him?

We may gain some insight when we go back to see what was being taught world-wide through Greek influence some 400 years before Jesus came into the world, and by His arrival what had become conventional wisdom among the leading scholars of the world, including many Jews. It starts in Greek mythology with the god Apollo.

Apollo was generally recognized as a god of light and the sun, of truth and prophecy, of healing, the plagues, of music, poetry, and more. When Apollo favored you, he found answers for your illnesses. When he was displeased with you, he would send disease and plagues. Therefore, the Greeks associated medicine and healing with Apollo, whether mediated through himself or through his son

Asklepios (or Asclepius).

So it is no wonder that disease, illness and death were thought by the whole civilized world at that time as being in the hands of the gods. That’s why wise men and sages developed prayers, chants and rituals to be performed for the gods, especially Apollo and Asklepios. So we can see that when Jesus went around healing the sick and raising the dead, why some thought He was a god to be worshipped and some thought He was a god to be feared because He might also send disease or a plague if disobeyed. Since Beelzebub, which for the Jews was another name for Satan, was thought to be the lord Hades, they come to believe that Jesus’ powers came from Beelzebub..

Asklepios was born to the Greek god Apollo by way of a human mother, a Trikkaian princess named Koronis. Apollo had him trained in the art of medicine. Therefore, because of his divine and human parents, he was both god and man in one. Asklepios was depicted as a kindly, bearded man holding a serpent-entwined staff. Asklepios became so skilled at the art of healing that he began to raise the dead to life. However, this did not go well with another mythological god named Hades. He considered raising the dead a crime against nature, so he went and complained to the great god Zeus.

Haides (or Hades) was the King of the Underworld, the god of death and the dead. He presided over funeral rites and defended the right of the dead to due burial. Hades was also the god of the hidden wealth of the earth. So if you wanted to become wealthy, you must favor with him. But he was also very influential among the gods. So when he went to Zeus and complained that by Asklepios resurrecting people from death, he threatened to put him out of business, Zeus answered Hades’ request and killed Asklepios with a thunderbolt. But Apollo was so hurt by this action, that he went to Zeus and asked permission to have his son placed among the stars as the constellation of Ophiuchus, which means “the Serpent Holder”

But into the arena of history while all of this was going on, entered a young man who went to Athens to learn and practice medicine, his name was Hippocrates (460-375 B.C.). He rejected this idea of disease being caused by the gods, and said that it was the result of physical factors that could be understood and analyzed by humans, and then treated and cured by humans using their intellect and skills without resorting to these prayers and incantations. Therefore, medicine became a science through the teachings and influence of Hippocrates.

Hippocrates was so committed and dedicated to his craft that he wrote an oath, which has become the basis for the oath taken by doctors to this day. Here is the original oath written by Hippocrates:

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Various versions of this oath now exist. One report gave the following breakdown of its use by schools of medicine:

1. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.

2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath

3. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.

5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.

6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.

7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.

8. Only 11% invoke a deity.

9. 8% prohibit abortion.

10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.

Perhaps this is why when the scribes and Pharisees doubted Jesus’ authority to forgive sins, He would perform a miracle of healing to show that God was also involved in curing man’s diseases. Jesus knew about the influence of Greek mythology and how it had affected the world up to His day. Could it be that Jesus was making a subtle hint at Asklepios as the constellation of Ophiuchus when he said to the people of Capernaum, “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades” (Mt. 11:23). And when speaking to Peter, did Jesus take a swipe at the power that Hades had over the dead when He said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the power of Hades will not be able to prevent it” (Mt. 16:18). And in 1 Corinthians 15:55, even the Apostle Paul, who was very familiar with Greek gods and their mythology, said sarcastically about the resurrection of the dead in Christ, “ “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O Hades, is your sting?” (1Cor. 15:55). Paul was quoting Hosea (13:14), and there the prophet used the Hebrew word for Hades which is “sheol.”

