Excessive Righteousness 8: The Antichrist(s)

 

 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. … Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:18-23 NKJV)

 

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV)

 

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 7 NKJV)

 

 

 

Are you expecting the “Antichrist” to come to the world soon? Some well-meaning Christians are surprised to learn that the term “Antichrist” occurs only in these few passages and that these passages are ONLY from the first two epistles of John. The term “Antichrist” does NOT appear in Revelation. It does NOT appear in any of the gospels, Acts, or the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, or Hebrews, yet attempts to interject this term into end-time predictions in all of the above sources are myriad. Furthermore, some well-meaning Christians overlook the obvious indication in these passages that the term “antichrist” is primarily a PLURAL entity, not a SINGULAR entity. You may be wondering why we consider the “Antichrist(s)” in the context of “Excessive Righteousness.” We’ll get to that, in a moment.

 

NOT the Man of Lawlessness.

It is not because the “Antichrist(s)” refers to the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness,” although one would think that ANYONE who followed some of the Law of Moses would possess righteousness that would exceed the righteousness of the Man of Lawlessness. Christianity.com (and many others) are wrong when they say: “In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to [the “Antichrist”] as the Man of Lawlessness.” Here are a few reasons that the two are not the same:

1.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:19 (NKJV), “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” In other words, the “Antichrist(s)” fellowshipped with the Church (and were even assumed to be Christians) for a while before going “out from” the Church. By contrast, the Man of Lawlessness is never mentioned in 2 Thessalonians as having once affiliated with the Church.

2.      The “Antichrist(s)” is never spoken of as “sit[ting] as God in the temple of God,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

3.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “exalt[ing] himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

4.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “coming … according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 (NKJV). There is no indication that the “Antichrist(s)” possessed any miraculous powers.

5.      True, the “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23 (NKJV), is a “liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ.” While 2 Thessalonians 2:4-5 (NKJV) states that the Man of Lawlessness comes “with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” Paul does not say that the specific lie he breathes is that he “denies that Jesus is the Christ.” According to Brittanica.com, the Book of Daniel “foretold the coming of a final persecutor who would ‘speak great words against the most High … and think to change times and laws’” (7:25).” Antiochus IV Epiphanes has been suggested as the reference in Daniel, but “Early Christians applied it to the Roman emperors who persecuted the church, in particular Nero (reigned [AD] 54–68).” Nevertheless, neither Daniel nor Paul states that the Man of Lawlessness “persecutes the Church,” or is opposed to Christ, in particular—just that he speaks against the “most High God,” according to Daniel. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that he “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” According to J.A.T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament, Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians in AD 50-51 (p. 352), three or four years before Nero even became Emperor, and well before he began persecuting Christians (AD 67) and even before he sent his troops to wage war with the Jews (AD 66). A better candidate for Paul’s Man of Lawlessness is the emperor Caligula, who died just one decade before Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I write in my book Revelation: The Human Drama (p. 82): “There is evidence that Caligula … shocked the whole Jewish world by commanding that his statue be set up in the Temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 40.  Perhaps John's discussion of the image of the beast alludes to this command.  The statue was never constructed, however.  Caligula's untimely assassination was the only thing that prevented his command from being carried out.” I continue on page 88: “It is highly probable that John, with his term ‘image [of the beast],’ is making allusion to the proposed statue of Caligula that would have been placed in the temple in A.D. 40, had Caligula not been assassinated.  If, as Wellhausen claims, ‘[t]he eikôn [image] is the alter ego of the empire just as Jesus was called the eikôn of God’ (cf. II Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15), then a living human being serves as the ‘image’ of the beast, just as the human, Jesus, serves as the ‘image’ of God.” Caligula is the best fit for Paul’s statement that the Man of Lawlessness “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Paul seems to suggest that this “mystery” of a Man of Lawlessness, sitting in the temple of God, had already begun before he wrote: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” Paul clearly knew, writing in 50-51, that Caligula had not actually sat “as God in the temple of God,” since he was assassinated a decade earlier, but knew that such a scenario (mystery) of lawlessness was on its way. John, in Revelation, then interprets this principle of a Man of Lawlessness sitting in the temple in AD 69 as the Jewish High Priest, the image of the Beast (Rome), requiring all Jewish patrons of the temple to worship the Roman Emperor Nero. I continue on pages 89-90 of Revelation: “The high priestly party could easily have been understood to be the talking ‘image’ of the beast who compelled people to worship Rome.  Zeitlin observes:

On … the beginning of January 66, a great assembly … establish[ed] a government to carry out … the war. It chose as head of the government the High Priest Ananus, a Sadducee who inherently was for peace.  ... This government … played a double role.  It thought it would achieve its goal by shrewdness. Speaking openly for war, inwardly it was for peace. It wanted to disarm the extremists so that it should have all power concentrated in its hands and thus be allowed to make peace with Rome. It failed utterly.

6.      The Man of Lawlessness is NOT the Antichrist. Rather, the Man of Lawlessness is the Jewish High Priest(hood), the “image of the Beast,” who lied to the Jewish people. The High Priest actually “sat in the temple,” encouraging the Jews to worship the Beast (Rome), and the High Priest actually offered sacrifices in the temple on behalf of the emperor (who did persecute both the Christians and the Jews: Nero).

 

Who is/are the Antichrist/s?

If the Antichrist(s) is not the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness, who is he (or who are they)?

·         He and they ARE former Christians, at least in name. They “went out from us.”

