Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The article appeared on page D-22, the last page of 30 September 1987 issue of The Indianapolis Star. The story was not headline news; rather it appeared under the section “People & Things.” A much needed lesson lies hidden in the story which I here reproduce and concerning which I now make comment.

Larry Flynt, the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine publisher, had to be rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and have his stomach pumped after taking an overdose of drugs.

An ambulance raced to Flynt’s Hollywood Hills home just before 4 a.m. Tuesday to help Flynt, 44. He was later reported to be in stable condition. Hospital officials wouldn’t say what sort of drugs he had taken but a police spokesman said Flynt’s daughter, Lisa, 20, told officers that the overdose was an accident.

Flynt has been despondent since the death of his fourth wife, Althea, 33, who had AIDS and was found dead in a bathtub of the couple’s mansion on June 28. The Los Angeles County corner ruled she had accidentally drowned after taking drugs.

Althea once said Larry started taking drugs for the pain he suffered from an assassination attempt and that she started doing the same “to be like him.”

There is no rejoicing in any human’s suffering. Surely Larry Flynt is suffering! He is paralyzed as a result of an assassination attempt; he has endured three divorces; his wife suffered from AIDS; she drowned as a result of an overdose of drugs; he is despondent; he nearly died as a result of an overdose of drugs.

A Victim of His Own Lifestyle

Larry Flynt’s suffering has largely come as a result of his own free choice to live in defiance of the will of God. The Scriptures clearly forewarn mankind that sin leaves one’s life a shattered mess.

The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the years of the wicked shall be shortened (Prov. 10:27).

. . . the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them (Prov. 11:3).

. . . the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness (Prov. 11:5).

. . . he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh (Prov. 11:17).

Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner (Prov. 11:31).

Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed (Prov. 13:13).

. . . every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it (Matt. 7:26,27).

Mr. Flynt’s life has been spent in editing, publishing, and selling pornography. The Hustler magazine which he edits is reputed to be more hard core than Playboy or Penthouse. He has fought several court battles defending his civil right to publish and sell pornography. During these years, he amassed a financial empire. However, his financial successes have not protected him from divorce, his wife from AIDS or drug addiction.

He has sown to the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind. Like the prodigal son who found himself eating pig’s food, Flynt is suffering the fruits of his own choice of lifestyle. Flynt’s life is not attractive at the present. Whereas some might have looked at the way of sinners with envy while they are enjoying the pleasures of sin (Heb. 11:25), they are not envious when sinners reap the bitter harvest of sin. “The way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15).

God has given men free will. He has the power to choose good or evil. Our country has given man the liberty to choose whatever lifestyle pleases him. He can choose to believe in God and worship without governmental intervention. He can choose to reject God and wallow in moral filth. However, man cannot choose whether or not to accept the consequences of his choice. The consequences of our choices are inevitable. The man who chooses to be a homosexual cannot choose not to be separated from God by his sin and be susceptible to contacting the AIDS virus. These are the consequences of the lifestyle which one chooses.

The Deceitful Devil

As we witness the fall of Larry Flynt, we are also reminded that the Devil works to destroy the souls of man by promising fun, joy, happiness, and prosperity. He delivers sorrow, heartache, death, and destruction. Based on this newspaper clipping, would you conclude that Larry Flynt is happy? Although he has a financial empire, he does not appear to have inner peace, true joy, and contentment. His three divorces, confinement to a wheelchair, use of drugs, witnessing the suffering from AIDS and premature death of his wife (because of drowning while under the influence of drugs), and own despondency leads me to conclude that Larry Flynt is a miserable man. Should there be someone looking toward sin with longing eyes, thinking of how much fun he could have as a sinner, I would hope that Larry Flynt’s suffering would serve as a warning to him. Larry Flynt is the product which the Playboy lifestyle produces.

Jesus reminded us that the Devil “was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (Jn. 8:44). The Devil is working to slay Larry Flynt, just as he worked to slay Adam and continues to attack me and you. His purpose in life is to destroy the souls of men. He will promise man anything to accomplish that purpose. To prevent being deceived by the Devil’s promises, we must be sober and vigilant.

