Catechism of the Catholic Church

I posted this to my "Recliner Commentaries" blog over a year ago and just realized that I failed to post it here also....so here it is:

 

Introduction

 

I recently finished reading the “Complete and Updated” Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York : Doubleday, 1995. 845 pages!) which is the definitive statement of what the Roman Catholic Church believes. I thought I’d give my impressions and analysis from an Evangelical perspective.

First, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I probably agreed with 80-90% of it! For example, as I expected, it affirmed the deity and the physical resurrection of Jesus (# 654, 643). It also affirmed the reality of hell and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, i.e. the idea that Jesus died an atoning sacrifice in our place for our sins (#1035, #615).

I was surprised to see that the Catechism affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture and the importance of authorial intent in interpreting Scripture (#107, #109, #110, #136). I was even more surprised to find that the Catechism affirmed belief in a coming tribulation period (of unspecified length) during which the Antichrist will offer men apparent solutions to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth (#675).

On repentance, faith and grace

I was somewhat surprised, to discover what the Catechism says about salvation, grace and faith. Although the Catechism says that “It is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone…that…salvation can be obtained” (#181, #816, #1445), it also paradoxically affirmed the salvation of people who belong to other Christian churches (#818, #819, #838, #1271) and possibly even some from other religions (#841-843, #947).

The Catechism also affirms that conversion “is first of all a work of the grace of God” (#1432) and that “Our justification comes from the grace of God…the free undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God” (#1996). This comes through faith which is also “a gift of God” (#153, cf. #154, #162, #179). Faith includes not only “assent to his words” (#1122) but also love for God (#1033) and the “personal adherence of the whole man to God” (#176) in which man “seeks to know and do God’s will” (#1814; cf. #546). Such faith is preceded by repentance which is,

A radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with the hope in God’ mercy and trust in the help of his grace (#1431).

These statements on repentance and faith would sound positively Evangelical were it not for some other statements that give Evangelicals significant concern. For example, the Catechism teaches that the sacraments, and the “service and witness to the faith” are all necessary to salvation (#980, #1129, #1816, #1256, #1257; emphasis mine). The Catechism says that “Conversion is accomplished in daily life by…concern for the poor, exercise and defense of justice and right…revision of life…endurance of persecution…” etc. (#1435; emphasis mine).

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul strongly condemned the teaching that circumcision and good works were necessary for salvation. So when the Catechism teaches that the sacraments and the “service and witness to the faith” are necessary to salvation, this sounds very similar to the Galatian heresy. 

Evangelicals argue that “service of and witness to the faith” are the fruit of salvation, not the means to salvation. We would insist that conversion is evidenced by concern for the poor, the exercise of justice, etc. not the result of such good works.

This may seem like splitting hairs but the difference is absolutely crucial. Over and over again Paul taught that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, not by any good works we do. Paul writes, “For by grace are you saved through faith, and not of yourselves, not of works lest any man should boast.” Paul is quick to add, however, that “we are his workmanship created for good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10).  Works are the necessary fruit of faith, not the cause of salvation.

Sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism

One of the sacraments seen to be necessary for salvation is Baptism. The Catechism says that in Baptism “all sins are forgiven, original and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin” (#1263, cf. #405). According to the Catechism, baptism “communicates…the life that originates in the Father” and baptism “gives us the grace of the new birth” (#683, cf. #405).

In Catholic theology baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. Paul specifically argues, however, that circumcision was a sign of the covenant, not a prerequisite to salvation (Romans 4:9-11). Paul argued that those who were trusting in circumcision for salvation were not saved at all (Galatians 5:1-4). Evangelicals see little difference between insisting that circumcision is necessary for salvation and insisting that baptism is necessary for salvation. This is not to say that baptism is unimportant, indeed, the informed refusal to be baptized may be evidence of an unconverted heart. But baptism is the initial sign and evidence of salvation, not something that communicates or brings about salvation.

The Eucharist is another sacrament seen by the Roman Catholic Church as necessary for salvation. The Catechism teaches that the Eucharist is a literal sacrifice of Christ in which he “gives us his very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (#1365). The Catechism points out that the Old Testament priesthood was “powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly…” (#1450). On the other hand, the Catechism teaches that Jesus instituted the Eucharist to “perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again” (#1323).

First, it seems a bit odd that the Catechism should criticize the perpetual nature of Old Testament sacrifice while teaching the perpetual nature of the sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist. Second, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist seems to downplay the “once for all” nature of Jesus’ sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:1-10). Finally, to take Jesus literally when he said, “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” appears to Evangelicals like insisting that when Jesus said, “I am the vine” he was affirming that he was vegetation.

Salvation

I was puzzled by the fact that although the Catechism teaches that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and that baptism actually imparts salvation, yet paradoxically the Catechism also held out hope that unbaptized infants might be saved (#1261). It also affirms that

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst who are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, an together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (#841-843).

Muslims certainly do not undergo Christian baptism which, according to the Catechism, removes sin and imparts salvation. In fact, the Qur’an not only denies the Trinity in general (Sura 4.171; 5.173) and the deity of Jesus in particular (Sura 5.72, 116), it even insists that those who worship Jesus will go to hell (Sura 9.30-35)! It is a mystery how those who adamantly deny and denounce the cardinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be seen by the Church to have eternal life—especially in light of First John 2:23 which says that “no one who denies the Son has the Father….” That alone is enough to cause Evangelicals to question the infallibility of the Pope and bishops, which raises the next issue.

Final authority

One of the biggest disagreements between Protestants and Catholics concerns the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Ever since the Reformation, Evangelicals have regarded the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice. The Catechism, however, is clear that “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (#82) and that “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (#97).