·         In this respect, he and they are similar to those described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV): “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”

·         He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 10:25-26 (NKJV) who were “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some … For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”

·         He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 12:25 (NKJV) who were cautioned: “See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him.”

·         This “Antichrist” apostasy could be what I refer to (in Apocalyptic Apologetic, 100-1) where I mention J.A.T. Robinson (Redating, 207-8) reporting (regarding the Neronian persecution of Christians following the Roman Fire of AD 64):

[E]xceptional and dangerous circumstances, involving the betrayal of fellow-Christians … [in] the Neronian persecution in Rome. Describing it, Tacitus ... spoke of the “information” given by those who confessed which led to the conviction of their fellow-believers. Clement, reflecting on the same sad story from the Christian side, speaks of “a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among [the Christians].” … [The Shepherd of] Hermas … pictures vividly the various sections under pressure: “As many … as were tortured and denied not, when brought before the magistracy, but suffered readily, these are the more glorious in the sight of the Lord; their faith is that which surpasseth. But as many as became cowards and were lost in uncertainty, and considered in their hearts whether they should deny or confess … that a servant should deny his own lord.”

Even in Asia Minor, where being a Christian might not have cost someone that person’s life in the Neronian persecution, it certainly might have cost one’s livelihood. So, in a move to protect their businesses and business interests, many “Christians” chose to put distance between themselves and the Church. Perhaps, as a show of good faith to Rome, these “Jewish Christians” even participated in pagan festivals. It was just good business. Robinson [Redating, 211-12] comments:

If we ask why now [the Jewish Christians] were … “staying away” from assembling with their fellow Christians ([Hebrews] 10:24f.), we may recall that in his description of the [Neronian]  persecutions, [the Shepherd of] Hermas speaks of those who “were mixed up in business and cleaved not to the saints;” they “stood aloof ... by reason of their business affairs ... from desire of gain they played the hypocrite .... Some of them ... are wealthy and others are entangled in many business affairs;” and the wealthy “unwillingly cleave to the servants of God, fearing lest they may be asked for something by them. ... [T]he Jewish community in Rome had a strong business sense, which was reflected in its Christian members. Their temptation was to allow racial and economic connections to outweigh the commitment of their Christian faith. … [T]hey sought to shelter under the ‘protective colouring’ of the religio licita [=legal religious status] of Judaism.”

In [Revelation’s] terminology, the synagogue of Satan, Jezebel, the Nicolaitans, and the Balaamites sold out their fellow Christians. Since the Jews were exempt from Nero’s persecution of the Christians—because Judaism was considered an “acceptable religion” (religio licita), many Jewish Christians became—like the high priesthood in Jerusalem—“harlots” who committed porneia with Roman authorities. Their garments were “defiled” because they chose to be in league with the Beast.

The Antichrist: a Judas Typology

In the Antichrist(s), we are not looking at the typology of Christians who are struggling with their faith, as may be the case with someone who cannot answer the arguments pressed upon him/her by an unbelieving academic world. To the contrary, like Judas, they know who Jesus is, yet they reject him anyway. Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they “crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” An Antichrist is not an agnostic, unbeliever, or even an honest atheist. Indeed, the Antichrist knows who Jesus is! He “is a liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either” (1 John 2:22 NKJV). One might well say to an Antichrist (just as one could say to Judas): “You know, don’t you!” Nevertheless, for financial gain (“thirty pieces of silver” or business purposes) or for social or academic acceptance, etc., the Antichrist will deny the Son (and, by extension, the Father). Like Judas, the Antichrist will hand Jesus over to be crucified again, all the while knowing the truth “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [and] is of God” (1 John 4:2 NKJV).

 

Similar to the Unforgiveable Sin

Thus, we return to the Unforgiveable Sin. It was identified in my blogpost Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin. There, I point out: “If ‘blasphemy’ consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted … then they themselves are guilty of ‘blasphemy’ when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub.” They knew that there is no actual god Beelzebub who had given Jesus the power to heal. It was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly knew better to lie to and deceive those who believed in them, suggesting that Beelzebub actually existed.

Likewise, it is unforgiveable for Christians who were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” and, therefore, certainly know better to lie to and deceive those who believe in them, denying that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh.

 

How Does This Understanding Contribute to Excessive Righteousness?

The two great (unforgiveable) sins are:

1.      Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (knowing that there is no other God, yet claiming that a power like Beelzebub exists) and

2.      Antichrist behavior (knowing that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh, yet denying that claim and, thereby, crucifying Him all over again).

Since God and Jesus are the only two in existence who can determine what righteousness is (i.e., the only ones who can issue moral commandments), political correctness, wokeness, DEI, Thomas Paine’s “human experience and rationality,” etc., are not the grounds for determining righteousness. If one’s righteousness will exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, one must begin by recognizing the exclusiveness of God’s Law and Christ’s commandments, and then seek to correctly interpret those laws and commandments.

John said that many Antichrists had already come when he wrote his epistles. Some want to speculate concerning the identity of some eschatological Antichrist. The clearest Antichrist known to the world is Judas, who knew who Jesus was and betrayed Him to be crucified anyway. Jesus said at His Last Supper: “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24 NKJV). Whatever we do, we must certainly avoid being another Antichrist, ourselves!

Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin

 

Pharisees … asked Him a question … “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said … “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

Pharisees … said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,

the ruler of the demons.” … “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy

will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men …

either in this age or in the age to come.”

