Exploring Christianity: Understanding Christ's Authority and Beliefs

I'm looking forward to meeting many of you in the session tonight. We had quite an interesting discussion last night at Moyer. I also hope you took it for granted that I'm not carrying these books around with me that were advertised there in the bookstore where you apply for these books.

Down at the University of Oregon, a student said to me, well, I'll go along with your arguments for God. I believe in God, but what about Christ? How do we know that Christianity isn't any better than any of these other religions that talk about God? Well, for the Christian, the supreme authority is Jesus Christ, of course. A man who believes in God is a theist, but not all theists are Christians. A young lady said to me, well, couldn't lots of the stories that we believe about Christ have been legends that came into the Christian faith a long time afterwards, just like the legends about the Buddha?

I have to look at these things from a historical point of view. It's been my background of training. And I would say simply this, that the life of Jesus Christ as we find it in the New Testament is well-attested history. If you want to know what he said and did, you read the New Testament. Now, when I was in college in the 1920s, quite a majority of people taught that the Gospel of John was written 300 years after Christ. That completely undermined the idea that most Christians have that the New Testament is reliable. After 30 years now, you find a complete change of climate regarding that question. Some of the most liberal scholars today will concede that the Gospel of John was written about 95 A.D. A very great scholar, Albright, in an interview just last month, stated that he believed the Gospels were written between the 40s and the 80s. Now, if the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified about A.D. 30, that means that our documents are very close eyewitness accounts.

I was speaking once at California Institute of Technology when a student spoke up and he said, just a moment, sir, you say that the New Testament's our authority for what we believe? Is it not a fact that several hundred years after Christ, the bishops of the church had a council to decide what would go into the New Testament? I said, yes. And didn't they leave out certain books? I said, yes. The Gospel of Peter? I said, yes. The Gospel of Thomas? They were regarded as forgeries. And there was the Shepherd of Hermas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles which were not forgeries but which were written a little later than the Apostolic Age. Now, he said, if the church fathers decided what would go into the New Testament, surely then they're the authority, not the New Testament itself.

I said, supposing World War III came and destroyed civilization as we know it, supposing after 2000 A.D. the children of survivors emerge from caves and decide to reconstruct civilization as quickly as possible. They find that radioactivity has died away in many places. So they appoint a committee on law, a committee on education, a committee on politics, a committee on industry, a committee on science, and, of course, a committee on religion. The first item on the agenda of the committee on religion is to reconstruct the sacred writings of Christianity, the most widespread of the world's religions. They agree to meet in a year's time.

At the first meeting, one man says, in the ruins of Los Angeles I found a book. I don't know what it's called because the first pages were burned in the blast, but it seems to be the life of Christ from four different points of view, and then letters written explaining these things. I don't know what to call it. Another man says, well, I've found, I think it's the same book in the ruins of London. The back pages are burned, but the title page is intact, and it's called The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I'm sure we have the same book. Someone else says, well, I've found the same thing in French. Somebody else in German. Somebody else in Chinese. Someone else says, well, here's what appears to be an original from the Greek language. It seems to be an old-fashioned type of Greek. Someone else says, well, here is a book called the Old Testament. Where does that fit in? Another man says, here's the Holy Bible containing Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha. Another man says, well, here's a book that ought to be in the Bible. It's a life of Christ by a prophet called Lloyd Douglas, and it's called The Robe. Very interesting, indeed. Somebody else says, here's a book called Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy. Somebody else says, here's a book called The Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. Where would they draw the line?

Now, if there was a historian on the committee, he would make a suggestion. What records do we have? Say, well, we've got some newspapers that have been preserved, and we've got some microfilm. Well, now, let's look over the records. They would soon discover that before 1925, no one had ever heard of The Robe. You may read it for what it's worth, but obviously it is not an authentic eyewitness account of the life of Jesus Christ. Before 1875, no one had heard of Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures. Before 1825, no one had heard of The Book of Mormon. Read them for what they're worth, but you couldn't say they were authentic accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.

Now, that was the method, or one of the methods, used by the early fathers, the bishops of the church, to decide what would go into the New Testament. If Nikita Khrushchev won the Cold War and decreed that every New Testament should be destroyed, but forgot to destroy the writings of the earliest fathers who followed the apostles, such as Polycarp, who wrote about 135 A.D., do you know that we could reconstruct the whole of the New Testament except eight verses in the Gospel of John from quotations? You could make a grid, almost, of cross-references.