First, this seems to contradict tradition itself. Ignatius (d. AD 110), for example, is careful to distinguish his writings from those of the apostles. In his letter to the Trallians he writes, “…I did not think myself qualified for this, that I, a convict, should give you orders as though I were an apostle” (3). To the Romans Ignatius writes, “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles…” (4).

Similarly, in about AD 110 Polycarp writes,

For neither I nor anyone like me can keep pace with the wisdom of the blessed and glorious 

Paul, who, when he was among you in presence of men of that time, accurately and reliably taught the word concerning the truth. And when he was absent he wrote you letters, if you study them carefully, you will be able to build yourselves up in the faith that has been given to you…” (3).

The same attitude toward the apostles seems to be found in Clement of Rome (AD97; To the Corinthians, 42, 47). It appears that authors of the very earliest post-biblical tradition did not consider their writings on par with the apostles and other writers of New Testament books. Instead, they regularly quoted from books now collected in the New Testament as their authority. This was even more true of later church Fathers. The idea that the Church would later lift their writings up to the level of Scripture would have been scandalous to them.

Second, the church fathers sometimes exhibit strong disagreements and outright contradictions among themselves. In other words, the only traditions that are treated as inspired are those selected by later Church leaders.

Finally, the Catechism is clear that “The task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God…has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone” (#85). More precisely, “the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (#85). The Catechism teaches that the Pope and bishops have infallibility with regard to faith and morals (#890, #891, #2035).

Infallibility of the Church

To Evangelical ears this is especially puzzling. First, there is nothing in Scripture that would teach infallibility of the Church. Second, this doctrine seems to create problems for the Church itself. For example, the Catechism strongly affirms that Christians should continually read the Scriptures for themselves. It says, “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful” (#131). The Catechism goes so far as to say that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” (#133).

On the other hand, in times past the Catholic Church, as a matter of official policy, was instrumental in the imprisonment and even execution of those who insisted that Christians should read Scriptures for themselves, e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and hundreds if not thousands of ordinary Christians whose only crime was the possession of the Scriptures in English. That raises the question: Which Church is infallible? Was it the modern Church which insists that Christians should read Scriptures for themselves, or the Church in times past that persecuted Christians who read the Scriptures?

Another example would be that the Church once taught that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church (vestiges of this teaching are still found in the Catechism, e.g. sections 181, 816, and 1445). On the other hand, the Catechism now affirms that many Protestants (and possibly even some in other religions) are saved. Which teaching is infallible; the teaching in the Catechism of today which holds out salvation for non-Catholics, or the Church’s teaching in the past which confined salvation to the Roman Catholic Church alone?

Yet another example is the fact that the Catechism condemns torture and killing (#2297).  The catechism even acknowledges that “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals of the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture.” The section continues, “Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood” (#2298).

Many will undoubtedly find this section misleading if not outright deceptive. First, while it may be true that clerics were forbidden to personally shed blood, it was the bishops of the church who handed the “heretics” over to civil authorities to be tortured and/or executed for their opposition to the Church. I’m sure it made little difference to the victims whether they were being tortured directly by the Church, or by civil authorities on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. Second, it is simply not true that these practices were always used “to maintain law and order.” Torture was often used simply to weed out and punish otherwise law-abiding and peaceful “heretics.” 

The point of this discussion, however is to ask the question: Which Church was infallible, the modern church which condemns torture, or the Church in times past which, for hundreds of years,

made it a regular practice?

Yet another reason to question Church infallibility is the Catechism teaching that man “must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters” (#1782). In times past, however, the Church regularly sought to force people like Martin Luther, for example, to act or profess contrary to their conscience.

Mary

Catholics would no doubt protest that these were not official proclamations of the Catholic Church but such protestations would sound pretty hollow to Protestants who were often the victims of such official persecution carried out by the bishops in full communion with Rome. 

Therefore, while there is much in the Catechism that Evangelicals and affirm and celebrate, Evangelicals will insist that that the Pope and bishops are not infallible and that some parts of the catechism are merely “barnacles” of tradition, added by the Church on its own authority apart from the authority of Jesus and the apostles.

Take, for example the Church’s teaching on Mary. The Catechism teaches not only that Mary was devoid of original sin, but that she was absolutely sinless during her entire life (#411, #491, #493, #508, #722, #966). By contrast, the Bible teaches that “There is no one righteous, not even one” and that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”(Romans 3:10, 23). The Bible specifically indicates that Jesus is an exception to this rule (Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 8:46) but there are no statements anywhere in Scripture that would say or imply that Mary is also an exception. The sinlessness of Mary is a doctrine developed by the Church long after New Testament times and is in direct contradiction to what the New Testament teaches (It is interesting that the Catechism actually talks much more about the sinlessness of Mary than it does about the sinlessness of Jesus).

Similarly, the Catechism teaches that Mary was “taken up body and soul into heavenly glory” and was “exalted as Queen over all things” (#966, cf. #969, #974). The Bible knows nothing of this. This is another example of “barnacles” which attached themselves to Christianity long after the time of the apostles. Other “barnacles” include the Church’s teaching on indulgences (#1471, #1479), purgatory (#1030-1032, #1054, #1475, #1479), Mary’s perpetual virginity (#499, #500), and the teaching that 

Mary and the canonized faithful become intercessors for us (#1014, #828), none of which have any basis in the New Testament.