(Matthew 12:24-32 NKJV)

 

It seems logical that the greatest sin it is possible to commit would relate to the greatest commandment. Monotheism is the basis of the greatest commandment (see previous post), so polytheism would be considered suspect as the basis of the greatest sin.

 

Beelzebub

 

Why would Pharisees, who are so protective of monotheism that they accuse Jesus of being blasphemous in claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:33-36), be so willing to attribute the works of Jesus to a Canaanite “god”? That’s who Beelzebub is! The only reference to Beelzebub in the Old Testament is in 2 Kings 1:2-17 (NKJV):

Ahaziah [the northern, Israelite king] fell through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria, and was injured; so he sent messengers and said to them, “Go, inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury.” But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?’ Now therefore, thus says the Lord: ‘You … shall surely die.’” So Elijah … arose and went down with him to the king … he said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron … you shall surely die.’” So Ahaziah died.

Sometimes spelled Beelzebul and (as in 2 Kings) Baal-Zebub, Beelzebub (the putative “god”) is possibly best translated “Lord of the Flies.” There were multiple Baals (the Hebrew plural is Baalim), Baal-Zebub being only one of these Baalim. Bible students are aware of the Canaanite god(s) called Baal, a word (in Ugaritic and Canaanitic) meaning “Lord.” The Old Testament speaks elsewhere of the god/s Baal (Numbers 25:3, Joshua 11:17, Judges 3:3, 7, and 8:33, 1 Kings 18:18, 20-40, 1 Chronicles 5:5, 8:30, 9:36, Jeremiah 7:9, 19:5) who served in Canaan as rival/s of the God of Israel. Zebub probably means “flies,” perhaps indicating the insect pests that were prone to constantly land on feces and then land on humans and were, therefore, suspected of transferring diseases from these feces to humans. Baal-Zebub was a Canaanite god of health. In both the 2 Kings account and Matthew 12:24-32, Baal-Zebub/Beelzebub is credited with healing powers. Ahaziah thought Baal-Zebub could heal him from the injuries of his fall; the Pharisees thought Beelzebub could heal the demon-possessed, so they attributed to Beelzebub the healings that Jesus had performed.

If “blasphemy” consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted (accusing Jesus of claiming to be one), then they themselves are guilty of “blasphemy” when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub. Jesus clearly healed, so they implicitly concluded that there was an actual god Beelzebub who had given Him power to heal. That was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly should have known better.

 

Loving God with All Your Mind

 

Your mind is the center of your thought processes. Your mind allows you to conceive of who you are, how the world came to be, life after death, and, most importantly, who God is! The greatest sin is not murder or stealing or adultery. Those are sins of the body. King David committed all of these, but God forgave him when he repented. The greatest sin is a sin of the mind—holding polytheistic views when you should know better. Polytheistic views are the product of one’s mind (as are atheistic views).

The New Testament Christians’ righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, by holding to a clear monotheism, while the Pharisees embraced polytheism—the belief in Beelzebub, the god of Ekron, a rival to THE LORD. Imagine! They reject Jesus’s claim to be the Son of God (even though all that He taught and the works He did were accomplished by power of His Father), yet they embrace and attribute healing power to the pagan god of the Canaanites: Beelzebub! Jesus called this the blasphemy against the Spirit and said it would never be forgiven men … either in this age or in the age to come! Jews since the time of the New Testament have overwhelmingly repented of that Pharisaic position on Beelzebub (although, they have more repenting yet to do in their assessment of Jesus as not being God’s Son). As an example of rival-god-repentance, Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger states: “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea [of divine forces/angels rebelling against God] the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether.  … The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.” To my Jewish friends: Remember, Jesus was never a “satanic rebel.” He tells the Pharisees He has no connection with Satan (Matthew 12:26). It was His blood that cast Satan out of Heaven (Revelation 12:11).

 

Christians and Beelzebub

 

            Meanwhile, however, Christians since the time of the New Testament have picked up the Beelzebub-error baton and have run with it! They seem to believe that Beelzebub actually exists and that he is a powerful rival to God. Modern day Catholic and Evangelical notions of fallen angels are largely responsible, as they hearken back to Persian dualistic religious influence occurring between the Old Testament and New Testament periods. In my book, Revelation:  The Human Drama (page 73), I comment:

 

Some interpreters of Revelation [wrongly] consider the informing anecdote of the book to be the conflict between God and Satan. This perceived conflict is a vestige of Judaism's contact with Persian religion. Martin Hengel discounts such … [Persian Dualism] in accounting for the scene which, for example, produced the “fallen angel” stories in the centuries preceding the New Testament period. In perusing John's Revelation, examples of a direct rivalry between God and Satan cannot be found. While allusions are made to “fallen angels” in Revelation, it is not clear that they are typical of the Fallen Angel Stories of the centuries preceding the Christian Era.

 

In my book, Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication (pages 19-20), I explain further:

 

“Persian religion developed the concept of an Evil God who was constantly at war with a Good God.” There is no picture in the Old Testament of a Satan who could [or would] rival God. The Hebrew word “SATAN” … means “adversary” or “prosecuting attorney.” That is all Satan was in the Book of Job [an adversary of humans, not of God]. He certainly had not “fallen” from Heaven by then. Job 1:6 has Satan joining the angels (sons of God) in presenting themselves before God. He petitions God for permission to “test” Job. He certainly does not demand anything of God. This “testing” role is also the one he assumes in the New Testament as he “tests” Jesus in the desert, following his baptism. At the end of Jesus’ life (Luke 22:31), Jesus informs Simon Peter that Satan has asked permission to sift him like wheat. This sounds to me like the same Satan who was in the courts of Heaven in Job.