As we can see, Jesus did not just drop out of the sky with some other worldly philosophy that the people of His day could not understand, nor did He tell His disciples to go out and form some cult that bore no resemblance to what man had come to understand about God in seeking the truth. No! He came to tie all these loose ends together so that mankind could clearly see and understand more about God through Him. And that is the last straw. God has no other Son to send, He has no other plan to roll out. This is it! Either the world accepts it and is saved, or they hang on to the fables and myths of the past and miss the greatest revelation of God the world has ever witnessed.

As Paul explained, the Greeks and others were looking into the mysteries of God through a dark glass, but God sent His Son to turn on the light so mankind could see more clearly. We know what has happened and is going to happen to this humanist belief that man himself is his own savior, that there is no supernatural power to help him. John saw it clearly in the Revelation he received when the Son of God said to him, “I am the living one. I died, but look – I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades!” (Rev. 1:18.) Then later on in the same Revelation, after death and Hades had surrendered all the departed spirits they were holding hostage for judgment, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the ultimate death.” (Rev. 20:13-14.)

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part VI)

BELIEFS SHARED BY GREAT MINDS

A truly inquiring mind is never really satisfied. For each layer of strata that is removed in the exploration of a subject, it uncovers a new layer of heretofore unassimilated information that only fires the imagination to search for more. When reading a new perspective on a somewhat familiar concept, it is best to read it all the way through before determining if you have such an inquisitive thought process, so you can congratulate yourself on being an above average believer seeking to improve their appreciation for what God has given us in His great plan of salvation.

One of the most famous and oft quoted of the Greek philosophers was a man named Socrates who lived from 469-399 B.C. It is accepted in most circles that Socrates laid the foundation for the development of modern Western philosophy. He is also known for inventing “pedagogy,” which is the science and art of education.

One of the first attributes we discover with Socrates that he shares with Jesus of Nazareth, is that neither one of them ever wrote anything philosophical or biographical. In the case of Socrates, whatever information we have about him is derived from the works of four scholars – Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Aristophanes. The same applies to Jesus of Nazareth. All all we know about Him came by way of four followers – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Because these writings about Jesus are called the “Gospels,” and those attributed to Socrates’ associates are what some consider to be artistic and creative, many have doubts as to whether the details contained therein are truth, anecdotal, or myths. However, mythology is enigmatic to say the lest. Since it cannot be proven wrong by facts, it therefore cannot be dismissed for lack of facts. By the same token, the information on Socrates cannot be proven by any historical evidence, and some question that he ever existed; that he may have been an imaginary character in his students’ writings as a mythical figure to explain their philosophy, yet in the literary world and university hallways he is accepted more readily than Jesus of Nazareth for whom there is much greater evidence available from sources other than the Gospels. All of this can be said about the proof for the existence of a man named Shakespeare. Yet his works are studied in universities around the world, while the story of Jesus is treated with far less respect.

Whatever the real facts in the case of Socrates, he is known primarily for his original ideas, his communication skills, and his astute teaching abilities. And like Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in the home of a carpenter, yet from the age of 12 until the age of 30 we know nothing about how He supported Himself or His studies. So with Socrates, we know little about what he did for a living, although in the Silloi of the Pyrrhonean Timon of Phlius, he tells us that Socrates took over his father’s stonemasonary trade. But he became most widely known for his teaching.

One of the hallmarks of the Socratic Method in pedagogy, is that the listener is challenged with questions until they find the answer in their own responses, and the core concepts are Righteousness and Justice. This Socratic Method was designed to challenge the student to examine their own beliefs to find their value in living. Jesus used this same method on the Pharisees and Sadducees of His day, hoping they would see the truth while looking for answers to His questions. Socrates was against some of the philosophic ideas prevalent in his day, especially in Athens, because it focused on the person’s family, community and self. Socrates felt it was more important to be concerned about the welfare of one’s own soul than how those around you feel about you. He argued that successful fathers do not always produce successful sons, and furthermore, that gaining moral excellence was not done simply by following the family rules, but rather that is was a gift from above. As Jesus said, seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and then all these other things will be developed in your life.

