The Lady

Two poets walking by a field,
Did spy a lady there,
One thought her stripped and barren,
The other thought her fair.

“Do see her face,” the first proclaimed,
“It's cold and hardened – pale,
“What might have held two lovely eyes,
“Is shrouded by her veil.”

“Her body's dry, her skin is peeled,
“So frail, yet thick – so dead.
“To think! To think! What soon will come,
“O'erflows my heart with dread.”

The second poet softly mused,
His gaze out o'er the sky,
Then turned he to his saddened friend,
To give him this reply:

“Are not the roots that quiet'ly grow,
“Her hidden, inner beauty?
“I see wherewithal bloss'ming here,
“Is not it blatant to thee?”

“She waits for that which soon will come,
“How eagerly she sings,
“But thou, O friend, the winter sees,
“While I dost see the spring.”

Suyin

Communist China 1994

“They wanted me to kill you, Pastor.”

Suyin grasped the bars and tried to pull herself up so she could see into the next cell. She was very young, still in her teens, but from her treatments her face was aged beyond her years. Her hands and back ached and she slumped to the ground, content to converse from the floor.

“They wanted me to shoot you, and they would free me.”

“Did they beat you much?” the pastor replied from the other cell.

“I could bear it,” she said.

“So, they did.”

“Don't let it trouble you. Have they done the same with you?”

“Yes.”

“Did they-”

“Child, I am tired, let us both rest.”

I listened to the conversation as I stood by the gates to the inner cell space. I was ordered to suppress all discourse from the cells, but I tried not to if possible. The Christians' speech intrigued me at the very least, and struck me at most. Today I expected to hear some sounds of defeat, considering the treatment I had watched them go through.

No! No! Suyin's earlier screams echoed through my head. We had first drawn her by her limbs, then sliced a razor across her back. No! No! We then forced needles under her fingernails, and pounded her hands to a bloody mass. No! No! Finally, distressed by her stubbornness, the torturer simply beat her head and body over and over. No! No!

I was afraid to admit that I never wanted to be promoted. I never wanted to torture. Weakness! They made us younger soldiers watch whenever an important prisoner was to be tortured. I almost admitted to myself that I felt more broken than the prisoner, but I couldn't; I wouldn't let myself. I would not be weak.

The man was easier. He was broken by the razors. Simple, weak man. He screamed yes.

There was no more talk that night.

The next day the leader brought Suyin and the man outside to the courtyard. They waited against the high stone wall as the young soldiers filed to the side in silent straight lines. I was second in the first line, close to the prisoners.

“I suppose we shall die together, friend,” Suyin turned and smiled at the pastor. He did not look at her, and his face remained as stony and silent as the wall. “Fear not, we shall meet again,” she encouraged. Still the man was silent. Suyin began to sing:

The Lord is my Shepherd,
I'll walk with Him always,
He leads me by still waters,
I'll walk with Him always.
Always,
Always....

The leader walked past Suyin and jammed the butt of his gun into her stomach. She collapsed on the ground.

“Get up,” the leader ordered. “You!” He pointed to me and motioned to the girl. I stepped from formation, grabbed her arms, and roughly pulled her to her feet.

Suyin looked at me and smiled, a gentle but pained smile. “Thank you,” she breathed. She straightened herself and lifted her drooped head.

I was taken aback by her smile and her words. I tried to hide my emotion as I marched back to formation. The soldier beside me looked intently at my face from the corner of his eye. I glanced back. We are human.

The leader took the gun and loaded it. He walked to the prisoners, grabbed the man by what remained of his shirt, and pulled him forward. “Today,” the leader proclaimed, “you are about to witness what happens to those who do not comply with the law, ...and what happens to those that do.” He shoved the gun at the pastor, who raised it with both hands, eye level, pointed at Suyin. She looked at the cold, hard ground. The air was dead already.

“Before you shoot, I would like you to know... that I thank you. You have led me as a faithful servant of the Gospel, and helped me learn the truth. Be it known that I do not die with bitterness or hate, but only with gratitude. I pray, here in my last moments, that after I am dead you will not be overcome and hang yourself as Judas did, but as Paul, repent and live. I die humbled as a servant, with the name of Jesus Christ on my lips!”

The pastor pulled the trigger. Suyin crumbled to the ground.

The leader wrenched the gun from the pastor's frozen hands. Without word or warning he pressed the barrel of the gun to the man's skull, and fired. The pastor too fell, the hope of freedom still on his lips.

A cruel smile spread across the leader's face. “That concludes our demonstration today.”