 

Frankly, this point (that the Old and New Testaments do not depict fallen angels who “sin”) is a primary reason I wrote my Indiana University M.A. in Hebrew thesis—“Anamartetous [= Sinless] Fallen Angels”—and my subsequent book, Angels and Demons. I do not find anywhere in the Old or New Testaments Satan or any other angel rebelling against God. Satan (aka, the Devil) is called an “adversary,” but not an adversary of God. In 1 Peter 5:8. He is “your [human’s] adversary, the Devil!” (just as he was the adversary of [the humans] Adam and Eve). This is exactly the view of Satan embraced by Judaism in the past two millennia. In that respect, I think it highly likely that, after the New Testament period, the righteousness of Jews has exceeded the righteousness of Christians on the Beelzebub issue.

The issue of demons as adversaries of God is also problematic, despite what the movies suggest. In gospel texts, “demon-possessed” individuals confess that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 28:29, Luke 4:41). James 2:19 (NKJV) states: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” In John 4:6 God’s Spirit is contrasted with the Spirit of Error. A “spirit of error” fairly well describes a demon (in the New Testament). The Old Testament does not include a single case of demon-possession (nor do John’s Gospel, Revelation, or Paul’s writings; Matthew only includes one—an incident that concludes, according to Mark 5:15, with the man finally being “in his right mind”). Demon is a Greek (not Jewish) concept. The Apostle Paul suggests that “idols” and “demons” are the same thing (1 Corinthians 10:18).  He also states (rhetorically) that “idols” are “not anything.”  In 1 Corinthians 8:4, he states, “We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.” Revelation 9:20 agrees that demons (like idols) are nothing.  He writes of unrepentant men who worshiped the “works of their hands”—“demons and golden idols, and silver, and bronze, and wooden, which are not able to see, nor hear, nor walk.” Those who believed they had demons were actually in error. The physical malady they thought the demon caused existed only in their minds (= psychogenic). The list of illnesses and bodily malfunctions cured by Jesus (which I provide on pages 203-4 of Angels and Demons) does not contain any type of mental illness. Similar to psycho-somatic illness, the demon-possessed (or, as they are also identified: those with “unclean spirits” or “evil spirits,” meaning “spirit of something ‘bad’—not ‘evil’ in a moral sense) just believed the lie and that belief in a lie produced the physical malady. There are no supernatural, divine, or semi-divine beings that are adversaries or rivals of the One True God. This is the heart of monotheism.

When I say that Christians since the time of the New Testament have picked up the Beelzebub-error baton and run with it, believing that Beelzebub actually exists and that he is a powerful rival to God (and that modern day Catholic and Evangelical notions are largely responsible for that doctrine), I include Catholic and Evangelical doctrines of rebel fallen angels (including the view that Satan is a rebel fallen angel) and of demons that war against God. One had better be careful when asserting that such rebels against God exist in the supernatural realm. Why? Because such an assertion is close to (if not precisely) the unforgiveable sin! True: there was a war mentioned in Revelation 12:7-12.  John sees Satan being cast out of Heaven (by Michael, not by God) when Jesus died on the cross.  Satan was thrown out because his job as “accuser” (of men) was no longer needed. Jesus’ blood had secured forgiveness for men.  No longer is an accuser necessary in Heaven.

If you know (with all your mind) that THE LORD our God is one, you cannot allow your mind to believe that He has any rival (including Beelzebub, Satan, fallen angels, or demons). He is the only and absolute king of the world! Love THE LORD your God with all your mind!

The Logic of Christianity 9: The Justice Link: Crucifixion

DID JESUS RECEIVE JUSTICE? One of the three major genres of rhetoric, according to Aristotle, is JUDICIAL RHETORIC. Here, Aristotle asserts that LOGOS (or logic) is the major proof used to persuade a judge or jury that JUSTICE has been or will be enacted.

If the Transfiguration is the Missing Link in the Logic of Christianity, the Crucifixion and Resurrection combine to form the Key Links. The Transfiguration account is referred to in more parts of the New Testament than Jesus’ birth, pre-existence, baptism, genealogy, Ascension, miracles, parables, healings, Great Commission, Last Supper, childhood, or even his mother Mary. His Lordship, Messiahship, and Twelve Apostles (although, often, only two of them by name) are mentioned in more parts of the New Testament than the Transfiguration, but these are not events (as is the Transfiguration). Only two historic events receive mention in more parts of the New Testament than his Transfiguration: his Crucifixion and his Resurrection. In my next post, I will consider the key logical link of the Resurrection. This post, however, will focus on the key logical link related to the ISSUE OF JUSTICE: the CRUCIFIXION. This, then, is Judicial Rhetoric.

The term “crucify,” along with its cognates, is mentioned in all 4 gospels, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation and four of Paul’s letters (I and II Corinthians, Romans , and Colossians). An additional five letters of Paul (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, II Timothy, and I Thessalonians), plus I Peter, use a cognate of the term “die” to refer to Jesus’ death. Another Pauline letter, I Timothy, speaks of Jesus before “Pontius Pilate.” The book of James mentions the “killing” of Jesus. I John speaks of our redemption through the “blood” of Christ. Other (short) New Testament books just appear to take it for granted that Jesus died by crucifixion. No New Testament book appears, in any way, to dispute his Crucifixion. Even though we have not yet thoroughly established the logical link that the New Testament is fully inspired and trustworthy in every respect (which we will get to, in time), this textual evidence shows virtually unanimous support from the writers of the New Testament for the proposition that Jesus was indeed crucified. He died one of the cruelest deaths of any human. Jesus was mortal.