One unique philosophical point of view espoused by Socrates, that can also be found in the teachings of Jesus, is synchronizing ‘love of wisdom,’ with the ‘art of loving.’ In other words, Socrates taught that one should concentrate more on developing oneself into being a better person before they try making others better. The better you are, the better will be those things you accomplish. That what comes out of the heart will determine one’s identity as being good or bad. Jesus espoused the same thought when he said, “…the bad things people say with their mouth come from the way they think. And that’s what can make people wrong” (Mt. 15:10). That’s why being good is not an external trait but an internal virtue; it is not the product of the mind but of the soul. That’s why Jesus alerted the critics by inquiring, “Why do you notice the small piece of dust that is in your friend’s eye, but you don’t notice the big piece of wood that is in your own?” (Mt. 7:3).

Both Socrates and Jesus were teachers, and they shared some common goals and thoughts. Both of them were intent on changing the culture around them for the better. They both came with a sense of believing beyond what one already knows. They both used metaphors or parables as tools so that their listeners would be challenged to think for themselves. They were both strong believers in humility, and that one should defend what was right no matter the cost. We know that on one occasion when a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, He wrote in the dust on the ground, whereas Socrates drew geometric figures on the ground to demonstrate how to find twice the area of a square.

We are told that Socrates could usually be found in the marketplace and other public areas, conversing with a variety of different people – young and old, male and female, slave and free, rich and poor – in other words, with anyone he could persuade to join with him in his question-and-answer mode of probing serious matters. Jesus also walked among the crowds in the temple and market place and often asked questions. Socrates’s lifework consisted in the examination of people’s lives, his own and others’, because “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being,” as he says at his trial (Plato, Apology 38a). Socrates pursued this task with single-mindedness, questioning people about what matters most, for example: courage, love, reverence, moderation, and the state of their souls.

While four hundred years later, Jesus never encountered a village or metropolis that fully lived by and taught these concepts of Socrates, the Apostle Paul sure did. Not only was Paul confronted by these arguments but also the streets lined with statutes to the many gods that the Greeks invested with supernatural as well as human traits both good and bad. No wonder it was difficult sometimes for Paul to persuade them that what he was preaching proved better than what they already believed.

Of course, we find that both Socrates and Jesus were martyred for their beliefs, and went to their deaths willingly. Jesus was crucified on a cross while Socrates was poisoned with hemlock until he lost feeling in his feet which eventually shut down his heart. But that’s where similarities ended. Socrates did not point people to the Way of Salvation; he did not heal the sick or raise the dead; Socrates remained in the grave, Jesus rose again; Socrates never left the ground, Jesus ascended into heaven. Socrates did not promise to return, but Jesus said He would be back and that may be sooner than we think.

Jesus warned us, that just like before Him there would be many who would come after Him who will say, “I am the anointed one.” But none of those can match what He did for mankind in transforming life from mere existence into life more abundant; making it possible to become a new creation with old things having passed away and all things becoming new; to live with joy unspeakable and filled with a sense of being significant to God and those around us; and with a guarantee of eternal life, not just a good long life.

After all, when we look at the calendar, the number we see does not represent the years since the birth of Socrates, but the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ. It also signifies a point in time when God no longer left man to his own devices of trying to find a way to Him; of attempting with self regulation and internal cultivation of virtues and morals to reach the high mark God set out for His creation, but falling short. One may read the teachings of Socrates and be enlightened as to a better way to conduct oneself within the community. But the teachings of Jesus bring about a new birth and greater understanding of how one should live in the Kingdom of God. The one points to the past, the other points to the future.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part V)

BELIEFS SHARED BY RELIGIONS

Sometimes it hurts when we think we know something thoroughly, only to find out later we didn’t know the whole story. That’s called “learning.” This can be said of the average Christian’s knowledge about events that impacted Christianity that are not contained in the Bible. Very few know that many of the tenets and teachings in Christian thought were also expressed in other writings and religions, some even before Moses and Jesus gave their revelations.

One of the most critical periods in the history of Judah was when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and carried off its treasures along with its brightest and most skilled craftsmen, among whom were Daniel and three of his friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And it was soon afterward that the Medes and Persians under the leadership of King Cyrus eclipsed the Babylonians to become the strongest and greatest empire at that time in 539-538 B.C.

