Did Jesus testify as to his identity?

'Where did Jesus say, "I am God"?' is a common argument of Muslims arguing against Christians (though it reflects a half-truth or half-understanding about what Christ said and what Christians teach about Jesus).

'Where did Jesus say, "I am the Messiah"? is a common argument of those who argue against Jesus being the Messiah (Christ) in reality rather than merely in the veneration of the church.

While we're on the subject, Jesus did not even say "I am a prophet". Why not?

---

The Gospel of John: Extended discourse on testimony to Jesus

Actually, the question "Why not?" was covered at some length in the fourth gospel.

If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)

Jesus was citing the common legal practice of the people among whom he lived: testifying on your own behalf was considered meaningless. The Talmud records this legal principle:

No one may testify concerning himself. (Kethuboth 27b, Mishnah)

This is even today considered somewhat common sense: it is foolish to believe everything that a man may say about himself. If Jesus had said "I am the Messiah" or "I am God" or even "I am a prophet" or "I am the messenger of God", it would provide no real reason for believing it. What someone says about himself may be merely self-serving to glorify himself. Jesus, continuing the earlier conversation, provides several lines of witnesses that testify about him:

1. John the Baptist (John 5:33-35)
2. The works Jesus is doing (John 5:36)
3. The Father's own testimony (John 5:37-38)
4. Scripture (John 5:39-40);
5. Moses (John 5:45-47).

In fact, when Jesus proclaimed his role in the world, he was challenged on exactly the point of whether he was then testifying on his own behalf. When Jesus proclaimed, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12), the immediate challenge back from the Pharisees was this:

Here you are, appearing as your own witness. Your testimony is not valid. (John 8:13)

Jesus' reply covered reasons why his self-testimony is valid, beginning with how they were judging by human standards and how his Father's witness adds to his own to establish matters on the testimony of two witnesses according to rules set forth by the Torah. He continues with the point that he is speaking only what the Father has taught him to speak. This thread continues for some length on the topic as Jesus rebuts the charge that he is a glory-seeker and that his testimony would be dismissed by a judge.

I am not seeking glory for myself, but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. (John 8:50)

The series of exchanges comes to a climax when Jesus is asked whether he is the Messiah and ups the stakes, saying words that the hearers understand as a claim to equality with God. Again, follow the thread of where the testimony comes from and what witnesses speak on his behalf:

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe me because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to him, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods' to whom the Word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:24-38, emphasis added)

---

Sign as testimony: Is Jesus the one, or should we expect another?

The Gospel of John is not the only gospel to show Jesus using this same logic. John the Baptist, in prison, sought confirmation beyond what he had from seeing God's sign at Jesus' Baptism. He sent messengers to Jesus:

"Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" Jesus replied: Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me." (Matthew 11:3-6; see also Luke 7:18-35)

Again Jesus lets his signs testify for him: we should not expect another to come after him; the prophecies are fulfilled in him.

---

Sign as testimony: Who can forgive sins but God alone?

Jesus uses the same line of argument when he is challenged for claiming authority reserved for God when he forgave the sins of a paralytic man, an account which is recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke:

He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, "your sins are forgiven', or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Sonof Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ..." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying "We have never seen anything like this." (Mark 2:5-12, see also Matt 9 and Luke 5).

---

Witnesses and credibility

When it comes to credibility, what do we think? Is it possible for a human to serve as a second witness to corroborate a claim as to whether another person is a prophet, or the Messiah, or the Son of God? How would they know? Jesus performed miracles to testify for him. His miracles were blessings for the people who received them and signs for the world proclaiming God's goodness, foretastes of the blessings God has promised in the world to come. Many have proclaimed a role for themselves in the world. As for Jesus being the one who was to come, it is hard to imagine a more credible or powerful testimony to Jesus' place in the kingdom of heaven than when God raised him from the dead. For those who do not believe that miracles are possible, belief in Jesus will always be a mystery. For those who do believe that God performs miracles, the miracles are testifying and are the witnesses Jesus called as to the truthfulness of his words.