You may ask, “Why does this matter?” Well, to begin with, there were early heretics, according to Charles S. Clifton, “particularly Gentile converts [who] refused to believe that Jesus had a mortal body, a position that has come to be known as Docetism . . . . The Pagan gods . . . had occasionally appeared in mortal form and vanished when their purposes were accomplished; with them there was no death and resurrection . . . . To these Christians [heretics], who included many of the so-called Gnostics, the crucifixion was only a show, a hallucination projected to observers. It was unthinkable that a divine being could physically suffer and die” (Clifton, Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, xii). Clifton continues later: “The reverse of Docetism might be said to be those explanations of the crucifixion that claim that Jesus himself was not crucified but died a normal death at some other time and place. Parts of the New Testament appear to have been written to counter Docetic teachings . . . . [I John] 4:2-3 . . . says, ‘This is how we may recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which does not thus acknowledge Jesus is not from God.’ Likewise, . . . [II John] says, ‘Many deceivers have gone out into the world, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. . . . If anyone comes to you who does not bring this doctrine, do not welcome him into your house or give him a greeting; for anyone who gives him a greeting is an accomplice in his wicked deeds.’”

Following the Logic of the Transfiguration as I presented it in my previous post: Jesus, while personally earning eternal life by living a perfect life, refused to accept the immortal “form” (i.e., like “God’s” immortal “form” [Philippians 2:6-8]) and returned to the “form” of a human/servant who was capable of death (being mortal). He was obedient to death—even the death of the cross. The Transfiguration was the ULTIMATE PROOF that Jesus was RIGHTEOUS. Jesus did not sin at any point in his life.

There are other INNOCENT humans who die, however. Couldn’t the death of one of these other “innocents” have sufficed as a sacrifice? Babies, according to Jewish (Rabbinic) and Christian (New Testament) teachings are “innocent.” That is to say that THEY HAVE NO SIN CHARGED AGAINST THEM. Setting aside, for the moment, the Catholic doctrine of “original sin,” which prompts the Catholic Church to baptize babies to secure forgiveness for their sins, the dominant Judeo-Christian view at the time of the New Testament was that babies were innocent. According to Rabbinic Judaism, it was necessary for an individual to have both the good and evil “inclinations” in order to be held accountable for sin (and for that matter, to be deemed righteous for passing the test/temptation). The rich young ruler, with whom Jesus interacts regarding eternal life in Luke 18:18-21, insists that he has kept the “commandments” from his “youth” up. It is possible (perhaps, probable) that he means from the time of his bar mitzvah forward. Hebrews 4:15 asserts that Jesus himself was tempted in every respect, as we are, but was without sin. We know nothing, however, about the childhood of Jesus. After the birth narratives, there is no discussion of Jesus’ actions until we near his bar mitzvah. Luke picks up the narrative again, in 2:41, when Jesus was age twelve. Why was Jesus taken to Jerusalem when he was twelve? Why didn’t Mary and Joseph wait until he was thirteen, the appropriate age for a bar mitzvah? The Mishnah supplies the answer in Yoma 8:4: “Young children [anyone just born through 13 years for boys and 12 years for girls] are not made to fast on Yom Kippur, but we should train them a year or two before [they reach age 13, for boys, 12 for girls], so that they become used to (the observance of) commandments.” I encouraged my four children to be baptized immediately following the 12th birthday of my daughters and the 13th birthday of my sons. As I understand Jewish and New Testament teachings, they were innocent before those ages.

A second category of “innocent humans” who die follow the Isaac pattern. Isaac had just reached the appropriate age for a bar mitzvah. Theoretically, he was still sinless, but was responsible for any sin after that time. The same theology allows Jewish writers to tell a story of a “lass” [a young girl age 12] being righteous in one temptation following her “youth” and being awarded eternal life. Since the “lass” possessed only the “evil inclination” prior to her twelfth birthday, any selfish behavior committed prior to this time must NOT have been considered “sinful.” This is precisely the view (the sinlessness of children) that prevailed at this time of the New Testament. Even the second book of Maccabees 8:4 speaks of the “sinless infants.” And the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4) agrees, concerning the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). It is a simple deduction that, if little children are not required to participate in the yearly atonement exercise, they must not be held guilty of any “sins” for which they would need atonement. Jesus corroborates this view of sinless children when he commands his disciples to “suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-14; Luke 18:15-16;). In Mark 10:15, Jesus elaborates: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.” While many interpretations of this comment have been offered, it is possible that he is saying that one must be innocent, as a little child is, to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew’s version of this comment (Matt. 18:1-6) puts it this way: “In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, ‘Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such child in my name receiveth me: But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.” In Matthew 21:15-16, Jesus comments on the fact that children were shouting, “Hosanna to the son of David,” as Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Jesus cites saying: “Did you never read ‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise’?” Alluding to Psalm 8:2 (“Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings has thou established strength”), Jesus appears to be confirming a point I made in my previous post on the Transfiguration: “The only ways that God still spoke freshly to humans, for Rabbinic Judaism, were through children, fools, and the Bat Qol (or mysterious voice from Heaven).” It seems that both children and fools were considered innocent, because they lack the good inclination. Therefore, the Holy Spirit (which inspires prophecy) is able to dwell inside these humans—they are innocent—in the same logical move that prompted Acts 2:17-18 to report that (after Jesus’ death and resurrection) “the Spirit” could be “poured out” on all flesh. Once Jesus’ death provided the forgiveness, the “innocent” believers could receive the Holy Spirit. Apparently, the death of neither children nor those who remain innocent for a short while following their bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah will suffice as an appropriate sacrifice for the sins of the world. Otherwise, Isaac would have been an appropriate sacrifice.