Veneration and Worship

One of the most serious “barnacles” is the doctrine of the “veneration” of Mary and of icons. The Church recognizes that if people were to worship Mary or icons they would be guilty of idolatry so the bishops are adamant that veneration is not the same as adoration or worship (#971). Unfortunately, the Catechism does not always make this distinction. For example, section #1378 refers to the “Worship of the Eucharist” in which “faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine” is expressed by “genuflecting, or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.” The section goes on to say,

The Catholic church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during the Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hoses with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful” (#1378, emphasis mine).

First, in this section the words “worship,” “adoration,” and “veneration” are seemingly used synonymously, so when Catholics say that they venerate Mary and icons, but adore or worship Christ, Evangelicals hope Catholics will understand our skepticism, especially in light of the impression we have that many average Catholics don’t really seem to make much distinction between veneration and worship.

Second, in an attempt to explain that the “veneration” of the icon of Christ is not idolatry, the Catechism states that icons of Christ “can be venerated” because the one “who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted” (#477). Since the subject of this “veneration” is Christ himself, we can only conclude that the word “veneration” here is used synonymously with worship.
It, therefore, appears to Evangelicals that the only distinction between veneration and worship is that if you “venerate” Christ, you are worshiping him but if you “venerate” Mary or icons you are not worshiping them. This is a distinction without a difference.

Third, section #2132 says,

Religious worship is not directed to images themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.

So the worship is not actually directed to the images but rather to what the images symbolize. Unfortunately, this does little to ease Evangelical concerns that Catholics are engaged in idolatry.
After Aaron crafted the Golden Calf he immediately announced a “festival to Yahweh.” He apparently saw the calf as a visual representation of Yahweh worship. According to the story, Yahweh saw it as idolatry and considered it to be a very serious offense (Exodus 32:1-5). Evangelicals generally fail to see much difference between the use of a golden calf in the worship of Yahweh and the use of a crucifix (or other icon) in the worship of Jesus.

It would be possible to argue that I am just quibbling over words, and that the Church is not really teaching the worship of Mary and that the sections in the Catechism that use the words worship, veneration and adoration synonymously were just unfortunate, unguarded statements. Similarly, it would be possible to argue that the Church is really not guilty of the Galatian heresy of requiring works for salvation, rather the Church really means that baptism, the Eucharist, other Sacraments and good works are the essential fruit of salvation and not something people must do in order to be saved. If this was the case, it would go a long way toward unifying Catholics and Protestants if the Catholic Church were to revise the Catechism with a view toward making these positions more clear.

Conclusion

I agreed with the majority of the Catechism and found it a joy and blessing to read. Nevertheless, some of the disagreements—like the infallibility of the Church, the “veneration” of Mary and icons, or the precise relationship between faith and works, are extremely significant and could be matters of spiritual life and death.

Review of Aslan's "Zealot, the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"

 My article on Reza Aslan's Zealot, the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, published in the Minnesota Christian Examiner, 2007. http://www.minnesota.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Nov13/Art_Nov13_oped3.html

Zealot, the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan is a New York Times bestseller, and for good reason. Aslan is a brilliant story-teller. In Aslan’s story, Jesus grew up under the oppressive rule of corrupt temple officials and brutal Roman overlords. It was a time of numerous uprisings by Jewish rebels and would-be-messiahs who sought to overthrow Rome by force. All this helped to foster Jesus’ resentment and rage against the rich and powerful.

According to Aslan, Jesus shared the anti-Temple feelings of other Galileans and his preaching of the kingdom was “a call to revolution, plain and simple” (120). Armed only with zeal, Jesus was welcomed as royalty as he rode into Jerusalem and confronted the Temple authorities with his claim to be Jerusalem’s rightful king. As a result, Jesus was arrested and executed by crucifixion, which the Romans reserved for the most serious political crimes.

So if Jesus’ message was a call to revolution, why don’t the Gospels tell the story this way? Aslan’s answer is that the Gospels were all written after the fall of Jerusalem by Christians who didn’t know Jesus and were trying to distance themselves from the rebellion. They, therefore, revised the story of Jesus to remove the fact that he was a zealot.

I found myself enthralled by the story and even agreeing in many cases. I agree with much of Aslan’s historical background material (though not always with his “spin”). I agree that most Jews in Jesus’ day opposed Roman rule and that some actively sought to overthrow it. I agree that Jesus thought of himself as Israel’s Messiah and that he envisioned a literal kingdom on earth. I also agree that Jesus was crucified by the Romans on charges of sedition.

But while there is much with which I agree, my disagreements are far more significant.

First, just because Galilee was a violent province before and after Jesus’ lifetime does not mean that Jesus grew up preaching a call to revolution.  Imagine, for example, a book detailing all the violence of the civil rights era and arguing that Dr. King, therefore, must have been an advocate of violent revolution! Jesus’ peaceful message, like that of Dr. King, was “radical” because it was so countercultural.

Second, while I agree with Aslan that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah, Aslan seems to think that this fact must necessarily mean that Jesus was a zealot intent on overturning Roman rule. Aslan seems unaware that many Jews in Jesus’ day thought the Kingdom of God would be established by the direct divine intervention, not by human violence. They need only wait and be faithful until God acted.

Certainly the Essenes were one such group. Interestingly enough, Aslan argued that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist who may have been influenced by Essenes. Yet Aslan doesn’t even entertain the possibility that Jesus agreed with the Essenes in their view that the kingdom would come by divine intervention, not by revolution.

Third, the extreme skepticism Aslan brings to the Gospels is unwarranted. He argues that the only two firm historical facts we can know about Jesus are that Jesus “was a Jew who led a popular Jewish movement in Palestine at the beginning of the first century C.E.”(xxvii), and that this resulted in his crucifixion by the Romans. Aslan seems unaware that even most of the radically skeptical Jesus scholars believe that the Gospels contain more historically reliable information about Jesus than this.

