by Michael E. Brooks

"So they were offended at him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house'" (Matthew 13:57).

Nepal is often called "the rooftop of the world" because it is home to many of the high peaks of the Himalayas. On a clear day, one can see snow-capped mountains from almost anywhere in this nation. Their beauty attracts tourists from all over the world, many of whom come over and over again to gaze on these wonders of creation. Trekkers walk in their shadows; mountaineers climb to their peaks; tourists fly around them in small planes, all to enjoy their majesty. But in the midst of all this splendor, the native Nepalis rarely look up. What we marvel at, they take for granted. It is their ordinary scenery -- nothing special.

We have a popular proverb to explain this phenomenon. "Familiarity breeds contempt." That which we see often we cease to be impressed by. Have you noticed that the trees in your backyard are just as pretty as those in far off places? But you may well ignore yours, to stare in rapture at the others. Why? You have "been there and done that" and so have lost interest. While this is understandable, it presents definite dangers.

First, there is the danger of overlooking or rejecting unexpected characteristics. Jesus was not accepted in Nazareth because the home folks just knew he was "only" the carpenter's son. "Where did he get wisdom? He is just like us" was their attitude. It was incomprehensible that he could possess any divine knowledge, much less divine nature. So their eyes were blinded by his familiarity. We, too, can fall into the trap of thinking we know all about some person, idea, or proposal simply because of prior knowledge. Experience should teach us, however, that we have often seen new details in pictures or scenes viewed frequently before. We probably will never exhaust all possibilities, especially in people. Take nothing for granted. Be prepared to discover additional depths.

Second, there is the danger of embracing the new and different, just because it is new and different. The unfamiliar has an attraction to many. Luke says of the intellectuals of ancient Athens that they "spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21). This fascination with the unfamiliar is not wrong in itself, but if it causes acceptance without proper investigation, it will lead to disaster. In politics, religion, vocations, and even recreation there is often the appeal that "it is time for a change." That may well be true, but change should never be just for change's sake –- it must always be the result of careful investigation and planning.

Finally, there is the danger of being rejected by others because of our own familiarity. Middle-aged spouses no longer strike sparks in the eyes and hearts of their mates. Preachers lose the attention of their audiences after a few years. How do we protect ourselves against such rejection? Obviously, there are limits to the protection we may provide, and the fault or cause is frequently not within the one who is cast off. But one can grow and adapt as time passes so that, while we are the same people, we are not always doing and saying the same things. Marriage counselors advise wise husbands to continue the courtship of their wives. Keep sending flowers, taking them out to dinner, and showing the same (or more) attention as before marriage. Do the occasional unexpected thing. Preachers must continue to study and grow spiritually and in mastery of their craft. Rehashing the same old outlines will not continue to stimulate the congregation. So each of us, whatever our role, can continue to develop and emerge as new talents and qualities are developed. Familiarity does not have to mean boredom. And it does not have to lead to contempt.

by Mike McDaniel Defender, September 2004

Christianity depends on the historical existence of Christ. The historical Jesus began a religious movement which has shaken this world as has no other. Yet, some writers actually deny the historical existence of Jesus.

The cover of the December 1994 issue of LIFE magazine revealed an artist's rendering of Jesus with the question "Who Was He?" In a short article they stated:

"To some, Jesus is the Son of God, born to a virgin: the anointed, the Christ. To others he is just a man who inspired, through his teachings and exemplary life, 'several faiths now incorporated into Christianity.' And to still others he's a myth, a novelistic invention of Paul, and then, the Gospel writers, who required a charismatic anchor for their nascent (early) churches. He is, they say, an idea."

In this issue of LIFE magazine they interviewed many eminent thinkers. One of them, Jon Murray, the President of American Atheists, stated, "There was no such person in the history of the world as Jesus Christ. There was no historical, living, breathing, sentient human being by that name. The Bible is a fictional, nonhistorical narrative. The myth is good for business."

In spite of this incredible assertion, most respectable scholars, and serious historians do not question the historicity of Jesus. As F. F. Bruce has written, "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."

There was a real historical person named Jesus of Nazareth who lived, had a tremendous influence upon the people, and died the death of crucifixion. To prove this, notice three lines of evidence. In the first place, notice the New Testament as evidence of the historicity of Christ. The New Testament presents to us the historical Jesus. The Scriptures' representation of Christ cannot be rationalized away or dismissed with the wave of a hand.

The evidence for the New Testament is much greater than the evidence for classical writings. For example, at least 24,633 manuscripts and portions of the New Testaments have been documented. In all of ancient history, the second book in line after the New Testament in manuscript is The Iliad by Homer. Yet it has only 643 surviving manuscripts. Dr. Clark Pinnock in his book, Set Forth Your Case, concluded after extensive research:

"There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textural and historical testimonies and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias" (58). The New Testament gives an accurate picture of Jesus Christ to us as Son of Man and Son of God.