So, we come to Jesus of Nazareth. Of what sin was Jesus guilty? A few charges were floated: 1. “Sedition” against the Roman Empire (the official charge pertaining to his crucifixion), 2. Violating the Sabbath (by healing and harvesting grain; hence, working on the Sabbath), 3. Blasphemy, and 4. Not showing proper respect to the High Priest

SEDITION: While no term for “sedition” (STASIS, DICHOSTASIA, OR STASIAZO) is ever used to charge Jesus for a crime in the New Testament, one or another of these terms is applied variously to Barabbas, Paul, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and others. Paul is accused by his Jewish opponents of fomenting sedition against Rome, but he is never actually accused of taking up arms against Rome, as is Barabbas. Yet, the sign that hung above Jesus on the cross stated “King of the Jews” in three different languages. Clearly, the justification that Rome used for killing Jesus was that he was leading a revolt against Rome. Yet, Jesus rebuked Peter for drawing his sword and severing the ear of a guard who came to arrest Jesus. Jesus healed the wound. Indeed, to the frustration of modern-day Christians who surely see in the Old Testament their right to use weapons, and even kill, in self-defense (Exodus 22:2) and who see Moses killing an Egyptian to defend an Israelite, the behavior and teachings of the Prince of Peace were totally non-violent. Never mind that even Abraham led his household and others in war against the invaders from Mesopotamia who attacked his nephew, Lot, and rescued him from their grasp. For this act of war, Melchizedek “blessed” Abraham and Abraham paid Melchizedek a tithe from the booty. Yet, Jesus was not even a self-defense war monger (although he did permit his disciples to be armed with swords, apparently). Jesus told his followers to “love their enemies,” to “turn the other cheek.” No reputable evidence exists that Jesus was fomenting sedition against Rome. To the contrary, when Jesus was confronted by his enemies with the “gotcha” question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?”—an attempt to prove that Jesus was seditious because he would oppose paying the required tax to Rome—he asks for a coin, observes that the “image” on the coin is of Caesar, and probably alluding to the fact that man is made in the “image” of God—he ingeniously replies: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17). Translation: Give your money (with Caesar’s image) to Caesar, but your life and body (with God’s image) to God. There is no sign of Jesus mounting a revolt against Rome. Even though he readily confessed to Pilate that he was a “king,” he quickly stipulates that his kingdom is not of this world. Jesus was not seditious. But, even if he were mounting a revolt against Rome, that would not have been a SIN! Jesus is not guilty of a sin, here.

BLASPHEMY: Even James Still, who writes a blog hostile to Christianity in which he argues that Jesus was politically seditious against Rome admits: “It was not blasphemous to declare oneself a ‘Messiah’ or a ‘Son of God’ any more than it would have been to claim to be an angel. The Pharisees who composed the majority of the Sanhredrin would dismiss such a charge at once since blasphemy could only be applied to anyone who claimed to be God Almighty. Jesus' declaration that he was a Messiah, merely referred to his earthly desire to ascend to the throne of David--an act of sedition against Rome surely, but not one of blasphemy.” http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_trial.html

Jesus certainly does claim to be the SON OF GOD. This position is argued in various ways in the New Testament. Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 1 both present birth narratives in which Jesus is the Son of the Most High/God via Mary’s virgin birth, after she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. While Mark begins his gospel at Jesus’ baptism and does not include a birth narrative, Mark 1:1 speaks of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. The Gospel of John actually traces Jesus’ existence to the LOGOS that became flesh and dwelt among us. That LOGOS, according to John 1:1 was WITH GOD in the beginning and WAS GOD. Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Even though Hosea’s prophecy originally applied to Israel, Matthew extends it to apply to Jesus after his infancy flight to Egypt to escape Herod. At Jesus’ baptism, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, and Luke 3:22 report God stating (in the Bat Qol): “This is My beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” John 1:34 has John the Baptist testify: “I have seen and bore witness that this is the Son of God. Immediately following his baptism, Matthew 4:3-6 and Luke 4:3-9 present Jesus’ 40 days of fasting and temptation in the wilderness with Satan saying, “If you are the Son of God . . . .” Matthew 8:29, Mark 5:7, and Luke 8:28 have the Gadarene/Gerasene demoniac/s (and Mark 3:11 and Luke 4:41 have other demon possessed) proclaim that Jesus is “Son of God.” John 1:49 quotes Nathanael as saying “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.” Matthew 14:33 records Jesus’ disciples concluding, after the calming of the sea, “Truly, you are the Son of God.” Matthew 16:16 supplies Simon Peter’s Great Confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” In one of the most famous New Testament verses of all, John 3:16 states: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son . . . .” and John 3:18 stipulates that to be saved one must believe “on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 5:25, 9:35, 10:36, and 11:4 have Jesus stating that he is the Son of God. In John 11:27, Martha, the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead, confesses “Yes Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God. Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35, and II Peter 1:17 report God, at the Transfiguration, stating (in the Bat Qol): “This is My beloved/chosen son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” When High Priest Caiaphas questioned Jesus in an attempt to condemn him, Matthew 26:63-64 and Luke 22:70 provide the exchange: “’Tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus replied: ‘Thou sayest.’” John 19:7 has the Jewish chief priests demanding that Pilate crucify him because “he made himself the Son of God.” While Jesus hung on the cross, mockers, according to Matthew 27:40-43, derided Jesus, saying, “He said, “I am the Son of God.” Mark 15:39 tells us that the centurion who witnessed Jesus’ death on the cross exclaimed, “Truly, this man was the Son of God.” In John 20:31, the gospel writer states that he has written his words “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” In Acts 8:37, the Ethiopian Eunuch offers up the good confession—“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”—prior to Philip baptizing him. In Acts 9:20, the Apostle Paul, after his Road to Damascus experience, begins proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God. An example of Paul’s preaching this creed is found in Acts 13:33, citing the second Psalm: “Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.” If Luke’s account of Paul’s belief is insufficient, Paul’s own writings (Romans 1:3-9, 5:10, and 8:3 and 29-32, I Corinthians 1:9, II Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 1:16, 2:20, and 4:4-6, Ephesians 4:13, and I Thessalonians 1:10) corroborate the fact. Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 cite the same Psalm 2 that Acts 13:33 had quoted Paul preaching: “Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, and 10:29 reiterate the claim, as do I John 1:3-7, 3:8 and 23, 4:9-15, 5:1-20, II John 3, and Revelation 2:18.