Among the names that followed the rise of the Persian (now Iran) empire, was that of King Darius in 521 B.C. He became known as Darius the Great. We find Darius first mentioned in Ezra 4:5. Back in Jerusalem the returning Jews from exile tried to rebuild the altar of the Temple but they were interfered with by hostile adversaries who had taken over after the Jews left. Even when they tried to rebuild the walls and the Temple itself, they pleaded for help, but it wasn’t until the sixth year of Darius’ reign that they were finally able to rebuild the Temple by the authority of a letter from King Darius.

Darius thought of himself as the greatest king of all time. As a matter of fact, Darius had a monument carved on Mount Behistun, and etched this monument he introduced himself as “Darius, the great king, king of kings.” But that is not the only place we find this title. In Ezekiel 27:7, this is how Nebuchadnezzar was referred to, “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I will bring King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon against Tyre. He is king of kings.” Even Daniel (2:37) addressed Nebuchadnezzar the same way, “Your Majesty, you are the king of kings.” Then in Ezra 2:12 we see a letter from King Artaxerxes sent to Ezra the priest with the following salutation, “From Artaxerxes, the king of kings.”

Darius expected the best from his warriors as well as everyone else who served in his kingdom. As a matter of fact, in his “Histories,” Herodotus, (born 484 BC in Halicarnassus, a Greek city in southwest Asia Minor that was then under Persian rule, a Greek author who authored the first great narrative of history produced in the ancient world, referred to the ancient postal courier service of the Persian Empire this way: “It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day’s journey; and these are stayed neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed.” This has been erroneously attributed to the US Postal Service which has no such motto.

But on the same Mount Behistun monument, Darius also wrote the following inscription: “Whosoever shall worship Ahura Mazda (the Zoroastrian god of goodness), divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and after he is dead.” So we see what influence this king of kings had on the world at that time, especially the captives from Jerusalem and Judah. But who was this Ahura Mazda? In the name itself, Ahura – means Being or Light Mazda – means Mind or Wisdom describes the divine being that Darius and the whole Persian empire worshipped?

History records that Zarathustra (also known as Zoroaster) was the first prophet of Ahura Mazda, and founded the religion we called Zoroastrianism. Zarathustra gave three commandments to his followers to enable them to lead perfect lives and work for their own salvation. First was humata (good thought), then hukhta (good word), and then havarshta (good deeds). Zarathustra believed that good thoughts are very important in one’s spiritual journey, because all else comes out of ordinary thoughts. Without good thoughts, there cannot be progress on the spiritual path. Without good thoughts one cannot subject oneself to Divine will and become qualified to receive blessings. The apostle Paul concurred with this thinking when he wrote to the Christians in Philippi (Phil. 4:8), “Brothers and sisters, continue to think about what is good and worthy of praise. Think about what is true and honorable and right and pure and beautiful and respected.” But thinking good thoughts alone is not sufficient. One must have the courage to speak the Truth all the times. One must be truthful to oneself and to others. There is no place for hypocrisy or duplicity in the life a of a true believer. Again, the apostle Paul supported the truth being told regardless of the consequences. In his writing to the Christians in Rome, he indicted those in the past who knew the truth about God, but failed to pass it on because it conflicted with their own ideas. Paul accused them by saying (Rom. 1:25), “They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator Himself, who is worthy of eternal praise!”

Performance of good deeds is equally important in the teaching of Zarathustra. The supreme power of God – Ahura Mazda, is made only available to those who engage in good actions. Such good actions are only found in one’s service to mankind. Once more the apostle Paul echoes this same thought in writing to the believers in Ephesus (4:31-32), “Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior. Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you.” Does this mean that Paul borrowed from the writings of Zarathustra? No! It was a truth that God communicated to His creation from the beginning. We see this same concept expressed throughout Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the Apostle James emphasized the need for service by saying that faith without works is dead. The rabbis who wrote the Babylonian Talmud during this time, were also influenced by these concepts, and carried them back to Judah when they returned from exile.