Anniversary offering for the dead in Augustine's Confessions

I have some interest in tracking the history of the practice of anniversary offerings for the dead in the early Christian church. In re-reading St Augustine's Confessions recently, I came across a passage that bears on the subject. In fact, Book VI Chapter 2 deals largely with this subject. Here are some relevant excerpts, though the passage is lengthier than I will quote and is worth reading in full:

There was an occasion when my mother had brought, as was her custom in Africa, cakes and bread and wine to some of the chapels built in memory of the saints and was forbidden to do this by the doorkeeper. When she found that it was the bishop (note: St Ambrose) who had forbidden the practice, she accepted his ban ...

But when she found that that famous preacher and that great example of piety (still St Ambrose) had forbidden the practice even to those who used it soberly -- so that drunkards should not be given an occasion for excess and also because this kind of anniversary funeral feast is very like the superstitious ceremony of the pagans -- she most willingly gave up her old habit. Instead of a basket filled with the fruits of the earth, she had learned to bring to the chapels of the Martyrs a breast full of something much purer, her prayers.

It is interesting to note that the annual offerings of the dead (also seen in Tertullian) were practiced apparently without opposition in Africa, but received a flat prohibition under St Ambrose. The practice of the church in that day was not uniform on the matter of offerings for the dead. It is also interesting to note Ambrose's reason for prohibiting the annual offerings even when done with sobriety: these offerings resembled pagan practices. They may have been a continuation of pagan practices carried over into Christianity by converts from pagan religions. At any rate, while Ambrose's ban was by no means church-wide, it is an interesting episode in the history of offerings for the dead within Christianity.

Comparing Liturgies

This is in response to Jeff's call for posts for the Christian Reconciliation Carnival. For those considering entering, please submit your favorite liturgy or reconciliation-themed post.

I was curious what we would find if we compared liturgies amongst ourselves. However, the orders of service tend to be longer than we might have the patience to compare in our spare time as bloggers. With that in mind, I am here posting the general outline of the Common Service from our current worship book. There are several other orders of service as well; I haven't even compared and contrasted the different orders of service within my own book of worship. But here is a question for all you other liturgical worshipers out there from other Christian groups: how close is this to your own order of service? Are there differences? Are differences in the service used to highlight differences in theology?

Common Service

1. Invocation (“In the name of the Father …”)
2. Confession
3. Song: Kyrie eleison (“Lord have mercy on us ...”)
4. Absolution
5. Song: Gloria in Excelsis (“Glory be to God on High …”)
6. Prayer of the day
7. Old Testament Scripture reading
8. Psalm of the day
9. Epistle Scripture reading
10. Verse of the day and Alleluias
11. Gospel Scripture reading
12. Nicene Creed (communion) or Apostles Creed (matins)
13. Sermon
14. Song: "Create in me ..."
15. Offering
16. Prayer of the church
17. The Lord's prayer (with the Glorias at the end)
18. (Matins: skip forward to Nunc Dimittis; Eucharist continues)
19. Prayers: Seasonal prefaces to the Eucharist
20. Song: Sanctus (“Holy, holy, holy …”)
21. Words of institution (“Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed …”)
22. Song: Agnus Dei (“O Christ, Lamb of God …”)
23. Distribution (“The body of Christ, given for you. The blood of Christ, shed for you for the remission of sins.”)
24. Song: Nunc dimittis aka Song of Simeon (“Lord, now you let your servant depart in peace …”)
25. Prayer of thanksgiving
26. Aaron’s Blessing (“The Lord bless you and keep you …”)

I've skipped mentioning the various places where we have a hymn. So what do you say? How close is this to your own liturgy? How close have we stayed over the years of the divide, and how far have we drifted apart even in our worship?