Affliction To Save From Eternal Death

We can be thankful that God has chosen to hedge in the way of the wicked with thorns and thistles. The sorrow which such suffering brings will save a few souls from eternal death. Only when the prodigal son was suffering the consequences of his sinful choices did he come to himself and return to his father. The destruction of the flesh which sin brings has the salvation of the soul as its goal (1 Cor. 5:5). If Larry Flynt can realize that his sorrow and suffering are a result of his disobedience to God, perhaps he might be led to the repentance without which no one can be saved. We hope that his heart is not so hardened by sin that even this cannot bring him to repentance.

The Forgiveness of God

The good news of Christ is that forgiveness is available to every sinner, whether he be the self-righteous Pharisee (Lk. 18:11-12), the woman caught in the act of adultery (Jn. 8:1-11), the drug pusher, or the kingpin of a pornography empire. In his grace and mercy, God provides pardon for sinners. “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever. He hath not dealt with us after our sin; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him” (Psa. 103:8-13).

This is not a cheap grace. On God’s part the sacrifice of his Son on Calvary was necessary for the pardon to be effected. The sacrifice of the blood of animals could not atone for sin. The sacrifice of an ordinary man could not atone for sin inasmuch as man could only die for his own sins. The only way for atonement to be effected was by God to come in the form of a man and to sacrifice himself for sin.

This is not a cheap grace. Man’s forgiveness depends upon his repentance of sin. God does not offer to Larry Flynt (nor us) a forgiveness which allows him to continue publishing his pornographic magazine, to use body-destroying and mind-enslaving drugs, to divorce and remarry for any reason at all, or to abide in any sin. Forgiveness is conditioned upon repentance – a resolution to turn away from the practice of any sin and to turn toward the love and service of God. Larry Flynt cannot be a born again, saved, pornography publisher. If Larry Flynt is born again or saved, he will be come the former pornography publisher!

Conclusion

We would hope that this article would have a happy ending – an ending announcing that Larry Flynt had repented of his sins and obeyed the gospel. Knowing how sin entangles and enslaves, the likelihood of that ever happening is remote. Consequently, to hope that someone could benefit from reading what the Scriptures say about the way of the transgressor as he sees displayed in one man’s life the effect of sin is more realistic. I hope that good has been accomplished through this article.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 21, pp. 646, 660-661
November 5, 1987

By L.A. Stauffer

“Enemies of the cross of Christ” is a thought that boggles the mind. Unimaginable! How could anyone oppose the most loving and unselfish act of human history?

The “cross of Christ” denotes the purposed, planned, voluntary death of Jesus to bear in his body the sins of the world (1 Pet. 2:24). He died not because he was a criminal, not because he was a sinner – but as a gift of God’s grace to atone for sin (Rom. 5:15).

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 14:13). But Jesus laid down his life for enemies, for ungodly sinners, for murderers, liars, thieves, whoremongers, homosexuals, drunkards, child abusers, wife beaters, con-artists, and every despicable creature who has marred and effaced the God-like soul with which he was endowed (see Rom. 5:6-8).

Jesus did not die because men had the power to arrest him and nail him to the cross. He could have called twelve legions of angels to protect him, lest he dash his foot against a stone (Mt. 26:53; 4:6). He suffered the horrors of the cross because he decided to, because he willed to, because he was compassionate toward a wretched and doomed humanity (Rom. 7:24; 6:23; Rev. 21:8). What an act of selfless concern for others! He became poor that men might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8).

The result of the cross for those in Christ is reconciliation to God. The fellowship with God that was broken because of sin was restored in Christ, through his blood, by the cross (Eph. 2:13-18). “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Does anyone wonder, then, why Paul knew nothing “save us Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2)? The “word of the cross” is unto men “who are saved . . . the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

Why, then, should the cross of Christ have enemies? It has enemies because of ignorance, deception, unbelief, and self-indulgence. The life or teaching of anyone who hinders faith in the word of the cross, who perverts the meaning of the cross, or turns men away from the benefits of the cross is an enemy of the cross. This holds true for the first century and for today.

The First Century

l. Self-Indulgence. Paul mentioned enemies of the cross of Christ in the first century when he wrote to the church at Philippi. “For many walk, ” he says, “of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is perdition, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things” (Phil. 3:18,19).