It was not only I, I am sure, who heard a song, and not the gunshot, echoing in the air. All the men's heads turned round and round, unsure where to look. But the song was there, ever bright and clear:

Always,
Always,
I'll walk with Him always,
The Lord is my Shepherd,
I'll walk with Him always...

Integrity is an overused word and an underused principle. It comes as a “be real” message without any solid foundation, like a pretty package with nothing inside. Too many churches have reduced their message (especially to youth) to this “pretty packaging” preaching.

“Don't do drugs.” “Abstinence before marriage.” “Be 'nice kids'.”

These messages are not bad, but they undercut and deemphasize the one necessary truth for their execution: a foundation. The paint, the roof, and the windows are the pretty parts of the house, not the brick foundation; the icing and decorations are the pretty parts of the cake, not the actual cake itself. Yet these basic parts are the most necessary. Without them, everything built ultimately, and literally, falls. The same happens with many teenagers today. When they head off to college, many leave the church under the pressure of the academic community. They have no foundation; there's no cake under all that icing.

Jesus told a story of two men who built houses. The one who does not heed his word is like a man who builds his house on the sand, which is washed away by the storm. But the one who heeds his words is like the man who builds his house on a rock; his house is not blown away in the storm.

The story of Suyin is fictional, but it is based on the stories of millions of martyrs whose faith did not waver in the greatest of storms. Theirs are stories of true integrity. Their integrity was like a deep root which brings forth a flower, not like a flower put in a vase, beautiful to see but which soon withers and dies.

Those who build on the firm foundation will not fail. They will grow. They will prosper. They will “walk with Him always”.

I Roamed Away

I roamed away down to the sea,
Where the dolphins live and the mermaids be,
Twas light and airy, twas airy and free,
But I'll ne'er go wandering again, again,
I'll ne'er go wandering again.

The waves – they beckoned, the wind – it called,
So pleaded me to join them all,
And in their midst was I enthralled,
But I'll ne'er go wandering again, again,
I'll ne'er go wandering again.

The voices carried on the gust,
“Come out, come out, and follow us!”
Felt I compelled that dare I must,
But I'll ne'er go wandering again, again,
I'll ne'er go wandering again.

Deep blue – the sea, fair blue – the sky,
Jewels and shells which feed the eye,
More precious than the love that's thine?
But I'll ne'er go wandering again, again, again,
I'll ne'er go wandering again.

I roamed away down to the sea,
But traversed I back, to come to thee,
For thou, my love, holds all of me,
And I'll ne'er go wandering again, again,
No, I'll ne'er go wandering again.

Mary's Other Song

Recent manuscripts have discovered that Mary the mother of Jesus wrote another song that did not make it into the Bible because it was widely believed to lack divine inspiration. Yet, in all its full motherly glory, it is presented here, for your entertainment and enjoyment, in honor of the beginning of the Christmas season.


When Jesus was born, I thought, “Hooray!
“This must be my lucky day!
“And nothing can rain on my parade,
“Cuz I tell you, I got it made,
“I'm raisin' the Son of God.”

But He already knows his ABCs,
His “Three Little Bears” and His 123s,
Sometimes I wonder if He's teaching me,
And life's a little tough you see,
When you're raisin' the Son of God.

But I never need to spank Him or shout,
Cuz He never whines or fusses or pouts,
He keeps the straight and narrow route,
Yet it makes me wonder what motherin's about,
Since I'm raisin' the Son of God.

Sometimes I just yell at the others,
“Why can't you be more like your brother?”
And they just roll their eyes at each other,
And I wanna scream, “I'm only a mother!
“Who's raisin' the Son of God.”

So don't look at me like my job's all fun,
It's pretty hard work that needs to be done,
And then I'll break open my retirement fund!
(But don't get me wrong – I love my son),
I'm raising the Son of God!

The Historicity of the Resurrection

Considering it's been two weeks since I've posted anything, I decided to just post a paper I wrote on the historicity of Jesus' empty tomb. I spent so much time working on the actual content of the paper though, that the introduction and conclusion kinda got the short end of the stick, so if anyone has any suggestions to make, they would be greatly appreciated. So without further ado...


Most people don’t think about Jesus in the context of his supposed resurrection, because, to be bluntly honest, they either don’t care or haven’t given it a thought. Most people assume he’s a “good teacher”, somewhere up there with Buddha and Plato and everyone else. But if the resurrection is true, then Jesus claims a bit more than the “good teacher” label. If Jesus rose from the dead after he was killed, then he is undoubtedly what he claimed to be: God in human flesh. The purpose of this paper will be to argue that the evidence of the empty tomb on Easter morning can confirm the resurrection of Jesus.