More significantly, however, although Aslan says “there are only two hard historical facts about Jesus,” (xxvii) he builds his case on other facts in the Gospels that he considers to be reliable. It appears that Aslan is very skeptical of everything that undermines his theory but accepts everything that he thinks may support his theory. Unlike many serious Jesus scholars, Aslan never sets forth the criteria by which he determines what is reliable.

Fourth, Aslan’s creative writing skill is one of the strengths of the book, but it is also one of the most serious weaknesses. Many readers will no doubt find it impossible to tell where the facts end and the creative storytelling begins. For example, when Aslan describes Jesus’ followers as “hiding in Gethsemane, shrouded in darkness, and armed with swords” and adds that they “will not be taken easily” (147), the reader is led to imagine a well-armed band of resistance fighters hiding out in wait for the Romans. This impression is pure fiction.

In Aslan’s view the reason not one ancient source presents Jesus as a zealot is because they were trying to cover up Jesus’ true identity.  On the other hand, a second possibility might be that the reason none of our ancient sources present Jesus as a zealot is because Jesus—like the Essenes and other Jews of his time—was not preaching rebellion against Rome but was proclaiming God’s direct intervention. Jesus was warning people to repent in preparation for the day when God would directly intervene in human affairs to set up his kingdom.

This second option is precisely what the Gospels teach, it coheres well with what we know about first century Jewish groups, and it does not require extensive, speculative historical re-imagination.

Witnessing for Jesus

I recently attended a pastor’s workshop in which the leader—if I understood him correctly—taught that Christian witnessing is about telling what God is doing in your life.

Like many others, my life has often been filled with enormous emotional pain. When I was about six years old my cousin and best friend was walking behind a horse when he was kicked in the head and died. My best friend and brother-in-law was crushed in the back of the garbage truck he was working on. My two younger brothers died suddenly of massive heart attacks. My father-in-law died of Lou Gehrig's disease. 

My mom and dad both died of emphysema (and other complications) struggling for every breath they could get. My first grandson died during delivery. The pain of all of these deaths put together doesn’t even compare with other emotional pain I’ve experienced.  I suspect that if I shared with others that this is how God has worked in my life, they would say, “You Christians can’t even get drunk to ease the pain! Why would anyone want that?!”

I suspect that the workshop speaker was talking about sharing the good things God is doing in our lives, but that can be deceptive. Becoming a Christian does not mean that life will then be a bed of roses—it may become a bed (or crown) of thorns! The fact is that God often works through the trials in our life.

Take St. Paul for example. Imagine Paul telling people how God had worked in his life: Before he met Jesus, Paul was well-respected and rising in status faster than many of his contemporaries. After he got saved and started preaching Jesus, Paul got death threats in Damascus, Jerusalem and elsewhere. He was run out of town in places like Pisidian Antioch,  Iconium, Thessalonica and Berea. He was stoned nearly to death in Lystra, and was imprisoned in Philippi, Caesarea and Rome.

In Second Corinthians11, Paul summarizes what God was doing in his life saying that his ministry had resulted in hunger, thirst and sleepless nights. He says that five times he had been whipped, three times he had been beaten with rods and once he had been stoned. Before finally being beheaded he would spend years in Caesarean and Roman confinement—and we’re not talking modern prisons with weight rooms, basketball courts and TV’s. It was more like darkness, cold hard floors, and vermin.

Jesus taught that those who would follow him should count the cost—because it could cost everything! Those who leave the impression that following Jesus will solve all your problems are lying to you!

Telling people what you think God is doing in your life is hardly sharing the Gospel! The Gospel begins with the biblical teaching that “all have sinned and come short God’s perfect standard.” Our sin has separated us from God and places us under his terrible wrath. Paradoxically, however, in God, love and wrath coexist. In his love, God became human in the person of Jesus Christ, and endured mocking, beating and torture on a cross as a sacrifice to save all who would turn to him in repentance and faith (i.e. allegiance, loving devotion).

Following Jesus in faith does not always lead to personal peace and prosperity in this life. In fact, for many people following Jesus makes life worse—for some, much MUCH worse! But we follow a Lord who endured unbearable suffering for us. Why would we expect anything different?

Bottom line, being witnesses for Jesus involves talking about Jesus, not necessarily about what you think God is doing in your life.

What did Jesus look like?

What did Jesus look like? Unfortunately, no one knows the answer to this question but one thing we can be sure of is that he did not look like the image portrayed in art and movies.

Jesus was a Jew from Palestine which means that his skin was darker than those of us from Norwegian ancestry. Most Jewish men in Jesus’ day wore long untrimmed beards (think Duck Dynasty) and there is no reason to think Jesus was any exception. We don’t know how long Jesus’ hair was but I wonder if the image of a long-haired Jesus comes from confusing Nazarene with Nazarite.  Jesus was a Nazarene, i.e. someone from Nazareth, but we have no reason to believe he was a Nazarite which is someone who took a religious vow that involved not cutting one’s hair (like Samson).

Jesus was an itinerant Jewish prophet, which meant that he and his disciples traveled from town to town along dirty, dusty, and sometimes muddy roads littered with the droppings sheep, goats and other animals. Bathing and oral hygiene was a luxury that Jesus and his disciples probably rarely enjoyed. As a result they were often dirty, sweaty, stinky and may have had bad breath! In other words, the image of a nicely groomed and squeaky clean Caucasian Jesus with pearly white teeth is the stuff of pious western imagination. This much is pretty certain.