In the second place, notice these Jewish writers as evidence of the historicity of Christ. Josephus, a Jewish historian, lived from around A.D. 37 to 100. He spoke of John the Baptist. He also wrote: "Ananius, the high priest, assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, this brother's name was James, also some of his companions, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he had them stoned" (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 9.1).

In another passage he wrote: "Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew many after him both of the Jews and the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that had previously followed him did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day. As the divine prophets had foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, is not extinct at this day" (Jewish Antiquities, XVHI, 3.1). Some have questioned this passage as a possible interpolation. In defense of the passage it does appear in every copy of Josephus that has come down to us and was quoted twice by Eusebius as early as A.D. 315.

The Jewish Talmud is the civil law of the Jews consisting of the Mishna (text) and the Gamara (commentary). In the Talmud there are some occasional references to Jesus, but most of them are vulgar and unquotable. They are deliberately intended to contradict events in the Gospel accounts and attack the Lord's credibility. However, the fact that the Jewish rabbis from the close of the first century on down have attempted so many attacks upon Jesus helps us to prove the reality of His earthly life. In their attempts to deny His divinity, they prove His historicity!

In the third place, notice these Roman writers as evidence of the historicity of Christ. Tacitus was a famous Roman historian who lived from around A.D. 55 to 117. Around the turn of the century he wrote his Annals in which he discussed the burning of Rome in A.D. 64.

"At this time Nero had been accused of having burned the city. To suppress the rumor, Nero falsely accused and punished, with the most acute tortures, persons who, already hated for their shameful deeds, were commonly called Christians. The founder of that name, Christus, has been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberious; but the deadly superstition, though repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through the city (Rome) whither all things horrible and vile flow from all quarters, and are encouraged" (Annals 15:4).

Suetonius, another Roman historian who lived from around A.D. 65 to 135, wrote in his Life of Claudius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, and expelled them from the city." This passage undoubtedly confirms Acts 18:2 that Claudius commanded all Jews to leave Rome. This included Priscilla and Aquila and proves that there were Christians in Rome as early as Claudius. It is well known that the name "Chrestus" was sometimes used of the heathen people for our Savior.

A Roman by the name of Pliny who lived from around A.D. 62 to 114, wrote to Trajan, when Pliny was Governor of Bithynia, to ask what he should do about the Christians.

"They affirmed that the sum of their guilt or error was to assemble on a fixed day before daybreak, and sung responsively a hymn to Christ as to God, and to bind themselves with an oath not to enter into any wickedness, or to commit thefts, robberies, or adulteries, or falsify their work or repudiate trusts committed to them: when these things were ended, it was their custom to depart and on coming together again, to take food, men and women together, yet innocently".

What is the value of these statements of famous Jewish and Roman writers? They are valuable because they help to show absolutely that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Such evidence is not necessary to one who accepts the New Testament as historically true. But since some who are not Christians will boldly assert that Jesus never really lived among men, this additional evidence proves that Jesus did exist.

Jesus continues to live today. This additional evidence should give us even more reason to accept the Gospel and obey it. Why not surrender your will to his in Gospel obedience today? "What will you do with Jesus my friend? Neutral you cannot be: Someday your heart will be asking, O friend, 'what will he do with me?'"

by Stan Mitchell

I was listening to a father the other day at a restaurant (OK, it was McDonalds!). His kids and wife were ranged around him, and he was having a good time. "I'll have the cheese burger," he declared. "Cut the cheese."

I know it was corny. The looks on the kids' faces told me they had heard this joke before ... several times! It made me think of some questions:

• Why were the Old Testament priests drawn only from the tribe of Levi? Did scripture specifically forbid priests from, say, the tribe of Judah? "For it is clear," the Hebrew writer declares, "that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe, Moses said nothing about Priests" (Hebrews 7:14).

• Why do you come to a complete halt at a stop sign? Does the sign specifically forbid looking both ways and rolling through if clear? Try that reasoning with the local law enforcement personnel!

• Why does the pharmacist not add several creative elements to your doctor's prescription? Does the prescription specifically forbid the addition of other medicines according to the pharmacist's whims? The fact is that we use the "argument from silence" in every day life. An appointment made for nine in the morning is considered broken if I turn up at eleven! When the instruction (or command, if God is the one giving it) is given, that instruction naturally excludes as well as includes. You can't have priests from Levi and Judah both and fulfill the Law of Moses' specific instructions. You can't stop at a stop sign and roll through it all at the same time. This is not deep philosophical mumbo jumbo; it's not tricky theology; it's plain, common equestrian reasoning!