Who these people were specifically is immaterial to the purpose at hand. Whether Judaizers whose confidence was in the flesh (see verses 4ff) or antinomians who were consumed by fleshly passions, they were folks whose citizenship was not in heaven and who looked not to Jesus for salvation (see v. 20). Minding earthly things, serving the desires of the flesh (belly), and glorying in shameful deeds are antagonistic to Christ. The trail of spiritual destruction they leave brings tears to dedicated servants of the cross.

Other enemies of the cross are discussed by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church. Speaking of both Jews and Gentiles, Paul wrote: “Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ cruci/led, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:22,23).

2. Jews. The Jews looked for a Messiah of physical power. To them the cross was a sign of weakness. Even as Christ died, they challenged him to save himself, to come down from the cross if he be the Son of God (Mt. 27:40-43). How could their Savior be captured, bound hand and foot, and crucified as a common criminal? The death of Jesus was a stumbling block for the Jews, who became chief foes of the cross. Jesus is rejected as the anointed one of Old Testament Scripture. Yet, those Scriptures portray the Christ as a lamb led to the slaughter, as the servant of God whose hands and feet would be pierced, as the one whose soul must temporarily be captured by death and Hades (Isa. 53:7; Psa. 22:16; 16: 10). They did not see in the cross God’s power to save.

The Jews rejected Christ, sought by the law to establish their own righteousness, and sealed their doom (Rom. 10:13). Even the Jews who believed in Christ added circumcision, the feast days, and other commands of the law to the cross of Christ. In so doing they became adversaries of the cross, perverted the gospel, made it void, and caused themselves and Gentiles to fall from grace (Gal. 1:6-9; 5:14).

3. Gentiles. The Gentiles, who longed for wisdom, were not better. To them, the cross was foolishness. When Paul preached the Messiah at Athens, they mocked (Acts 17:32). They looked for a more profound system of thought. Greeks searched for the ultimate philosophy and drew men away from the efficacy of the Savior’s death.

Some Gentiles thought they found that philosophy in Gnosticism, an amalgamation of Christianity, Greek wisdom and Oriental speculation. Gnosticism, for example, preached a special gnosis (knowledge). They taught that men by mystical experience could obtain spiritual enlightenment directly from God and be redeemed by absorption of their spirits into deity. The philosophy saw no need for the cross, for apostolic revelation, and the sanctified life. Many were taken captive by it and became enemies of the cross (Col. 2:8-10; 1 John).

The Twentieth Century

The hostile views of both Jews and Gentiles are maintained even in modern times. But beyond these views are a variety of others that can be stated but briefly.

1. Humanist Infidels. The cross of Christ has no meaning to humanistic infidels of today. Christ in their view was just a human being and no such thing as divine revelation exists. Man, they affirm, is the center of the universe; all wisdom emanates from him and for him. Heaven, they say, is a figment of man’s imagination; life is limited to this earth. There is, then, no need for salvation. The highest good is what benefits man here and now. What good, therefore, is death on a cross by a human being some twenty centuries ago? They are antagonistic to faith in God, Christ, the Scriptures, and the power of the cross. The cross, they believe, is meaningless.

2. Modernists. Modernists, despite their avowed faith, are infidels themselves. Jesus, in their thinking, is merely human. Since he is not viewed as God, his death cannot be an atonement for sin. They would accept him as a martyr, but view his death as the gift of himself to principles above self-interest. The atonement idea is theological garbage, arising from superstitious, paganistic religion. Jesus’ death, accordingly, is an example, a pattern of unselfish love in which he sacrificed himself for a greater good. No one is led by them to faith in the power of the cross for forgiveness, but to faith in Christ as an example of self-denial in the interest of others.

3. Millennialists. Dispensationalists accept the cross of Christ as an atoning sacrifice, but it is far from central to their theology. Sacrificial atonement, for “ample, was not the purpose of Jesus’ coming. The spiritual kingdom purchased by his blood (Rev. 5:9,10) is secondary to the demonstration of earthly-kingdom rule, a rule postponed, they affirm, until his return. Jesus’ death, by this theory, was not intentional but incidental or accidental. The spiritual kingdom came only because Christ was rejected by the Jews. Jesus must now come again to accomplish what he really set out to do in the first place: to restore the Jewish kingdom and fulfill the land promise to the Jews. The theory is Judaistic, a perversion of the gospel, and a rejection of the sufficiency of the cross and the spiritual kingdom.