I’d like to press a bit further, however, and propose that Jesus may have been a physically large man. I would imagine Jesus something like a bearded Jewish version of Hoss (Dan Blocker) in the old Bonanza TV series, or Michael Oher, the Baltimore Raven’s tackle who was portrayed as a gentle giant in the movie, Blind Side.

People in Jesus’ day tended to be smaller than they are today so I’m not suggesting that Jesus was actually 6’4” or 300 pounds like Dan Blocker or Michael Oher. I am suggesting, however, that Jesus, like Saul in the Old Testament, may have stood head and shoulders above the rest—and was probably powerfully built. In the Gospels Jesus is described as a carpenter (Matthew 13:55). A carpenter may have made furniture. On the other hand, a carpenter may also have worked with large, heavy beams for building construction. The Greek word for carpenter could also mean stone-cutter. If so, it would mean that Jesus regularly worked with large stones. Working with heavy beams or large stones would tend to make someone quite strong.

Let’s adopt the idea of a large, powerfully built Jesus as a hypothesis. The strength of any hypothesis is its explanatory power and this hypothesis would explain several pieces of evidence in the Gospels.

First, it would explain why Jesus was attacked for being a glutton (Matthew 11:19). After all, no one calls a skinny person a glutton no matter how much they eat. Olympic swimmers, for example, may consume thousands of calories but no one accuses them of gluttony because they are thin.

Second, it would explain why no one is ever recorded as trying to stop Jesus when he overturned the money changers in the temple. If Jesus was just average size, why wouldn’t someone stand up to confront this man who was destroying their livelihood in front of their very eyes?

Third, why is it that the Gospels only record Jesus as having been confronted by groups of people—never by individuals?  Numerous times in the Gospels people get so outraged at Jesus they want to kill him, but no one ever dares to shove him down and tell him to shut up. Perhaps the Gospels just don’t record such instances, or perhaps Jesus mere physical appearance was enough to intimidate most would-be attackers.

Fourth, a large Jesus would explain a very puzzling story surrounding his preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth. The crowd became outraged and “drove him out of the town” and intended to throw him off a cliff. Once they got to their destination, the text says “he walked right through the crowd and went on his way” (Luke 4:28-30). This could be explained as a miracle but there might be a more down-to-earth explanation. Suppose Jesus passively allowed himself to be driven out of town but, because “his time had not yet come,” he would not allow himself to be thrown off a cliff. Perhaps he then turned on his captors (maybe throwing a few of them aside like tables in the Temple courtyard) and then walked through the crowd with no one person daring to be the first to try to stop him.

Fifth, one might wonder whether his size was a contributing factor in his early death. Scholars have long noted that people generally survived crucifixion much longer than Jesus did. This could have been supernatural. After all, Jesus did give up the spirit—No one took it from him. Without denying that Jesus gave up his life, there may have been a natural explanation as well. For example, a person’s survival time on the cross may have been inversely proportional to the severity of the flogging. On the other hand, it could also be that Jesus’ size and weight caused his heart to give out earlier than would be the case with average size men. It could also be a combination of all three.

Finally, when Jesus was arrested, it was not by a few temple policemen but “a large crowd armed with swords and clubs” (Matthew 26:47). The perceived need for this crowd could be because Jesus was known to travel with a group of disciples, some of whom were armed (Matthew 26:51); but if Jesus was a big man who was powerfully built, it would make sense for the authorities to be prepared just in case of violent confrontation with the one who had just that week singlehandedly disrupted temple business.

One possible objection to this theory could be that being overweight is sin and Jesus was without sin. The western world today is obsessed with being thin but this obsession may be more cultural than biblical. The Bible never speaks in terms of being overweight. It speaks of the sin of gluttony. Wealthy elites would sometimes eat until they couldn’t eat anymore, and then induce vomiting—not because they had an eating disorder but simply so they could go back to the party and eat more, like a never ending Thanksgiving dinner! I would suggest that this is an example of gluttony. Jesus was not a glutton. Besides, I’m not suggesting that Jesus was morbidly obese, just big. Being a big man could open him to false charges of gluttony.

While no one knows what Jesus looked like, I would argue that it is more likely than not that Jesus was a tall, large, and powerfully built man. But so what? What difference does it make? Ultimately it doesn’t make any difference—or the Gospel writers would have mentioned it. On the other hand, a large powerfully built Jesus does make sense of some otherwise puzzling data in the Gospels.

But there may be a more practical implication. I would suggest that one of the biggest obstacles to men accepting the Gospel is the stereotype of Jesus as the meek and mild wimp. Few men want to follow a meek and mild wimp! Regardless of Jesus’ physical size, the stereotype is false. Jesus was no wimp.  Jesus was fearlessly confrontational and his bravery in facing even life-threatening danger was second to none. Nevertheless, the image of Jesus as a gentle giant like a Hoss or Michael Oher would be a much more evangelistically appealing to most men than an ancient version of Mr. Rogers.

Another practical implication is that the discussion itself may help to stem the tide of creeping Docetism—the idea that Jesus just appeared to be human. All Evangelicals believe that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, but in popular Christianity the humanity of Jesus is often given little more than lip service. We sing, for example, of the “Beautiful One I adore” which is a wonderful song as long as we remember that “Beautiful One” was probably not the first phrase that came to mind when someone saw Jesus coming down the road. 