The believers in Zoroastrianism would also say a chant that served as their confession of faith. By saying this prayer over and over again they believed they could drive away all forces of darkness both within and without. The first line says, “…just as a king is powerful, so will a great human soul be powerful because of his belief in God.” The second line says, “…the blessings of God are those who work for the Lord of Life.” That God bestows blessings on those who think good thoughts and do good deeds according to the divine will of God. The third line says, “…the Supreme power of God is bestowed upon him who considers himself a helper of the meek and lowly.” There is little doubt that both Jesus and the apostle Paul would endorse these sayings, but with the qualifier that they not be considered as a way to earn one’s own salvation. No wonder when Jesus came He ran into this Pharisaical attitude of good deeds as a way of earning God’s blessings and becoming eligible for His favor. But when Jesus told them eternal life could not be merited this way, it caused strife and they became angry. Jesus told them that salvation is a gift, it’s not earned; it is only made possible by God’s grace, not man’s efforts.

But the main core of Zarathustra’s teaching was monotheistic dogma that God the Creator, is one God. Everything emanates from Him and in the end all goes back to Him. There is no other God above Him. He is a Spirit and He alone should be worshipped. This is the same thing Jesus told the woman at Jacob’s well in Samaria, “For God is Spirit, so those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” Although God is Spirit, according to Zarathustra He has six ways through which mankind is allowed to approach Him.

The first is hope – as in “expectation.” Nothing is done by chance, all events are already preordained as part of God’s divine scheme of things. He continuously manifests Himself through divine will, according to the divine law. When a human being submits himself to the divine will and follows the divine laws, he is following the path that leads to spiritual growth. 

The second is wisdom, that is received through unconditional love and which sustains and supports mankind in times of difficulties and leads people on their path to God. Wisdom comes from having a pure mind which is the basis for further spiritual growth.

The third is self-control. Every believer can realize this power and see it in action when they are guided by discipline and a good mind.

The fourth is devotion. It represents faith and single-minded allegiance to God. It is a special part of those who are twice-born; those who have been given secrets of a true spiritual life.

The fifth is holiness. This is perfection personified. It represents all that is perfect, beautiful and harmonious in the creation of God.

The sixth is eternal life. This allows the believer to overcome all fear of death. It is found in the tree of life and the tree of immortality found in heaven.

These, says Zarathustra, constitute what he called the “Seven-fold Lord of the Universe.” When we read Revelation 1:12-20 we find an astounding comparison. According to Zarathustra, when we cultivate, nurture and practice these six virtues we will be able to clearly see the path of salvation out in front of us.

These are the thoughts of men as their minds searched for what is true and right and pleasing to God. No wonder Jesus had to endure such harassment and opposition to His teachings because it went against this same theology embedded in the writings of the Rabbis and espoused by the scribes and Pharisees. The Jews in Persia believed that Zarathustra was Jewish. It was said that he had been taught by Jeremiah or by Baruch ben Neriah, who was a pupil of Jeremiah. Later, the Muslims in Persia would also repeat similar ideas. This indicates that even at a later stage there still existed something in Zoroastrianism that suggested Hebrew influence.

Hence, the points of resemblance between Zoroastrianism and Judaism and Christianity, are many and striking. Ahura Mazda was considered, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He was endowed with creative power exercised through Spenta Mainyu (“Holy Spirit”), and governed the universe through the instrumentality of angels and archangels. He also had an adversary, Ahriman, whose dominion, like Satan’s, will be destroyed at the end of the world. There are striking parallels between Zoroastrianism and Christianity related to doctrines of regeneration, a divine kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting. Both Zoroastrianism and Judaism are revealed religions: in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda imparts his revelation and pronounces his commandments to Zarathustra on “the Mountain of the Two Holy Communing Ones”; in Judaism, Yahweh holds a similar communion with Moses on Mt. Sinai. These two religions agree in certain respects with regard to the six days of Creation in Genesis. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, with Mashya and Mashyana in Zoroastrianism being the Adam and Eve Judaism. In the Bible a deluge destroys all people except for a single righteous individual and his family; in the Avesta (Zoroastrian Bible) a winter depopulates the earth except for those kept in an enclosure. In each case, the earth is then repopulated with the best two of every kind, and is afterward divided into three realms. The three sons, Erij, Selm, and Tur in the Zoroastrian Avesta, are the same as Shem, Ham, and Japheth in the Jewish Torah.