Why is it, for instance, that the modernist idea that the Gospel of John was written 300 A.D. has now gone by the board? Well, obviously, if it was written 300 A.D., how could people quote it in the first and second centuries? There seems to be something wrong with that idea.

By the way, talking of the Old Testament, one of the popular notions to this day is that the Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean period. According to the interpretation, while these Jewish guerrillas were fighting up in the hills of Judea, they smuggled one of their number out through the Syrian-Greek lines and across the desert to Baghdad or some part of Mesopotamia, where he worked for a while in the Carnegie Public Library, and then came back and wrote an account of the life of Daniel as popular fiction to encourage the Jews while they're fighting up in the hills. If ever I heard a far-fetched story, I think that would be it. But unfortunately, it still stands, and we don't have the archaeological proof or the historical research to refute it yet. I'm just waiting.

But as far as the New Testament's concerned, let me assure you, the life of Christ as we find it in the New Testament is authentic. Honest historians, honest scientists, even though they may not be Christians, will concede that the early Christians who followed the Apostles believed the things that we believe, and that they are not legends that came in hundreds of years later.

You might say, well, why do we have four Gospels? That's a strength rather than a weakness. If you took me to court, but produced four witnesses who told exactly the same story, the judge would throw the case out and say it was collusion. If four students here witnessed an accident, it would be unusual for them to say exactly the same thing, because they all have different viewpoints.

Now, let's face it, there are problems in the New Testament. There's a synoptic problem. There are other problems. But I feel that we can say truthfully we have the life of Christ pictured for us from the accounts of eyewitnesses. That being the case, what then are we to believe about Jesus Christ? Do you know that in the Encyclopedia Britannica there are 20,000 words in the paragraph dealing with him? Toynbee, the great historian of today whose knowledge seems to be encyclopedic, devotes more to Jesus Christ than any other six men. And I think that Jesus Christ stood at the crossroads of history. He lived his life in a tiny little country, but that little country was the land bridge of the three old world continents, in a strategic point. A geographer would say a strategic point. And his life occurred at the most remarkable time in history.

But that's not everything. What did he claim about himself? Now, it's important to understand how people treat self-testimony. If, for instance, in court, a witness is produced who tells a very striking story, the opposing attorney may try to break down his testimony by saying, excuse me now, is it not a fact that seven years ago when you were living in Alabama, you were convicted of perjury? Or he might say, is it not a fact that when you lived in New York State, you were committed to a sanatorium for the insane? If they could do anything to break down the testimony of the witness, they will do it. With that in mind, let us keep at the back of our minds the peerless life of Christ. And then his claims about himself. His critics said, are you then the Son of God?

And he said, you have just told the truth. That's the meaning of the Greek phrase, "thou hast said," translated into King James. He said, I and my Father are one. He said, he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. In one sense, God is the unknowable. When Christ said, no man has seen God at any time, what are we to make of this?

Down in Arizona, I was driving in the back country, the Navajo country, and I saw those tremendous power lines running from Hoover Dam—287,000 volts. And yet I saw huts of the Navajos with kerosene lamps and candles. Why didn't they use electricity for lighting? They were so close to it, in fact, a hundred feet away vertically. Why didn't some enterprising Navajo fly a kite and attach a wire to it and fasten it over the power lines and plug it in? Well, one obvious reason is they'd have blown themselves to smithereens. You can't use 287,000 volts in equipment built for 110 volts. And what do you need? Everywhere you need a transformer.

Now, the scripture says, my thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways. As the heaven is high above the earth, so are my thoughts above your thoughts and my ways above your ways. God is beyond our comprehension, but Jesus Christ was the transformer of God. He brought God down to human level. He was God in the flesh, God in human form. Not only so, but his origin is something quite unique.

I was talking to a popular evangelist the other day, a man who was converted from an outstanding career in entertainment. He speaks a lot of Youth for Christ. I asked him if he believed in the deity of Christ. He said, oh yes. I said, why? He said, because I believe in the virgin birth. I said, do you mean that you established the deity of Christ solely on the virgin birth? He said, what do you mean? He said, I believe he was God because he was born of the Virgin Mary. I said, don't you believe he had existence before that? He hadn't given it a thought.