Without in any way downplaying the deity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus is important because we must never forget that Jesus felt those thorns on his brow, the lash on his back and the nails in his hand just as we would have. Jesus’ humanity was important because “he himself has suffered when tempted, [so] he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:18 ESV) and he is “one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15 ESV). The humanity of Jesus is important because we do not just get our instruction for life from divine communication with the cosmic Jesus, but from the divinely inspired remembrances of the teachings of the real human Jesus as he traveled from place to place with his disciples. 

What Jesus actually looked like is not important. That Jesus was not only God but was also human is extremely important.

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

In the early days of television there was a TV show called, “To Tell the Truth.” It was a game show in which a panel of four celebrities questioned three contestants. The panel was given the name and occupation of one of the contestants, and the panel had to ask questions trying to match the occupation with the right contestant. At the end of the show the host would ask, “Will the real [fill in the name] please stand up? With all the different portrayals of Jesus in various books, magazines and movies, people today might feel like asking, “Will the real Jesus please stand up?”

In the last 30 years scholars have spent an enormous amount of time studying Jesus of Nazareth from a purely historical perspective, and there is a good chance that the real Jesus was not like you imagine. On one end of the spectrum there is the Jesus of popular Evangelical Christianity. Some Evangelicals seem to think of Jesus as their “co-pilot” or buddy, the epitome of understanding and tolerance. They often treat him as if he were a heavenly Santa Clause who exists solely to grant their wishes. “Sweet Jesus” or “Beautiful One” are words sometimes sung in worship of him.

The real Jesus was much more down to earth. He was an itinerant Jewish prophet, which meant that he and his disciples traveled from town to town along dirty, dusty, and sometimes muddy roads. Bathing was a luxury that Jesus and his disciples probably rarely enjoyed by today’s standards, and they almost certainly did not shave or brush their teeth. They were often dirty, sweaty, and stinky. It is unlikely that “sweet” or “beautiful” were among the first words that came to mind when encountering Jesus on one of those roads. In other words, the image of a nicely groomed and squeaky clean Jesus is the stuff of pious imagination.

On the other end of the spectrum, the “historical Jesus” proposed by many critical scholars is no less imagination. Albert Schweitzer[1] recognized long ago that many Jesus scholars simply re-imagine Jesus in their own image. That hasn’t changed since Schweitzer’s time. Modern scholars with a cynical bent often imagine a cynical Jesus. Those with mystical leanings imagine a mystical Jesus. Angry or activist scholars may imagine Jesus as a revolutionary or zealot. What many of these scholars have in common is that they approach the earliest sources seeking to find evidence to support their own view. Then they come up with clever ways to explain away all the evidence that undermines their view. As a result, we have numerous conflicting theories about what the historical Jesus was like. Readers may want to cry out, “Will the real Jesus please stand up?”

Suppose, however, we just allowed the earliest historical sources to speak for themselves.[2] The following broad picture would emerge: Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher / prophet—on this virtually all scholars agree. Jewish prophets, like Elijah or Isaiah, for example, were known for calling people to turn from their sins back to God, and Jesus was no different in this respect. Among the sins he specifically condemned were “evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.”[3] In Jesus’ famous “Sermon on the Mount” he even addressed sinful attitudes like hypocrisy, self-righteousness, lust, hatred and refusal to forgive others.[4]

Jesus was generally known for his kindness and compassion but many people are unaware of the fact that he was also a fiery preacher of judgment. He called religious leaders of his day “whitewashed tombs,” “snakes,” “hypocrites” and “sons of hell!”[5] In fact, he condemned his entire generation saying that hell would be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah since “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded.”[6] Two of our earliest sources, therefore, began their story of Jesus’ public ministry with Jesus calling his generation to repentance.”[7]

There have undoubtedly been many fiery preachers, however, who have been lost to history. Among the things that made Jesus so memorable were the shocking claims that led to his death. In fact, because of these claims, Jesus was accused by Jewish authorities of blasphemy and was turned over to the Romans on charges of sedition![8]

According to our earliest sources, the blasphemy charges came from the fact that Jesus’ words and actions implied that he thought of himself as nothing less than the embodiment of God! For example in one source, Jesus is said to have claimed God as his Father saying “I and my Father are one” and “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”[9] That Jesus actually held this view is collaborated in other sources in which he is said to have claimed things for himself that in his culture were only believed to be true of God. For example, he claimed to be able to grant forgiveness of sin,[10] and that he was “lord” of the Sabbath Day.[11] He claimed that he would one day judge the living and the dead at the final judgment.[12] The Jews in Jesus’ culture believed these things were only true of God. That Jesus’ contemporaries understood exactly what he was claiming is clear from the fact that on more than one occasion they unsuccessfully attempted to kill him for blasphemy because, in their words, “you, a mere man, claim to be God.”[13] In fact, the religious leaders charged him with blasphemy at his trial.

Of course the Romans who ruled the country would care nothing about Jewish religious concerns of blasphemy so the religious leaders needed something that would get the attention of the Roman governor. Instead of charging Jesus with blasphemy, therefore, they sent him to the governor on charges of sedition. Jewish people in Jesus’ time were expecting a Messiah or Christ (a “king of kings”) to deliver them from their oppressive Roman overlords. Since the Romans would probably have imprisoned or executed anyone publicly claiming to be a Messiah, Jesus was careful about how he approached this topic in public—but that is precisely who he claimed to be during his trials.[14] The Jewish leadership, therefore, sent him to the Roman governor on charges of sedition, i.e. for claiming to be King of the Jews. The Roman governor ordered that Jesus be tortured to death by nailing him alive to a cross.