Therefore, should we all become Zoroastrians? Absolute not! When God breathed life into Adam it was more than just making him alive, it included giving mankind a will and conscience. How else would Adam and Eve have felt guilty for what they did in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And God never stopped talking to mankind over the millennia after the flood, and as the Apostle Paul said, they saw things through a dark glass. If anything, it reveals that the truth about God was expressed in different cultures through different languages. After all, even Moses had to ask God what His name was. We have become so attuned to how things are said in our own culture that we reject anything that does not sound like our own. But it took the Light of the World Himself, Jesus Christ, to come and clear it all up, and tell us what God really wanted us to know. Paul called it a secret that was kept until being revealed through Christ. While all this self-righteousness is good and morally beneficial, it cannot cover sin and secure eternal life.

Even the Apostle Paul tells young Timothy to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.” But he goes on to explain that it will all come to an end at “the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen” (1Tim. 6:13b-16).

That’s why Jesus came to show that only one man could perform perfectly what God demanded and then share with others what He accomplished, so that they too might live in righteousness and obtain everlasting life. No one before Him could do it, and no one after Him will God require to repeat it. When Jesus said, “It is finished!” He was talking more to His heavenly Father than to us and really meant it!

NOTE: In 1883, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche published a book entitled ‘Also sprach Zarathustra’ translated as Thus Spake Zarathustra. For our modern readers, it could be aptly titled, “Zarathustra Also Said This.” In his book Nietzsche chronicles the fictitious travels and speeches of Zarathustra. But Nietzsche transforms Zarathustra into someone who turns traditional morality upside down. In his novel Nietzsche coins a phrase that would later appear as a headline on Time Magazine’s cover: God is dead! Also, in honor of this book, Richard Strauss wrote a symphony, Opus 30, that most people will immediately recognize by its opening crescendo.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part IV)

CONCEPTS SHARED BY MANY RELIGIONS

One nice thing about being inquisitive, it takes your mind places you might never venture without having been pushed or challenged to go there. But the effort also requires more than casual interest or a quick perusal. It is a search for facts and then further research to put them all together to create a cogent understanding of those facts. And when you have a seasoned guide to help you explore, you’ll be introduced to things you would have never found on your own. That’s why reading and listening are so important to education.

When we go to the beginning of the Bible and read the historical accounts from the time God created man down to the time of Jesus, we find that the prevalent form of government around the world was that of Despotism. That is not necessarily a bad word. Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be a monarchy, or an autocracy, or it may be an oligarchy, which is ruling by a select group.

The word despotism comes from the Greek word despotes, which roughly means “master” or “one with power,” and it has been used to translate a wide variety of titles and positions. It was used to describe the unlimited power and authority of the Pharaohs of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the Kings of Israel and Judah. But when Democracy came into fashion in Greece under the leadership and writings of Solon, a respected statesman, lawmaker and poet who lived in Athens. He greatest contribution was his efforts to legislate reforms against political, economic, and moral decline in what had become Greece’s outdated capitol city. Although his campaign failed to have any immediate impact, he is still credited with laying the foundation that led to the formation of Greek democracy. Slowly other nations began to copy this form of government, but it would take a long time to gain momentum worldwide. We all know that it was not too long ago when the Kings of Europe and Emperors of Asia ruled in despot fashion. The influence of this type of rule in Italy led to the Roman Catholic Church adopting a similar style with the evolution of the Papacy.

Under such despotism, there is no concept of freedom in the sense that the rules and commandments of the Master can be violated, ignored, or altered without punishment. From time to time, a benevolent despot would, of his own free will, modify certain laws as a convenience for his subjects to placate growing unrest, but people could not through their own efforts amend or rewrite those laws. Therefore the word “freedom,” became synonymous with rebellion and overthrow of the despot so as to take control through revolt and revolution.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam there is a clear acceptance of despotism by virtue of the recognition that there is but one God who rules heaven and earth. There is no one above Him and no Council to which He must report or get approval. His commandments and rules cannot be amended by man, because man has no such authority. Deuteronomy 4:2 Moses tells the children of Israel, “You must not add to what I command you. And you must not take anything away. You must obey the commands of the Lord your God that I have given you.” There is no end or term limit to His reign, it is eternal. In earlier times this same concept was accepted as a model for the family, with the male being the undisputed head of the household. Today, such despot rulers are known more as tyrants and dictators.