I heard Stanley Jones speaking once in India, and he startled everyone. He was speaking by interpretation, phrase at a time, being translated into Malayalam. And Stanley Jones said, I do not believe in the deity of Christ. Those that spoke English fell silent right away. What was he going to say next? It was translated into Malayalam. Then the rest of the crowd fell silent. He said, I do not believe in the deity of Christ because of the virgin birth. He said, rather I would say, I accept the doctrine of the virgin birth because I believe in the deity of Christ. And I saw what he meant right away.

Because Jesus Christ said to his own countrymen, before Abraham existed, now let me use the exact Greek, I continue to be. I am being. Only God could say a thing like that. And they took up stones to stone him, which shows that they didn't misunderstand him. In that remarkable chapter about Bethlehem, where it says that Bethlehem was chosen to be the birthplace of the Messiah. Let me read it in popular English: But you, Bethlehem Ephrata, though you are just a little village among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to me one who is to be a ruler of Israel, whose origins are from of old, from eternity. His origins from eternity.

So that Jesus Christ was more than just the Son of God by the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the Blessed Virgin Mary. No, no, he was the Eternal One. He said, glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before there was a world. In John's Gospel, it says that the Word was with God, the Word was God. In the beginning, the very beginning.

And I noticed just for the first time this year, this past year, how in the introduction to that mysterious book, the book of Revelation, John, who had been a pious Jew but had accompanied Jesus through Galilee, wrote cryptical language during the time of great persecution. And you find that, for instance, when he describes Jesus Christ, he says that he saw one like a son of man, his perfect humanity, yet robed with dignity, his perfect royalty. He was a king. But it says, his head was white as snow, his eyes like flaming fire. I used to read that and just read on. I just thought, that's peculiar language of Revelation.

But why did he write such cryptical language? It was so that those who knew, rather than the Emperor's police, would look it up for themselves. And you find in the book of Daniel that it's God Almighty who's described as one whose head is white as snow, the Ancient of Days, and whose eyes are like flaming fire. What an impact it must have made on John and the other Jews who accompanied Jesus Christ, that this remarkable teacher, whom they believed to be the Messiah that was promised, was more than that, that he was God.

Jesus said, I am the light of the world. I'm the door of the sheep. I'm the shepherd of the sheep. He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. The other great sages would have said, I will show you the way. I will explain the truth. I'll give you a key to life. But he said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Oh, he must have been what he claimed to be. We accept his own testimony given to us through the Apostles.

You say, what about the difficulty of the miracles? Well, it depends on your attitude of mind. A Methodist minister in England was working so hard, his wife said to him, John, you're going to have a nervous breakdown if you don't stop. Well, he's all right. He's after conference. We'll go for a vacation in Scotland. He was coming back from conference in London, bone-tired. He missed the last train and took a train to five miles from his home. He was walking two o'clock in the morning in bright moonlight, when he suddenly heard a lion roar.

Now, he thought, I'm imagining things. My wife's right. I'm losing my mind. So, he stopped and thought, I imagine things. So, he walked on in the moonlight, peering ahead. He heard a lion roar again. Now, he refused to credit it. Lions don't roar in England. He pinched himself. He thought, well, I better have that holiday in Scotland. But he heard the lion roar the third time, and as he approached, it seemed he was getting closer. And then he thought he saw a huge tawny cat, full-maned, with its tail lashing, jump out on the road. A way up ahead, he stopped dead. Then he began to back away, walking backwards, until he got a turn in the road, and he turned and ran as hard as he could run. He thought, I've had it. I've had it. Nervous breakdown.

He had to wait for the milk train back to London. He got back to London, sent a telegram to his wife, and said, don't worry, delayed. He took some sleeping tablets, went to bed in a hotel, and slept for 24 hours. He thought, when I wake, the nightmare will be gone. But when he awakened, it was as vivid in his memory as before. He thought, now I better see a psychiatrist. I'll tell him I'm a Methodist minister, and not to charge me too much. When suddenly he heard a noise at the door, and a newspaper was put under the door, as they do in some hotels. The first thing caught his eye was that all the animals that had escaped in the big train smash, moving the circus to Birmingham, had been recaptured.