We might have expected that this would be the end of the story. After all, there was nothing out of the ordinary about the crucifixion of Jewish “trouble-makers”—literally thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century. More importantly, others had also claimed to be messiahs but when they were executed their movements always died with them. That is because many Jewish people thought the messiah would deliver Israel from foreign rule. It was simply assumed that an executed “messiah” could not possibly have been the real deal.

In Jesus’ case, however, not only did his followers continue to believe even after his death, but the Jesus’ movement actually grew significantly! In fact, these followers even began worshipping Jesus—something truly surprising in a monotheistic culture that believed in only one God!

All of this raises the historical question of why anyone would continue to believe in, much less worship, an apparently failed messiah who had been crucified. Crucifixion, after all, was considered a very shameful way to die so getting someone to believe in a crucified messiah would be a huge obstacle, not to mention a terrible marketing strategy!

It is not surprising, therefore, that most people did not believe in Jesus. His enemies thought he was blasphemer or demon-possessed or even crazy—which is exactly what one might expect of someone who made the kind of claims about himself that Jesus reportedly made. In other words, the story makes sense historically.

Those who continued to believe in Jesus after his death did so for several reasons. First, they were convinced that Jesus had done phenomenal signs and wonders. There are no ancient records of anyone denying that Jesus had done amazing wonders. His enemies claimed that his miracles were magic tricks or that he did them by the power of Satan. His followers countered that no one had ever done the kinds of amazing things Jesus had done!

Second, Jesus’ earliest followers believed in Jesus because they were convinced that he had fulfilled Jewish prophecies that had been written down hundreds of years before Jesus’ time. For example, they believed that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, his lineage from King David, his miracles, and numerous events surrounding his death and burial were all fulfillments of ancient prophecies of a coming messiah.

Finally, his followers believed in him because they were absolutely convinced that he had come back to life after having been dead and entombed. Our sources do not portray this as merely a vision or a hallucination. They say Jesus’ disciples conversed with him, touched him and even ate with him after his resurrection. Even highly skeptical scholars generally agree that Jesus’ earliest followers were absolutely convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead (the skeptics are quick to add, however, that this is impossible since dead people never come back to life).

Christians later in the first century could also point to the fact that Jesus had predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, which actually came to pass forty years after Jesus’ death. So for whatever reasons, Jesus’ followers were so convinced that he really was who he claimed to be that they risked everything, including imprisonment, torture, and even death to follow Jesus.

But what did it mean to follow a messiah who was no longer physically with them? Did following Jesus mean growing a beard, eating kosher food and living off the donations of the wealthy women who had followed and supported him? Hardly! Following Jesus meant obeying his commands. Jesus taught, “If you love me you will obey what I command.”[15] Indeed, Jesus last recorded “commission” to his followers was to make disciples “teaching them to obey all things I have commanded you.”

So what were some of those commands? Jesus taught that people must repent of their sinfulness. They must love God even more than they love to live and they must love their neighbors—and even their enemies—as they love themselves. Jesus expected his followers to treat others as they themselves would want to be treated. His followers were to strive to live a lifestyle of compassion, love, generosity, forgiveness, worship and prayer. They were to be honest, ethical, moral and merciful. They were to encourage others, make peace and make disciples. They were to avoid sin like the plague and to sincerely repent when they failed!

But following Jesus went deeper than just obeying some rules. Jesus taught his disciples that love for God and his kingdom was to be their highest priority. Jesus taught that God’s kingdom was even more important than their closest relatives and loved ones. On this much, even most critical scholars agree. What many critics miss, however, is that Jesus claimed to be the king of that kingdom. Putting the kingdom first, meant putting the King first—and Jesus and his followers believed that Jesus was that King.

With teaching like this, it is no wonder that Jesus’ enemies thought he was crazy and it is no wonder that the Romans crucified him for sedition. It is also no wonder that those who believed in him would lay down their lives for him and await his promised return. Again, the story makes perfect sense historically.

But there is more. Jesus taught that unless people’s righteousness exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees they would not enter the kingdom of God. That was difficult for most of Jesus’ contemporaries to comprehend because Pharisees were respected religious leaders who strived to keep all the rules—and some were apparently quite proud of it as they self-righteously looked down their noses at others!

For example, Jesus once told a story about a Pharisee and a tax collector who went to the temple to pray. In those days people looked up to Pharisees but they hated tax collectors who were hired to collect taxes for the Roman occupiers. In Jesus’ story the Pharisee bragged about fasting twice a week and giving money to the poor. He thanked God that he was not like that sinful tax collector. The tax collector, on the other hand, beat his chest in remorse crying “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Surprisingly, Jesus said it was the tax collector who was declared right with God and not the Pharisee![16] The moral of Jesus’ story is that those who self-righteously come to God thinking they are good enough for God—are not good enough, and will not enter God’s kingdom. Jesus taught that those who are “justified” or declared to be in right standing with God are those who come to God humbly confessing their sin and who follow Jesus in faith.

People often misunderstand the nature of this faith. The faith of which Jesus spoke was more than just mental agreement with some doctrines or dogmas. Faith involves the disposition or attitude of the heart. One of the early sources about Jesus contains a story of how Jesus was sharing a meal with a group of religious leaders when suddenly a woman came in. The woman was crying. Since she was described as a sinner in the story (four times!),[17]and since no other reason for the tears were given, and since the ultimate result was forgiveness of her sins, readers are led to believe that the woman was sorrowfully repentant for her sin. The woman ignored the religious leaders and went straight to Jesus. Showing remarkable humility and devotion, she got down on her knees as she kissed Jesus’ feet, anointed them with ointment and wiped them with her hair.