This is the claim made not only by Jesus, but also by many others: that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. The question is: Is making such a claim “Blasphemy”? Not even James Still, who writes a blog hostile to Christianity, believes that. Even if Jesus were the biological son of Mary and Joseph, Jesus points out from Scripture that there would be nothing wrong with a human claiming to be the Son of God. Jesus is quoted in John 10:33-36 as clearly implying that the term “sons of the Most High” (from Psalm 82:6—a passage I discussed in an earlier blog post, Angels & Demons 13: Who Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis?) refers to “human judges.” Human judges are even called “gods/ELOHIM” in both Psalm 82:6 and Exodus 22:28. Jesus was making the point that it was not blasphemous for him to be called either “god” or “son of God,” if even human judges could be called “gods” and “sons of the Most High.” In that same earlier blog post, I was pointing out that the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6, often mistaken as a reference to angels, is actually a reference to humans. With these multiple biblical references to humans as “sons of God,” there is nothing blasphemous in Jesus calling himself “Son of God,” even if Jesus were the biological son of Mary and Joseph. Jesus is not guilty of blasphemy.

Is making such a claim a “sin”? Only if it is a lie. Among the Ten Commandments is the prohibition against “bearing false witness.” Essentially, if Jesus, his disciples, the Bat Qol, John the Baptist, the evangelists, Paul, and the authors of Hebrews, I and II John, II Peter, and Revelation were all bearing false witness, they would ALL have been sinning. The logic of Christianity says that is not the case. These multiple witnesses (which include God, Himself, in the Bat Qol) assert that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

VIOLATING THE SABBATH: Another commandment from the Decalogue is the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11): “8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

What, then, constitutes “working” on the Sabbath? During the Exodus, the Israelites were commanded to harvest an extra portion of MANNA on Friday, so that they would not be harvesting on the Sabbath. Nehemiah 13:15 states: “In those days saw I in Judah [some] treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all [manner of] burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified [against them] in the day wherein they sold victuals.” It seems, by these examples, that “harvesting” and “selling” are considered work that violates the Sabbath. Actually, Jesus’ disciples are accused of “harvesting” on the Sabbath, but not Jesus. Mark 2:23 reports: “23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” Matthew’s version of this account is found in Matthew 12:1-8. Luke’s version of this account is found in Luke 6:1-5. Jesus does not PERSONALLY harvest on the Sabbath, but neither does he condemn his disciples for doing so. His argumentation is presented in the Mark account. Nowhere do we find an Old Testament situation in which “healing” or “saving” an individual is forbidden on the Sabbath. Yet, the gospels present narratives in which Jesus heals on the Sabbath (and even tells one of his healed persons to “take up his bed and walk” on the Sabbath). Jesus argues: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to destroy it?” (Luke 6:9). Luke 14:5 presents Jesus as arguing: “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?” Matthew 12:11 substitutes a “sheep” for the animals who fell into a pit. Luke 13:15 presents Jesus as continuing the analogy: “Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?”

DISRESPECT FOR THE HIGH PRIEST: Did Jesus sin by disrespecting the High Priest? You be the judge. John 18:19-23 gives the account: “The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.’ 22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, ‘Is that how you answer the high priest?’ 23 Jesus answered him, ‘If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?’” Beyond the fact that this exchange did not suggest any disrespect, Caiaphas was not even a legitimate High Priest. I point out on page 27 of my book Revelation: The Human Drama: “It was common knowledge among Jewish leaders that the High Priestly family was indebted to Herod's family for its prestige and power. Antipas' father, Herod the Great, had deposed the then-current (Hasmonean) High Priestly family in the years preceding Jesus' birth. In its place Herod (the Great) had installed a High Priest from among the Jews of the Babylonian Diaspora (those Jews who had been ‘carried away’ into Babylon in the sixth century B.C. and who had not yet returned to Palestine). It is possible that the term ‘Babylon’ in Revelation and I Peter is a code word for this High Priestly family and/or Jerusalem, the city controlled by the (Babylonian?) High Priestly family.”

