A Questionable Search
Recently (December 12, 1979) Newsweek magazine had a cover article on the subject given above. For us, the subject is uninviting, unwelcome. We feel, do we not, that it is unnecessary to search for the real Christ? All we need do is accept Him as He stands revealed in the Bible. And we also feel that most people who make ado about searching for the real Christ start and end by rejecting Him. And further we find it disconcerting that volume after volume on the subject at the outset undercuts the success of its search by denying the supernatural origin of the Bible.
Proper Searching
Still we do recognize that there is a place for some kind of search. Simeon was a man who waited for the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25). The aged Anna spoke to those looking for redemption in Jerusalem. Andrew told his brother, “We have found the Messiah” (John 2:41). Philip said they had found Him of Whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, spoke (John 2:45). And the familiar Isaiah 55:6 exhorts us to seek the Lord. May these cases not be called a proper search for the real Jesus? Perhaps they may, in the sense of seeking and receiving Jesus as He is presented to us in God’s own inspired words and then trying to learn more and more about Him. The afore mentioned biblical characters certainly were not seeking an unreal Jesus!
A Broad Survey
The magazine article is a good one. I say t his even though disagreeing with some things in it, unhappily including its main thrust. In expressing this appreciation one thing I have in mind is its comprehensiveness; it covers the field. It states both the liber al and the conservative, the modernistic and the orthodox positions. Though it leans to the liberal and modernistic one, it is fair to the other.
Also worthy of note is the good presentation of the Catholic, Lutheran, and Fundamentalist struggles on the subject. There is no reference made to any Reformed church of today, but none is to be expected in an article so brief as this one. All the more so because in the Reformed Church in Am erica and in the Christian Reformed Church in North America the struggle is on the question of the Bible’s inerrancy, infallibility, and authority. In this magazine issue that question is not taken up.
The History is Basic
Among the article’s special statements is this, “Spiritual truths mean more than historical ones.” I suppose that t he statement is true. The spiritual truth that God is one is more meaningful, surely, than the historical one that last year Christmas fell on Tuesday. However, as regards the Bible and Christianity, it should be remembered that some spiritual truths are based on, and inseparable from, historical ones. For example, Romans 5:6 says, “Christ died for the un godly.” There, “Christ died” is an historical truth. But it is also the indispensable basis for the spiritual truth that He died “for the ungodly.” If we do not hold to the connection between those two truths, we lose their entire significance, their spiritual value, and their gospel message. To illustrate this last remark, consider Paul’s statement about the historical truth and fact of Christ’s resurrection. He says, I Corinthians 15:17, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” No wonder that Peter in II Peter 1:16 emphasizes the fact that he and the other New Testament writers did not follow cunningly devised fables, bu t were eyewitnesses of Christ’s acts and glory.
In line with the above paragraph‘s content, consider the article’s gratuitous observation that “the details (of the Christmas narrative) are . . . fabulous: hearkening angels, adoring shepherds, mysterious star.” To scholars these details “are not history at all . . .”, we are told. However, all believing scholars have all along insisted that such details are anything but fabulous; that they are, indeed, blessed revelations of facts. And according to the Bible, the Bethlehem star, for instance, is so far from being a fable that it is presented as a necessary fact of history. Necessary because prophetically predicted byNumbers 24:17, “there shall come a star out of Jacob.” The prophecy makes the star‘s appearance a required historical event. Confer, by way of illustration, the statement of John 19:28 that Jesus said, “I thirst.” Said verse assures us that He said it because it was predicted that He would. He couldn’t even die without first saying that word! The article’s error here is in no way rectified, not even mollified, by the statement that “God can reveal himself through inspired fiction as well as through inspired history.” The statement may be true enough in the case of Jesus’ parables, but God does not prophesy fiction; He prophesies history! Such is the meaning of Isaiah 40:8, “But the word of our God shall stand forever.” Also of Jesus‘ assurance, “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:18.
Our Necessary Faith in the Bible
We would object to the downgrading of Scripture implicit in the statement that there were many other writings “regarded as sacred books by the Jews of Jesus’ time.” In point of fact the Old Testament was considered in a class by itself. No other writings were regarded as its equal. It was at times divided into two parts, law and prophets (Matthew 22:40); other times into three, the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms (Luke 24:44). Likewise when Jesus told His hearers to “search the scriptures,” John 5:39.
In the course of the article it is noted that Mark’s account presents Jesus’ miracles as being powerful acts. And that Matthew’s, however, presents them as being merciful acts. Surely that difference does not mean any contradiction. Why couldn’t the same miracles be described by different terms? Such a variation would show genuineness more than the absence of any differences would. As a matter of fact, in Acts 2:22 Jesus’ miracles are collectively given three names: miracles, signs, and powers. The article goes on to observe that the four evangelists “shaded” the stories of Jesus’ ministry according to their own interests and theological concerns. The statement is entirely acceptable if one only remembers that any shading done occurred under God’s inspiration and hence without contradiction. Also noteworthy is the quotation given from Prof. Carl Holloday that, “Scholars must leave it up to believers to evaluate the claim that (Jesus’ works) were really the work of God.” Well said! It is indeed a matter of faith, and we believe that Jesus‘ words and works were those of God.
On its last page the article says, “Defenders of traditional doctrine in all churches are wary of Biblical investigators.” I guess so, and the reason for the wariness is that the investigators are oftentimes deniers of Christ’s deity and virgin birth. That fact is why the Vatican, questioning the Dutch scholar Schillebeeckx, wanted to know whether he really believed that Jesus was divine. At the conclusion the article makes mention of those “whose faith compels them on the search for ‘the way, the truth and the light.” If we wish to be among those, let us remind ourselves that the Bible presents and teaches not only the search, but also the finding. To others, therefore, let us say John 1:45, “We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write.” And addressing Christ Himself let us say Matthew 16:16, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” Not until one says this has he found the real Christ.