4. Calvinists. All Calvinists do not accept the theory of “limited atonement, ” but some do. The disgraceful view that the Sovereign God particularly selected some to salvation and others to damnation is the basis for a distorted gospel. Christ, they say, did not taste of death for every man and was not a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:1,2). Such enemies of the cross have turned many from the gospel in disgust. The gospel Jesus taught, is for all and all by their own choice may benefit from its offer of salvation (Mt. 11:28-30; Mk. 16:15, 16).

5. Denominationalism Denominational bodies of every sort have offered salvation to the world by “faith alone.” Since the days of Martin Luther, men have been deceived into believing that the benefits of the cross come to men before and without baptism; this despite the fact that men are not only baptized into Christ, but are baptized into his death (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27). If man is saved by faith alone, he is saved outside Christ and without the power of the cross. In Christ men are reconciled to God by the cross, and teachers who distort this basic idea are hostile to God’s scheme for redemption.

6. Moralists. A host of moralists who, like the Jews, seek to establish their own righteousness by works have turned men away from the cross of Christ. Being good to one’s wife, doing an honest day’s work for a day’s pay, seeking a neighbor’s good, and giving to charitable organizations are a few of the standards men have set up as the means of justification before God. The cross is eliminated and God’s grace is made void. Need for the word of the cross by men like Cornelius, a just and devout man, has taught them nothing (see Acts 10:1,2,22,48; 11:13,14).

7. Eucharistic Mass. No one seemingly highlights the value of the cross more than Catholicism. Crosses and crucifixes are a ritualistic part of their superstitious paraphernalia. They cling to these wood or silver or gold emblems in every dire emergency. And at each mass is a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Christ. This “unbloody” offering points Catholics to a ceremony concocted and designed by men, rather than to the real sacrifice that was offered “once” for all (Heb. 9:24-26). Any re-offering of Christ is a reflection upon the sufficiency of the sacrifice originally offered. Belief that salvation comes through the priest and his alleged powers to call up the body and blood of Christ for re-offering is faith in the doctrines and commandments of men rather than in Christ and the word of the cross.

Space denies opportunity to speak of sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, hypocrites in the church, division and a host of other religious conditions and viewpoints. Any system of thought or way of life that draws or repels men from the cross of Christ severs them from the atoning power that God graciously manifested for the salvation of the world. Such views and lifestyles are enemies of God and the cross, and in eternity will reap sudden destruction from the face of God and the glory of his might (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 20, pp. 639-640
October 15, 1987

By Jack Gray

Perhaps there has never been an age when it is so little respected as now. Not only is this true of the world at large but among professing Christians as well. It is often spoken disparagingly about. I have even been hesitant to address the subject lest I appear only to be defending some outmoded form of sermon delivery. More and more, however, we are seeing the devastating effects such an attitude is having on the church in our day.

Never has the church been in greater danger of apostasy than now. Movements both to the right and to the left are attempting to corrupt its doctrine. The danger is very real that the church could be lost within the next generation. The danger is even more threatening that it will continue to exist but will be so corrupted in doctrine or practice that it would have been better if it had died. Doctrinal preaching is one of the only defenses we have left; and far too little of it is being done in our brotherhood today.

1. Doctrinal preaching is not just “first principle” preaching. Some complain about doctrinal lessons as being “first principles,” saying they need the “meat” of the Word . . . when what they really want is something new, different and exciting. They feel that they have outgrown the Bible stories. That is “old hat” to them. They have heard it all before.

First principles are really the means of coming into fellowship with Christ: faith, repentance, confession and baptism; and any of us may honestly dwell too much on them. But teachings about the one church, a defense against instrumental music or a corruption of the Lord’s supper is not first principles. Upholding the proper use of the Lord’s day or warnings against hell and the judgment are not first principles. Instead, this is doctrine and doctrine simply means teaching, so any lesson that teaches great Bible truths is doctrinal preaching.