The host, a Pharisee named Simon, was indignant: If Jesus were a prophet, surely he would know this woman was a sinner and he wouldn’t allow her to touch him! Jesus pointed out that when he had come in to Simon’s house, Simon had not even extended the basic courtesies of hospitality to Jesus, whereas this woman had wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair and anointed them with oil. Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much.” Then he told the woman that her faith had saved her.[18]

But wait! What faith? Nothing in this story said anything about faith.

The story leads readers to understand that this woman’s sorrow or repentance over her sin coupled with her loving devotion to Jesus is the very definition of the kind of faith necessary to enter the kingdom about which Jesus had preached so often. The actions of the woman were outward expressions of a heart of faith. The concept of faith, therefore, is very simple. It is about a relationship in which we—like the woman in the story—respond to Jesus in genuine repentance for our sin and with a heart of loving devotion to Jesus.

Like salt, faith is very simple. But just as a simple substance like salt can be broken down into the elements from which it is composed, so also saving faith can be analyzed and broken down into parts.

 

First, saving faith includes repentance. Repentance is a “no excuses” attitude that involves coming to grips with the fact that our sin is not just a mistake, or the result of our environment, or someone else’s fault. Repentance involves a humble and sorrowful acknowledgement that we have willfully sinned against a holy God, combined with a desire to live a life that pleases God.

Second, saving faith involves recognition that our sin has destroyed our relationship with God and no amount of good deeds on our part will ever make it right. If we are going to be saved from the wrath of God at the final judgment, about which Jesus warned, it will only be by God’s mercy and grace. Like the story of the Pharisee in the temple, as long as we think we are good enough for God, we will not enter God’s kingdom.

Third, Jesus believed that his death would bring about forgiveness of sins for his followers.[19] Jesus and his followers seemed to believe that Jesus was fulfilling an ancient Jewish prophecy—written hundreds of years before Jesus’ time—about a “servant” of God who would be “pierced for our transgressions” or sin, and whose death would “justify many.”[20] Faith involves recognition that Jesus’ death on that cross was not just Roman cruelty but was the “ransom”[21] to pay the penalty for our sin so we could be “justified” or declared right with God.

Finally, faith involves a heart response of loving devotion to Jesus as the only one who can fix our broken relationship with God. This “love” is not some kind of gushy sentimentalism that imagines us snuggling up in Jesus’ lap or some such nonsense. It is more like the undying devotion a soldier might have toward a respected general or leader—a devotion that would motivate the soldier to willingly follow that commander anywhere, even into the heat of battle. This kind of faith involves swearing allegiance, so to speak, to Jesus as the King and highest authority in our life.

This faith can be expressed in a simple prayer:  “Lord Jesus, I have sinned against you in thoughts, words, actions and even attitudes. I don’t want to grieve you anymore. Please forgive me of my sin. Come into my life, be my King, change me and make me the kind of person you want me to be.”

Just mouthing the words to a prayer doesn’t save anyone, of course, but if this prayer sincerely expresses the attitude of your heart, the Bible says your sins have been forgiven, you have been “justified” or declared right with God and you are now part of the kingdom of God. As the apostle Paul once wrote, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”[22]

So what’s next?

First, find a Bible-believing church. You need to be associated with other believers to grow in your faith. Let the pastor know you are a new Christian and want to grow.

Second, ask your new pastor to baptize you. We don’t get baptized in order to be saved—the only thing required for salvation is faith, but the idea of an unbaptized Christian would have been unthinkable to the earliest Christians. Baptism is the initial outward expression of your faith and a public indication that you are serious about your commitment to Christ.

Third, start developing a life of prayer. Prayer is not nearly as complicated as many people make it out to be. Prayer is just talking to God like you would talk to a friend. You don’t need to use special religious language. You don’t even need to talk out loud. Just talk. You can talk to God anytime, anyplace, about anything.

Forth, start reading the earliest sources about Jesus for yourself. You’ll find most of them conveniently collected in the New Testament of the Bible. If you get a good “study Bible” the footnotes will help you better understand what you are reading. Your new pastor can recommend a good study Bible.

Finally, as you read your Bible strive to put into practice what you learn about living in obedience to Jesus the King.[23] We don’t strive to please God in order to be saved. We strive to please God in gratitude and loving response to his saving grace.

---

[1] 1875-1965.

[2] Nearly all scholars agree that the earliest sources about Jesus—all written in the first century AD when Jesus lived—are 1) the letters of the apostle Paul, 2) the Four Gospels collected in the New Testament, 3) a lost Gospel we now call Q, though some scholars doubt this ever existed  4) other letters collected in the New Testament, 5) two short blurbs written by the Jewish historian, Josephus and 5) the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.  Nearly all scholars agree that all of the so-called “lost gospels” come from at least 100 to 400 years after Jesus’ time and are of little to no value in reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus.

[3]  Mark 7:21-22.

[4]  Matthew 5:1-7:28.

[5]  Matthew 23.

[6]  Matthew 10: 15; Luke 12:48.

[7]  Mark 1:15; Matthew 4:17.

[8] Mark 14:64; Luke 23:2-3.

[9]  John 10:10; John 14:9.

[10]  Mark 2:1-12.

[11]  Mark 2:23-28.

[12]  Matthew 25:31-46.

[13]  John 10:33

[14]  Mark 14:61-62; Luke 23:3.

[15]  John 14:15.

[16]  Luke 18:9-14.

[17]  Luke 7:37; 39; 47, 48.

[18]  Luke 7:36-50.

[19] Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:26-29

[20] Isaiah 53

[21]  Mark 10:45

[22] Romans 8:1.

[23] Colossians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; Hebrews 3:20-21.