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT JESUS COMMITTED ANY SINS. To the contrary, there is the evidence of the Transfiguration that Jesus lived a perfect life. So, did Jesus receive JUSTICE? The best definition of “justice” that mankind, throughout history, has ever been able to formulate is called the LEX TALIONIS (An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life). It means that an individual who has injured another may be punished only to the degree s/he has injured. It is found in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 24:19-21, and other places). But it is also found in the ancient Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian law code carved in stone from about 1750 B.C. It served not as a “requirement” that someone be avenged to the same degree as the injury; rather, it was the maximum “limit” of revenge (or reTALIation—a word stemming from the same root as TALIonis) that could be exacted. This would be the full extent of JUSTICE. Therefore, if Jesus committed no sins, no injuries to anyone, JUSTICE could not allow him to even be KILLED, much less be CRUCIFIED! Indeed, true JUSTICE for a person who committed no sins would be something like the TRANSFIGURATION, which Jesus was offered but did not seize hold of. One might guess that Elijah, Enoch, and (perhaps) Moses were offered this sort of JUSTICE. Of those three, Enoch was the only one to live prior to the Law of Moses, so it is easy to argue that (since he was living under fewer laws) he had an easier pathway to translation than did Moses or Elijah. Elijah, while living under the Law, reached the point in his life at which God took him to heaven in a Fiery Chariot. Hence, Elijah received justice. One would think that, since Moses was the actual Law Giver, he would be well aware of the full ramifications and details of every single law he gave. Therefore, he might be capable of living a perfect life according to the Law. If the fact that he appears with Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration suggests that he did live the Law, Moses received justice. But, alongside these three righteous individuals, Jesus as a righteous individual, suffered one of the most degrading and excruciating punishments known to man.

It may surprise you, but my ANSWER to the question “DID JESUS RECEIVE JUSTICE” is YES! Based upon the principle of the LEX TALIONIS, Jesus received “justice,” but not justice for any sin he personally committed. Crucifixion is a horrible punishment, reserved for only the WORST CRIMINALS in the Roman Empire.

I return to the very first blog in this series: The Logic of Christianity 1: The Shroud, the Pope, and the Faith Continuum. I recall the point at which my wife and I were shown the evidence contained in the Shroud: “Using a variety of scientific methods, we were able to observe visible signs of a face with thorn wounds around the head, of hands and feet that had been pierced by nails, of a back that had been scourged by whips, of a stab wound in the side--a victim of crucifixion identical to the biblical description of Jesus’ crucifixion.” Part of the awe-inspiring experience of viewing the Shroud of Turin was just gaining a glimpse into the physical signs of what a crucifixion victim experienced.

Before Jesus was nailed to the cross, to experience the excruciating pain of having large iron nails hammered through the flesh in each of his wrists and through both of his feet securely into the wood of the cross . . . . Before he—nailed to the cross—was, hanging by only these nail points, lifted skyward, and dropped joltingly upon his cross into the hole in the ground at the base of the cross . . . . Before he was degraded, humiliated, and exposed naked on the cross (a factor that we don’t even share among Christians, due to the embarrassment caused by even thinking of the picture) . . . . Before he thus hung, suspended above the Earth, for hours, while his body experienced dehydration, pain, and the slow process of dying . . . . Before he was forced to carry the agency of his crucifixion—a wooden cross large and heavy enough to hold the full weight of a man—through the streets of Jerusalem and uphill, all the way to Golgotha . . . . Before he was mocked, dressed in purple, slapped repeatedly, and given a crown, comprised of nail-like thorns, which was jammed painfully into the flesh of his head . . . .

Before he was scourged to the limit with flesh-tearing whips and scourges until the open wounds on his back bled profusely . . . . He had to witness one of his closest friends and disciples curse and deny any connection with him. Now, that is probably JUSTICE . . . . Justice for a bin Laden who masterminded the mass murder of thousands on 9-11. Justice for a Hitler who ordered the genocide of six million Jews. Justice for a Jeffrey Dahmer, whose atrocities I recounted in The Logic of Christianity 5: The God of Logic vs. Jeffrey Dahmer. None of those three were forced to go through a punishing death anywhere near as severe as Jesus’ crucifixion. They received nothing remotely near what would be allowed under the LEX TALIONIS.

So, think retrospectively. What sins have you committed? Have you even unintentionally committed murder? Have you committed manslaughter by driving under the influence of alcohol? Have you performed, recommended, or decided to have an abortion? Have you had to make a decision to remove life support for a family member, and experienced conscientious stress over the decision? Have you had to issue a command to send men or women into combat in which they lost their lives, and experienced conscientious stress over the decision? Have you cheated on your husband or wife? Have you practiced homosexuality? Have you embezzled money or committed fraud? Have you dishonored your father or mother? Have you taken the Lord’s Name in vain? Have you coveted another person’s wife or husband, house, money, etc.? Thinking of the LEX TALIONIS, what do you think the fair maximum penalty could possibly be? Could it be any worse than CRUCIFIXION? What kind of sin or crime could one possibly commit that would suggest a fair maximum penalty greater than Crucifixion? I cannot think of one. If that is so, Jesus’ Crucifixion was JUSTICE for any sin known to mankind. Jesus did receive justice. He received justice, not for his own actions, but for the actions of any human that has ever lived. He paid the price.

The CRUCIFIXION, then, is Judicial Rhetoric/The Justice Link in the Logic of Christianity.