At this same time there developed a network of world commerce facilitated by a thing called the “Great Silk Road.” But merchandize was not the only thing transported along this route that tied the civilized world together, there were also ideas and concepts. And since Greece became a leader in philosophy and language, much of what was passed on around the world came through this Greek linguistic and commercial system.

One of the ideas found in teachings from Greece to China to Alexandria in Egypt and every place in between, was the doctrine of metempsychosis or “Transmigration of the Soul”. It arose in the writings of Orpheus, who was a legendary musician, poet, and prophet in ancient Greek religion and myth. By the 6^th century B.C. the Orphic religion taught that soul and body are united by a mutual compact, but one which is not equally fair to both. The soul is divine, immortal and aspires to freedom, while the body holds it in fetters as a prisoner. Death dissolves this compact, but only to re-imprison the liberated soul after a short time: for the wheel of birth revolves inexorably. To these unfortunate prisoners of reincarnation Orpheus proclaimed a message of liberation. He told them that they stood in need of grace from redeeming gods, and called on them to turn to God by ascetic piety of life and self-purification. For the purer their lives, the higher will be their next reincarnation until the soul has completed the spiral vortex of destiny to live forever with God from whom it comes.

Thus we see the seeds of belief in gaining eternal life as an end to repeated reincarnation, or the transmigration of the soul. If a person does not change their ways and begin to live a righteous life by doing good deeds, their judgment will only send them back to repeat the process over and over again until they get it right. Judaism never adopted this cyclic concept as a whole, but attaining everlasting life was considered only possible by repeatedly fulfilling the law through righteous living. To do this it was necessary that they atone for their mistakes through animal sacrifice so that they did not have to die in order to start over. In other words, they could keep going in this life by transmitting to the animal who was sacrificed in their place all their bad deeds, or unrighteousness, so they could continue on their journey toward perfected righteousness and eternal life.

So when Jesus came, we can only imagine the shock when He begin to teach that He was the ultimate sacrifice, and anyone who believed in Him to satisfy God’s demand for punishment of their sins, would be given eternal life through Him. Not only that, but He promised that even after those who believed in Him died physically, their souls would live on, and one day He would return to give them a new body so they can live with God forever and ever. We see this concept at the end of Psalm 23.

So we see that God did not spring the ideas contained in Judaism and Christianity on an unsuspecting world without little or no connection to anything man had ever heard or was told before. In Acts of the Apostles 14:17 the apostle Paul made this clear when speaking to the Lycaonians who mistakened he and Barnabas as the gods Zeus and Hermes incarnate, “In the past God let all the nations do what they wanted. But God was always there doing the good things that prove He is real. He gives you rain from heaven and good harvests at the right times. He gives you plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.’” Paul repeated this same point in verses 29-31 where he told the Areopagus Council in Athens, “We all come from God. So you must not think that He is like something people imagine or make. He is not made of gold, silver, or stone. In the past people did not understand God, and He overlooked this. But now He is telling everyone in the world to change and turn to Him. He has decided on a day when He will judge all the people in the world in a way that is fair. To do this He will use a man He chose long ago. And He has proved to everyone that this is the man to do it. He proved it by raising Him from death!” But through Jesus it provided a way for all of these ideas to come together in one Person, in one Gospel, so that the whole world could be saved by one Savior. Man did not discover the idea of eternal life. God is eternal, therefore it already existed in Him. But man sought this eternal life, this fountain of youth, but could never find it on his own. That’s why it took a revelation from God for mankind to hear the truth. Therefore, in despot fashion, eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ because He is the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life. Perhaps that’s why it is so easy for us to call Him our Lord and Master.