2. Doctrinal preaching is our strongest defense against biblical illiteracy. This has been described as “The Teen and Young Adult Epidemic” of our time; and it is growing worse each year. For example, according to Gallup polls only thirty-five out of a hundred teens can name five or more of the Ten Commandments. Only three percent can name all ten. In a recent survey, two-thirds of the young adults asked couldn’t name all four Gospels. In another study, only one in ten high school students could successfully summarize the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan. Among young adults, the figure was one in eight.

Neither is this foreign to us for it is frightening how uninformed our younger members are in comparison to our older ones. Neither can this be accounted for on the basis of age alone, for our younger people are better informed on every other subject under the sun. It deals rather with attitude and desire. It deals with respect for God’s Word as being better than the “positive thinking” material put out by some human author.

3. Doctrinal preaching is the hope of our children. Nothing will make them stronger than knowing what they believe and why they believe it. We have parents who are already reaping a bitter harvest because their children were never indoctrinated with Truth; and sometimes their own attitude toward such teaching is what has turned them away from it. How can we expect them to be strong and to withstand temptation when they don’t know what “is written”? Isn’t that the very defense that God has provided for them?

4. Doctrinal preaching is the heart of soul winning. Why preach so much doctrine to Christians? Why emphasize the reasons for doing something that they have already done? So that they can tell others. Isn’t that what Christianity is all about? You can no more teach what you don’t know, than you can return from a place that you have never been; and nothing hinders our soul-winning more than the fact that we do not know the doctrine ourselves.

We all would like to be well liked. I am certainly no exception; but I am not in a popularity contest for public esteem. I am much more concerned about being God’s man and delivering God’s message. In the final analysis, few things would scare me as much as to find that those who don’t like “doctrinal preaching” were beginning to like my sermons! Then I would know that I was in real trouble with God.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 21, pp. 645, 661
November 5, 1987

By Ferrell Jenkins

“. . . And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” These words from Matthew 27:60 constitute the last sentence in The Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson, the Father of American Democracy, clipped passages relating to the life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth and pasted them in a blank notebook. After his death the compilation was published as The Jefferson Bible. The Jesus about whom Jefferson read, died and was buried; the Jesus of the New Testament died, was buried, and arose victorious over death.

We believe that the resurrection of Christ is “the miracle” of the Bible. If the resurrection is true, then all the other miracles are possible. If the resurrection is not a reality, then the other miracles do not matter.

The Deity of Christ is Declared by the Resurrection

Jesus was often confessed to be the Christ, the Son of God, during his public ministry (Mt. 16:16; Jn. 1:49; 11:27). His deity, however, was actually made known by the resurrection (Rom. 1:34). The resurrection was a divine declaration that Jesus was everything he had openly claimed to be, and everything the Father had claimed of him (cf. Mt. 3:17; 17:5).

The resurrection of Jesus was the subject of Old Testament prophecy. David proclaims, “For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay” (Psa. 16: 10). Peter showed, in the great Pentecost sermon, that David was not talking about himself but about the resurrection of the Christ (Acts 2:24-32). Paul also called attention to this prophecy in his sermon at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:34-37).

We Are Dealing With An Historical Event

Jesus of Nazareth was a real character of history who lived in a real place at a certain time. He was born at Bethlehem, brought up in Nazareth, did much of his work along the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and was crucified in Jerusalem. All of the places mentioned in the gospel records are well known. Jesus lived at a certain time in history. He was born in the reign of the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus. His ministry began in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. One may notice the emphasis placed on characters and time in Luke 2:1-3 and 3:1-2. The resurrection is an historic, space-time event.

There are several known facts concerning Jesus which can be established apart from a reference to the miraculous element. Aside from a prior assumption that the New Testament is not an historically reliable document, there is no reason for anyone to reject its testimony about the events of first century Roman Palestine.

1. Jesus said while he was alive that he would be raised from the dead.

2. He died, was buried, and on the third day the tomb was found empty.

3. For forty days there were reports of people having seen Jesus alive.

4. These appearances suddenly stopped.

5. The church was established within two months of his death.

6. One of the main doctrines taught by the church was that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

7. The church grew rapidly as the leaders claimed to be eyewitnesses of his resurrection. This was done even in the face of opposition, poverty, and persecution – and even death.