There are many things that the New Testament does not mention. Hymn books and church foyers, air conditioning and Bible class workbooks aren't mentioned. The argument from silence, however, derives from those commands that God gives in his word. God's command includes what he commanded, and, if it is silent on alternatives, it is a silence we should respect.

"Now brothers I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.'" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

By the way, a cheese burger must have cheese on it, or it's something else altogether!

by Barry Newton

At one time or another, while happily chatting with someone, many of us probably have opened the refrigerator and poured ourselves a nice, tall, cool glass of milk. Without giving it much attention, we took a large mouthful. Then the stench and the taste of thoroughly rancid milk overpowered our senses. If we were lucky we made it to the kitchen sink.

Not just milk turns repugnant. Can you imagine God gagging and being absolutely repulsed at something which was good? It has happened. Through Isaiah, God told his people, "stop bringing meaningless sacrifices! Your incense is detestable to me. ... I can not bear your evil assemblies."\1 Through song, David acknowledged the same truth. "You do not delight in sacrifice ... you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings."\2 What?

Had not God requested these very aspects of worship? Does God play mind games with his people by asking for something he does not want?

Through the poetry of Isaiah and David, God explained, "Take your evil deeds out of my sight. Stop doing wrong, learn to do right."\3 Although God's people were going through the right rituals of worship, their hearts were far from him, as evidenced by their sinful and rebellious lifestyle. Furthermore, David recognized, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God you will not despise. ... Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar."\4

The message is clear. Unless we are first changed, our worship is transformed into something repugnant to God. This message is as vital today as it was then. While Christians do not offer animal sacrifices, we do offer up a sacrifice of praise from the fruit of our lips.\5

Is it not wonderful that what God asks of us is not beyond any of us? Let's be humble and repentant, a people whose lives are shaped by God's love, not darkness. As such, let's gather with grateful hearts to worship our merciful Almighty God.

1/ Isaiah 1:13 2/ Psalm 51:16 3/ Isaiah 1:16,17 4/ Psalm 51:17,19 5/ Hebrews 12:15

by Richard Mansel

In former times, John 3:16 was the most favored verse of Scripture. In our post-modern age, though, we find another verse taking its place. Often it is angrily hurled at Christians as a poisoned arrow to invoke silence and an end to scrutiny. It is "judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1, NKJV) and its popularity evidences a lack of understanding of what Matthew intended and the increasing immorality of our society.

Initially, judging is not inherently wrong, because the Bible tells us that it is, in some situations, required. Courts must judge whether a crime has been committed (Romans 13). Churches must judge whether a member has become disorderly and between sound and false teachers (1 Corinthians 15:1-13; 2 Peter 2:1; Titus 3:10,11; 1 John 4:1).

What people often mean when they hurl this charge is that they feel indicted by something Christians have said or taught and they don't want to hear it any longer. They do not want anyone telling them they are committing sinful acts. They want to be able to commit any act without the pangs of guilt. In some cases, their conscience has not yet been trained to appease their feelings.

The judging that is forbidden is when we put the worst possible interpretation on the actions of another. We make everyone guilty until proven innocent through hasty, unfounded and slanderous judgment.

We should not unjustly judge others, because we may not have all the facts. Once there was a young man on a passenger train holding an increasingly angry baby. As the night deepened, an impatient passenger could no longer tolerate the crying infant and demanded to know where the child's mother was so she could silence the child. Wearily, the young man informed him that the child's mother was in a coffin in the baggage car and she would never again hold her baby.

Years ago a dog and a child went off into the woods together and they failed to return that night. As morning came, the parents were forming a search party to find the child when the dog limped into the yard, covered in blood. Furious, the father shot the dog for what he had done to his child. Later, they found the boy sitting next to the wolf that the family dog had killed to save the child. The dog had simply been coming for help now that the danger was past.

When we commit unrighteous judgment we are judging people by a standard that God will not use to judge us. For example, God will not judge us based on the color of our skin, national heritage, age, gender, intelligence, or level of wealth. Accordingly, we cannot judge someone's worth based on these criterion. As Matthew continues, "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7:2).

No one would want to be judged on the day of judgment on the standards we use for others. Would we want a rumor or prejudice to decide our eternal destiny? Instead, we will be judged by the Word of God (John 12:48; Revelation 20:11-15).

We need to develop a loving nature and see unrighteous judging as the despicable practice that it is. Furthermore, we need to practice the golden rule and treat others as we would like to be treated. Of course, no one would dare pretend this is easy to do.