The Rescue of Christ — So-Called

Solomon once declared, "of the making of many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Truly, books roll off the presses by the millions, year after year. Often, books reveal that they have been buttressed by "much study," which generates a "weariness of the flesh." Others, however, precipitate a "weariness of the mind" because they are so trite and utterly baseless.

In recent years there have been a rash of authors with no legitimate claim to the fame they so covet. Accordingly, they fixate on Jesus Christ in some controversial (not to mention bizarre) way, hoping to achieve notoriety by piggybacking on the reputation of the most celebrated Person who has lived on this earth.

That lust produced the recently published book, Rescuing Jesus from the Christians (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2002). This volume (182 pages) was authored by Clayton Sullivan, a former Southern Baptist minister and retired professor of philosophy and religion at Mississippi State University, who has "retired" whatever vestige of "faith" he once fleetingly entertained. With all due respect, the book is so ridiculously asinine that it warrants no serious review. It does, however, serve as a pristine example of the shoddy scholarship that plagues the rag-tag band of "Jesus critics."

Let me focus just briefly upon several points.

Trashing the Gospel of John

First, Sullivan proposes constructing a new "historical" Jesus grounded in the tradition of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). He argues that John is much later and too far removed from the historical events to clarify Jesus of Nazareth's identity.

If we may be allowed our "nickel's worth" of psychoanalysis, we suspect Sullivan's real problem with John is the apostle's emphasis on Jesus' deity (cf. John 1:1ff; 10:30; 20:28,30-31). Be that as it likely is, to dredge up that stale tale about the lateness of John's Gospel record is absolutely inexcusable in the light of historical and archaeological evidence.

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) explicitly affirmed that John wrote his Gospel account in his latter years from his residence in Ephesus of Asia (Against Heresies, 3.1.1). In the third century A.D., Origen called John's work the "first fruits" of the Gospels (Commentary on John, 1.6) — a description hardly appropriate for a document considered late and historically insignificant. It is not necessary to further compound the evidence.

The oldest known fragment of a New Testament document is the John Rylands papyrus known as P52. It contains a portion of the Gospel of John (chapter 18). The tiny document was obtained in 1920 by B. P. Grenfell in Egypt. It dates from the end of the first century or beginning of the second century A.D., not later than A.D. 125. Having already reached Egypt at this early date, it irrefutably proves that John's Gospel is not a late production as modernists have alleged.

Christ's Alleged Disdain of Non-Jews

Sullivan argues that Jesus' message was designed for Jews exclusively, and, in fact, the Lord cared little about those of non-Jewish extraction. How utterly bereft of evidence is this ridiculous accusation?

Matthew's Gospel has Gentiles listed in the genealogy of Christ (1:3,5,6). The first men to worship the Lord were Gentiles (Matthew 2:1-2). Much of Jesus' work took place in "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15-16), suggesting that the Messiah's light would eventually shine beyond the pale of Judaism. Some Gentiles were commended for having faith that overshadowed those of Israelite stock (Matthew 8:10; cf. Luke 4:25ff).

The Gospels pay high tribute to a Samaritan woman (John 4:7ff), and Samaritans (generally despised by the Jews — cf. John 4:9) become the heroes in some of the Gospel accounts (cf. Luke 10:30ff; 17:11ff).

The united testimonies of the Synoptics relative to Christ's concern for the salvation of every creature in all the nations flatly contradict Sullivan's baseless charge of Jesus' non-concern for those other than Jews (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47).

The Kingdom Failure

Professor Sullivan argues that Christ entertained a "fervent belief" that a magnificent kingdom, primarily for Jews, would be established on earth during his lifetime, but that this hope was but an illusion that never materialized.

Not one line in the Gospel records indicates that Christ predicted a kingdom to be established during his lifetime. He spoke of a coming kingdom, but it was not a political, "this world" regime (John 18:36). In fact, after his death and resurrection, and shortly before his ascension, the Savior was still instructing his disciples that the kingdom was a future, though soon-to-be-accomplished, reality (Acts 1:6-8).

From the events of the day of Pentecost onward, ample evidence shows that Christ's kingdom was established and in full operation. And men and women who obeyed the gospel of Jesus were citizens of that spiritual regime (cf. Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; 2:4; John 3:3-5; Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:6,9).

Christ's Mission

Finally, the misguided professor incredibly argues that the Gospel records are without any evidence that "Jesus viewed his death as a sacrifice for mankind's sinfulness." That is a most astounding charge. Does he actually think no one knows better than he does, and that his wild assertions will be taken as evidence?

Christ clearly taught that he came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). He declared himself to be the "bread of life" who came from heaven to provide himself as a sacrifice for sin (John 6:48ff). He contended that there was no avenue of redemption save through him (John 14:6).

Jesus unequivocally taught that his death would be a ransom for human sin (Mark 10:45), and that by shedding his blood the "remission of sins" could be obtained (Matthew 26:28).

What takes hold of a man that he would make such historically irresponsible statements such as those issued by the Mississippi ex-cleric?

Farewell

And so with this brief piece, we bid farewell to the professor and his noxious little book — the former a disillusioned minister-turned-skeptic, the latter a trifling production devoid of scholastic credibility.