Is it fair to portray Creationists as abusing the Bible?

Note: I am not writing this with an eye to the Creation / Evolution or Young Earth / Old Earth debates. My eye in this is towards the topic of whether we are treating our brothers and sisters in Christ fairly, regardless of our differences.

---

I recently came across this article by one John Polkinghorne (h/t: Chris, who I suspect really enjoyed the article) in which the sub-headline boldly states the article’s intention to explain “why literal creationists are abusing and misinterpreting scripture”. I’m not a young earth creationist; I have no quibbles with the current consensus that the earth is far older than that. But I think it is patently unjust to young earthers to accuse them of abusing the Bible merely for holding a view of the Biblical creation account that was, historically, the mainstream view of the Christian church for many centuries.

Polkinghorne draws from the stock argument against young earth creationists: their inability to recognize or interpret figures of speech and their inability to determine or take into account the genre of what they are reading. This supposedly accounts for their untenable, textually unsound reading of the opening chapters of Genesis. Odd thing is that the consensus of Christians who wrote on that subject came to the same conclusions as the young earth creationists until, say, the 1800's A.D. In church history, Eusebius and many of his contemporaries seemed to think the text could be read roughly the same way that modern young earthers read it. For centuries, careful Biblical students and respected scholars calculated the age of the earth based on various texts in the Bible and consistently found ages less than 10,000 years. Was there no skilled reader in the house? Does the mainstream of centuries of historical Christian interpretation “actually abuse scripture by the mistaken interpretation that they impose upon it”, as Polkinghorne says of the young earthers who are sticking to the same historical consensus?

This particular line of argument – that creationists are actually abusing the Bible or are even unskilled exegetes – seems at best an uninformed argument, one that turns a blind eye to the prevalence of the creationist view throughout church history. Unless we are willing to retroactively say that the majority of mainstream Christian scholars for many centuries were likewise unskilled readers and biased interpreters, it might do better to drop that charge against modern creationists. The theory of evolution was a shock to the church precisely because the consensus for many centuries had been roughly what the young earth creationists still believe. The difference in interpretation from the older traditional view does not come from the creationists’ lack of reading skills, but from the evolutionists’ acceptance of modern theories that invalidate the traditional reading and therefore require the evolutionist (not the creationist) to develop a new interpretation. I am not here arguing against developing a new interpretation; I am simply stating that it is unfair to pretend that the difference between the evolutionist view and the creationist view of Genesis is a result of the creationist "abusing" the book rather than the evolutionist reinterpreting it. It would be far more honest and charitable for old earthers to simply acknowledge that they have made a break with the historical interpretation – and what was, in its day, respected scholarship – in light of modern discoveries.

My neighborhood: Scenes from Ike

Those plants all horizontal there are what's left of my little banana grove, picture taken a few hours after Ike cleared off. Fortunately, that's about the worst of it for my own home; little real damage. We filled about 12 large trash bags full of leaves and other downed foliage. It's not that my yard is that large, either, but that kind of weather is rough on trees.

---

My next-door neighbors on both sides lost fencing and some larger parts of trees; the picture of downed fencing is from one of my next-door neighbors. Most of the homes in our neighborhood (a half-hour drive from the beach) have nothing worse than downed trees or fences, maybe a few missing shingles. I noticed that the poorly-maintained homes didn't fare as well; mental note: make sure to re-check home maintenance each year before hurricane season.

---

The third picture shows the most damaged house I've seen in our neighborhood. You can't see the whole tree in the picture, but the whole tree was plucked up like a weed with its roots hanging. This particular home is on the outer edge of our neighborhood in the direction from which the wind was coming.

---

What I'm not showing, I suppose, is all the uninteresting stuff: house after house without any damage, the trees (80% or better) that are still in the ground and some that even kept all their branches, that kind of thing. The neighborhoods closer to the water had more damage. There's still plenty of work to do.