Obviously the most intricate record of the resurrection is presented in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which make up the first four books of the New Testament. But it is first necessary to prove the historicity of the text - that the manuscripts (handwritten copies) which are used are reliable. This is shown by administering certain biographical tests. The first is to examine the number of manuscripts available. Currently there are over 5686 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and at least 9,300 other early versions in languages such as Ethiopic, Slavic, Boheiric, Arabic, Sogdian, and even Frankish (McDowell, TNETDAV, 34). The grand total amounts to around 24, 970 manuscripts. Compare this with the second most attested ancient document, Homer’s Iliad, for which only 643 documents are available, and the evidence of historical reliability becomes staggering. The number of documents allows the original text to be constructed with almost perfect accuracy.(McDowell, TNETDAV, 34).

“In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscript so short as in that of the New Testament.... the earliest extant manuscripts are from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles, yet the earliest substantial manuscripts upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet’s death” (Kenyon, HTCNT, 4).

F.F. Bruce concludes this observation by stating: “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (qtd. in McDowell and Stewart, ATTQ 23). Not only this, but the existence of Jesus is multiply attested by early secular sources, including Cornelius Tacticus, Lucian of Samsota, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegen, and Mara Bar-Serapion (McDowell, 120-123) .

Having established the historicity of the text, the facts that the text presents can be examined. The following segment is from the gospel of Mark, the earliest recording.

"When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb when they asked each other, 'Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?' But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 'Do not be alarmed,' he said. 'You are looking for Jesus, the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’' ”

One of the less understood evidences of the empty tomb was the fact that it was found by women. Dr. William Lane Craig explains that “When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what’s really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very long rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, ‘Let the words of law be burned rather than delivered to women.’ and ‘Blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.’ Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that they were not even allowed to testify in a court of law. In light of this, it’s absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women… Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by that reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb!”

If the disciples had made up the empty tomb story, they would have never used women as the discoverers. It would have hurt their credibility among the first-century Jewish audience they were trying to convince. Nevertheless, women were reported to have discovered the tomb - what would have been considered a non-credible, and somewhat embarrassing fact. This too points to the conclusion that the empty tomb is historically sound, and not an unfounded legend.
If there was still a body in the tomb, the idea that Jesus had risen from the dead would not have taken off at such rapid speed. If the disciples had wanted to start a rumor that the tomb was empty, Jerusalem was not the place to do it - Jesus had been buried right outside the city. A smarter approach would have been to propagate the theory in an obscure village, one that had head about Jesus, but could not prove that he had not risen. In Jerusalem, the evidence of Jesus’ still-dead body could have been all too easily produced by the authorities (Licona).

Yet the body was never produced. In fact, no one ever contested that the tomb was anything but empty. In the first-century, it was conceded even by Jesus’ opponents. If anyone in the days following the proclamation of the Resurrection had any desire (which many probably did) to visit the tomb to see for himself whether it was open and empty, it would have been within walking distance of the city. It is without doubt that, if they could have, Jesus’ enemies would have brought forth the body, victoriously parading it down the streets.

Yet the first response from the opposition was not to disprove the empty tomb but to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb (Strobel)! The apostle Matthew records that "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."

Paul Maier, Ph, D., and distinguished professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University writes: “Jewish polemic shared with Christians that the sepulcher was empty, but gave natural explanations for it. And such positive evidence from a hostile source is the strongest kind of evidence and becomes self-authenticating” (qtd. in Licona).

Further evidence supports that the fact of the empty tomb was never contested. The book of Acts records the acts, travels, and teachings of the early apostles (as the disciples and other followers of Christ were called after the resurrection). Yet throughout their messages, they never tried to prove the existence of the empty tomb; they only gave reason for its emptiness. The absence of mention of the empty tomb in the book of Acts is best explained by the fact that it was common knowledge. The debate over whether the tomb was empty was over; the only question that remained was why.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing evidences of the validity of the empty tomb is the origin of belief of the disciples. It is clear by their writing that the disciples believed in the resurrection of Christ - or, at the very least, it is clear that they wanted everyone to think that they believed. That belief, or façade of belief, ultimately cost them their lives. With undaunted spirits they faced their deaths unswerving in their faith. At first glance there is nothing exceptionally unique about this situation. There are many kinds of people who would die for what they believe in, because they think it’s true. Millions have died for faith, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or any other kinds of religion. 9/11 is a recent and chilling example of this. The Muslim zealots flew their planes into the Twin Towers because they earnestly believed that their martyrdoms would earn them high favor with Allah.