8. These churches were soon (within about 30 years) to be found throughout the Roman Empire.

Christ’s Predictions of His Resurrection

The claims of Jesus are consistently scattered throughout his public ministry and illustrate a well-laid plan. He made these claims in the early Judean ministry (Jn. 2:19-22); in the Galilean ministry (Mt. 12:39-40; 16:13-21; 17:9,23); in the Perean ministry (Mt. 20:19); and in the later Judean ministry – on the night of his betrayal (Mt. 26:32).

Evidence From the Empty Tomb

Jefferson left the tomb closed with Jesus inside, but the New Testament documents show that the tomb was empty on the third day after the burial. The empty tomb does not prove the resurrection, but if the body had been found that would completely disprove the resurrection!

The Character of the Tomb

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was a new tomb (Lk. 23:53; Jn. 19:41). This is highly significant. One must remember that tombs were used repeatedly in those days. After the flesh had decayed the bones were placed in a receptacle called an ossuary and the tomb could be used again. Some tombs were large enough for multiple burials. The fact that this was a new tomb shows that no error could be made by seeing other bodies or the bones of former dead.

The tomb in which Jesus was placed was cut in solid rock (Mt. 27:69; Mk. 15:46). There was only one entrance to the tomb. Jesus would have been powerless by human strength to emerge.

The tomb was sealed with a great stone (Mk. 16:4; Mt. 27:62-66). If three women could not roll away the stone from the outside (Mk. 16:3), Jesus in his weakened condition could not have done so. It is ridiculous to think that Jesus, in his weakened condition, could have revived, worked his way out of the grave clothes, moved away the stone (from the inside of the tomb), slugged the guards, and made a clean get-away for Galilee.

Several rolling stone type tombs from the first century can still be seen in Jerusalem (e.g., the Herodian family tomb and the Tomb of the Kings). A Roman period tomb with a rolling stone has been found at Hesbon in Transjordan.

These facts supply adequate reply to the “swoon” theory which says that Jesus did not really die, but simply fainted on the cross and was revived after being placed in the tomb. This theory was first advanced by the second century infidel Celsus who said that Jesus feigned death. Origen replied that Jesus died in the presence of a nation and could not have feigned death (Origin, Contra-Celsum, Bk. 11:56). Other unbelievers have suggested that Jesus was given some type of drugs on the cross and later came to in the tomb. There is no indication that Jesus was drugged in any way; he even refused the common narcotic which was offered him (Mt. 27:34; contrast the “sour wine” of 27:48; Jn. 19:28-30).

A more careful survey was made of the contents of the tomb by Peter and John (Lk. 24:12; Jn. 20:6-7). These witnesses were able to testify about what they saw: linen clothes in one place and the face-cloth which had been on his head in another. The tomb was empty of the body of Jesus.

The Problem of the Body of Jesus

The disciples could not steal the body and dispose of it successfully (Mt. 27:62-66). Such would have been both a physical and psychological impossibility for them. It was a physical impossibility because they had the guards to contend with. It seems to me that the psychological barrier for the disciples was even greater. They were not even expecting a resurrection (Jn. 20:9), and were in no mental frame of mind to accept the fact.

The Jews would not steal the body (Mt. 27:62-64). It has been pointed out that the silence of the Jews on Pentecost was as significant as the speech of Peter. If they had stolen the body of Jesus they could have announced such and disproved what Peter was saying.

The Romans dared not steal the body (Acts 16:27; Mt. 28:11-15). Any soldier negligent in his duty would face the penalty of death (cf. Acts 16:27). It took a large sum of money and a promise of intervention by the entire Jewish leadership to get the soldiers to say the body of Jesus had been stolen.

The empty tomb itself did not convince the apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead. They were convinced by the appearances which Jesus made to them for a period of forty days. These appearances will be discussed, and their importance explained, in the article which follows.

Conclusion

By the resurrection from the dead Jesus was declared to be the Son of God. This was God’s validating evidence that Jesus was indeed Lord and Christ, God the Son. Because he was raised from the dead we know him to be what he claimed, and, therefore, worthy of our trust and worship.

Jefferson was right: they did roll a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and depart, but his compilation was incomplete. On the first day of the week when the disciples went to the tomb they found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. A divine messenger announced, “He is not here, but is risen” (Lk. 24:6). He is “Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 20, pp. 630-631
October 15, 1987