Paul's message based on Christ's: the primacy of love

Whenever people claim that Paul taught something different than Jesus, I find myself wondering how closely they have read Paul's letters. Of all Jesus' moral teachings, probably the most unique is this: that the most important of all God's laws is the command that we love. The most important of all the laws and command God ever gave, Jesus taught us, is to love the LORD our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and the second most important is like it: to love our neighbor as ourselves. The main moral teaching of Jesus is developed better and more fully by Paul than by anyone else in the whole of the Bible.

Consider 1 Corinthians chapter 13. Here Paul devotes an entire chapter to love: how love is better than knowledge and wisdom and understanding; how even acts of charity are empty and meaningless without love, how even martyrdom itself is meaningless without love, that if we are martyred but do not love then "we gain nothing". Here Paul reminds us that if we speak even the most beautiful words of the most beautiful language with the most beautiful meanings -- but do not love, those who listen to us only hear an unpleasant noise like a gong or a cymbal.

Consider Paul's letter to the Romans, again chapter 13. Here Paul reviews from the standpoint of the law code of the Torah: that the law is fulfilled when we love each other. "Love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Again in Galatians 5:13-14, Paul expounds on love as the fulfillment of the law, and shows that the Christian fulfills the law by serving each other in love. "For all the Law is fulfilled in one saying: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

As much as I find Peter's and John's writings to be admirable in their own right, and as much as they also proclaim Jesus Christ both in what he did and what he taught, still Paul is the one who proclaims Jesus' teaching of love the most.

A Question of Ethics: The Media and Disaster Preparation

This past Friday evening as I was putting the finishing touches on my hurricane preparations, I made one last check of my email before packing up my computer and moving it to a safer spot. With Ike a mere few hours away, I found this lead article on AOL (see picture). Is it sensationalist? Definitely. Is it misleading to place the picture of the fellow standing in the spray of the Galveston seawall adjacent to a caption about a wall of water hitting Texas? Probably. You could tell the man was on the seawall if you know the Galveston seawall like most of us on the coast, or if you moused-over the picture and then it mentioned that it was a man on the seawall with the pre-storm waves splashing up, and not exactly a wall of water as referenced in the accompanying headline ... if you moused over the picture instead of, say, reading the headline.

I do not want to single out this AOL article as if it were the only sensationalist piece of hype I'd seen during my preparations for the hurricane. For the record, even the vast majority of those who rode out Ike on Galveston Island survived so they did not, after all, face certain death. Ike was repeatedly referred to in media reports as enormous, monstrous, and a variety of other adjectives playing up its impressive size and strength. Honestly, folks, it was a Category 2 storm in a zone where most things are rated Category 3 (though obviously not our power infrastructure). I do not mean to minimize the menace that was Ike, or the long night we all spent Friday night and into Saturday as the storm barreled through, or the hardships of days without power or any way to replace supplies of water or food or fuel -- which is still the situation in some places though in increasingly isolated pockets as the days go by. There were even a number of deaths, a few from the storm and possibly as many or more from misuse of generators / candles / power tools etc. afterwards. The deaths from the actual strike of Ike are still less than the deaths from the mass evacuation (note: not the storm but the evacuation) three years ago for Rita.

My point is this: panic, desperation, lack of information and poor planning have been responsible for more hurricane deaths around here than the actual hurricanes. To what extent is the media responsible for fueling that most deadly part of a disaster, namely panic, with its hysterical headlines? If someone went into a crowded movie house and yelled "Fire" hysterically rather than with rational instructions about proceeding calmly to the nearest exit, would that announcer be morally responsible if there were a trampling death during the panic?

My concern is this: the media have a theoretical job of passing along information. However, this is often eclipsed by the desire for ratings. Hype creates ratings, therefore the media creates hype. At what point do they (did they) cross the line to generating fear to rake in a bigger profit? In a dangerous situation, is the fearmongering-for-profit dynamic ethical?