Now, he had actually seen and heard a lion, but he utterly refused to believe such a thing possible, because he was brought up to believe that it wasn't possible. And I know some people who will just reject things. If you say, well, do you believe the miracles of Christ? Considering who he was, yes. Now, if, for instance, somebody said there's a sophomore at Seattle Pacific College claims to be God, I would put a question mark at that. But you see the point. We have these things as testimony.

One of Roy Rogers' friends came to the Hollywood Christian group, and he said to me, well, how does God forgive sins? I said, well, in Christ we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our sins. He said, what you're trying to tell me is that Jesus died for me. I said, yes. Well, he said, I don't understand that. How could anyone die for me? He said, look, the Los Angeles police are holding a man for murder. Supposing I go to the chief of police and say, let me take this guy's place, I feel awful sorry for him. Would they let me take his place? He said, they would not. He said, how could anybody die for me?

I said, well, I'll tell you a couple of stories that may illustrate. I don't know that I can explain such a difficult doctrine as the atonement, but I'll illustrate. When I was a boy seven years of age, I used to play ball out the back. Diagonally across the lot from our house was the house of a fellow called Albert Mann, and his house was in the way. Every time we hit the ball hard, we're sure to break one of his windows. One day, he rushed out and shook his fist. He said, the next one of you brats breaks my window, I'll break your ear. Who do you think was the next brat to break his window?

I didn't stop running until I got home, but my long-legged sister got home first and told Mother what I'd done. I didn't mind that. I could manage Mother, but for some obscure reason, my father was in the kitchen. I decided under the circumstances, what I needed was a little more recreation, so I made for the back door. My father grabbed me by the wrist. He said, you're coming with me, young man. But I said, Daddy, that man will hit me, that man. He said, you're coming with me. I went reluctantly.

My father knocked the old-fashioned knocker, and Mr. Mann came to the door, still looking aggrieved. My father said, this is the boy that broke your window. He didn't waste time with me. He turned to my father, and he said with indignation, he said, don't look here, Orr. I'm not unreasonable. I know that boys can't help breaking windows. I broke windows when I was a boy. But Orr, he said, why is it that every time there's a window broken in this neighborhood, it has to be my window? Now, I could have told him why, but I kept quiet. He went on scolding. He said, I've had to fix 11 windows this summer already. I'm willing to forgive the boys, but he said, somebody has to pay for it. Somebody has to pay for it. Somebody has to pay for it. My father paid for it, and I was forgiven.

I learned the first principle of forgiveness. When you're forgiven, someone must pay. That's atonement. But 20 years later, my sister's husband borrowed some money from me. Now, there are different marriage customs in different countries. Among the Zulus in South Africa, a man will save up enough money to buy a wife, whereas in India, the girl's family will pay you for taking one of them away. But in Ireland, where I was born, as soon as a man marries your sister, he feels entitled to apply for a loan. He borrowed $500. He offered to pay back $5 a week for 2 years. I said, skip Easter week, Christmas week, but the other 100 weeks, you pay me that money. He agreed. Never paid a penny.

After bearing him a grudge for 2 years, I forgave him. But which of the two of us suffered? The sinner or the sinned against? Not the sinner. He went free. I could have taken him to court and seized his furniture. Then he would have suffered. But the moment I forgave him, I suffered. And it taught me the second principle of forgiveness. The one that forgives is the one that suffers.

Moses could not have died for me, nor Joshua, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor the Blessed Virgin Mary. It had to be Christ. The highest view, to my mind, of the atonement is that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. There are other views. Moral influence, there's truth in that. Identification, there's truth in that. Substitution, yes, there's truth in that, but it does not mean that God Almighty looked around for somebody else to punish instead of me, but rather that he was in Christ, that he suffered, that I might be forgiven.

And although I gave those two stories as illustrations of forgiveness, it suddenly struck me with great force. Those are arguments, those are illustrations, bearing on the deity of Christ. Only Christ could have died on the cross, because he was God in human form. Therefore, in Christ we have forgiveness through his blood.

We'll continue our discussions further. Let us pray. O God, as we contemplate the wonder of our universe and think how great thou art, help us to be overwhelmed by the wonder of the atonement, that thou thyself should suffer for us in Christ, that we might be redeemed. Bring us to the place of true repentance for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

Thank you, Dr. Orr. You're adjourned.