But the disciples had the unique opportunity to know for a fact whether the event their faith was founded on, the resurrection, did or did not occur. They were there 2,000 years ago. To deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ is to admit that the disciples died horrific and painful deaths for something they knew was not true. It is to admit that the disciples knew that the reason they were dying was because they would not deny the biggest hoax of history - they hoax they made. It is to admit that the disciples died for a lie - and knew it.

Geza Vermes, professor of Jewish studies at Oxford University summed up the historicity of the empty tomb when he stated: “When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that… the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found, to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb” (Licona).
Theories have, over recent years, been presented to explain away why the tomb was empty. These theories include:

• Wrong tomb theory: The women visiting the tomb went to the wrong grave. (McDowell and Hostetler, 73).
  
• Swoon/drug theory: Jesus simply passed out on the tomb from blood loss or he was drugged to fake death; later he revived in the grave. (McDowell and Hostetler, 79).

The wrong tomb theory is often supported by people who are so adamant to disprove the empty tomb that they are willing to propose far-fetched, undocumented scenarios. The swoon or drug theory is supported by people who are simply ignorant of how crucifixion works - the fact that no one could survive such Roman torture. Today the most popular secular explanation of the empty tomb is that someone stole the body - the same theory spread by the Jewish leadership over 2,000 years ago. There could only be three valid groups who could possibly have stolen the body - the Romans, the Jews, or the disciples (Strobel). The Romans would have no reason to steal the body. Their goal was to keep peace in the land as much as possible, which would not have been accomplished by starting a controversy. The Romans weren’t too fond of Jesus either. The Jews wanted Jesus as dead as possible (after all, they were the ones who had him killed), and had no reason whatsoever to steal the body.

The followers of Jesus are the most natural assumptions for theft, but they had no means by which to attain the body. Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler explain: “Furthermore, the chief priests acted to prevent theft of the body, requesting a detachment of soldiers fro Pilate, the Roman governor. A Roman guard unit was a four- to sixteen-man security force. Each man was trained to protect six feet of ground. Sixteen men were placed in a square formation, with four on each side. They were supposed to be able to protect thirty-six yards against an entire battalion and hold it. Normally four men were place immediately in front of what they were to protect. The other twelve slept in a semicircle in front of them with their heads pointing in. To steal what these guards were protecting, thieves would first have to walk over those who were asleep (in full view of course, of the others who were awake)” (McDowell and Stewart, 85).

To assume that a small group of untrained laymen would have a chance of stealing the body from these soldiers (each outfitted with leather and metal armor, and carrying the famous Roman pike as well as a sword, dagger, and shield), is simply an uneducated assumption.

Second, the disciples had no anticipation or expectations of a resurrected Messiah (promised one). In the Tanakh (the Written Torah, the Jewish Scriptures) the Messiah was first to come as a suffering Messiah, and then again as a conquering, victorious Messiah. But the Jews, at that time, actually considered the suffering Messiah to be themselves, so the Messiah they expected was the conquering Messiah, who would liberate them from to the Romans. When Jesus died, all hope that he was the Messiah died with him. The Messiah had not conquered, but he had been conquered. The disciples would not have had the cultural upbringing necessary to present Jesus as the suffering Messiah.

And the disciples too had no motivation. To contrive a made up story of the resurrection would have provided no benefits to them, internally or externally. The Roman and Jewish leaderships hated Jesus and his followers and the followers knew it: there was no reason to provoke more wrath. Had they stolen the body they would have had to break the Roman seal placed on the stone. Breaking the Roman seal was a crime which warranted automatic crucifixion - upside down (McDowell, MTAC, 89). Their hope was gone too - it would not have benefited their hearts, minds, or emotions to pretend Jesus was alive again. Essentially the disciples had absolutely no motivation to propagate a resurrection story - not unless they enjoyed being personally deluded, physically abused or killed, and hated by society.

But they did spread the story - and people listened. And those people ultimately had to decide whether to accept that story or not, dramatically or undramatically as it was. Writer Gary Collins once stated that: "We can try to avoid making choices by doing nothing, but even that is a decision." Will that decision be made because of the evidence, or in spite of it? The call here is not a call to activism, militancy, or exertion, but it is a call to decision, choice, and resolution.

So the decision remains: What is you choice about the resurrected Christ?