While traveling through the country, have you ever turned off on a side road, and found the scenery more attractive than that along the main highway? I think that is what has happened to some of us today. Those of us who arrived early for the forum have been holding a rap session, as the "now" generation puts it. I confess that the subject of our informal talk may be more intriguing than the things I came prepared to say.
One of the number voiced the idea that the coming of Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, may have taken the world by surprise. This seemed to be the consensus of opinion. While I hesitate to appear as an oddball, I have to differ. The fact is that one can prove by historians, quite apart from the New Testament writers, that the world was in a state of expectancy and anticipation. People were looking for one to come as an answer to predictions that had been made, someone who would "put it all together."
Let me mention in connection with this the name of Flavius Josephus. Among all those I have met so far during these meetings, I am the only person who has read his complete works. I not only read them, but underlined numerous passages I wanted to remember.
Josephus, who was the son of Matthias, in the priestly order, was born about four years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. He was present at the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and many times walked about outside the walls exhorting the besieged to surrender. After the capture of the city, he returned to Rome with Titus, and there wrote his treatises on Jewish Antiquities and Wars of the Jews. In the latter history, he records an abortive effort of the Jews, led by a weaver named Jonathan, which occurred two years after the fall of the city. He attributes the fanatical attempt to a fervent expectation of the Jews that their Messiah was to come. Here are his words: "The chief thing which invited them to that war was an ambiguous prophecy found in the Holy Scriptures, that, about that time, one of their country should be monarch of the whole world."
Josephus was a political opportunist. Since he wrote under the patronage of the emperor, he declared that his countrymen were deceived in their interpretation of the oracle, and that the allusion was to Vespasian. The Romans, however, also had the same opinion current among them, and it was known throughout the Greek world. Let me cite two historians in proof of this, although I hope you will not think I am imposing a history class upon those of you who dreamed of getting out of school and away from that.
The first of these is Tacitus, whose full name was Caius Cornelius Tacitus. In 78 he married the daughter of Julius Agricola, the famous consul whose governorship of Britain was so outstanding. Tacitus received many political honors, being praetor of Rome under Domitian, and consul under Nerva. His writings, which brought him renown, included a history of the Roman Empire from the year 69 to the assassination of Domitian in 96. Of particular interest to me are his Annals, probably consisting of sixteen books originally, about half of which are still available.
It is in the fifteenth volume that Tacitus reveals a great deal about the Christians, whom Nero blamed for the conflagration that ravaged more than two-thirds of the city of Rome. I cannot refrain from one quotation:
"But neither all human help nor the liberality of the Emperor, nor all the atonements presented to the gods, availed to abate the infamy he lay under of having ordered the city to be set on fire. To suppress, therefore, the common rumor, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.
This alone is sufficient to give the lie to those who deny the authenticity of the record of the disciples of Jesus. The most eminent pagan historian validates the origin and spread of the Christian faith, and becomes a witness to the time and nature of the death of Jesus. Let no one again urge against the faith of those of us who accept Jesus as the Messiah, that there is no historical basis for it outside of what they designate "prejudiced accounts" contained in the New Testament.
Tacitus hated the Christians. He was a pagan and an idolater. It is for that reason his testimony is so valuable. In describing the reason why the Jews resisted the might of the Roman army, he declares in his Historiae, "But the most had a strong persuasion that it was said in the ancient writings held by the priest, that at that very time the East should prevail, and that someone who would come from Judea should obtain the empire of the world."
The second historian I will mention is Suetonius, whose full name was Gains Suetonius Tranquillus. Suetonius was in a position to gain inside information, for he was a good friend of Pliny the Younger, a governor of Bithynia. He was private secretary to the Emperor Trajan until dismissed from office in the year 121. Suetonius was a prolific author, but none of his books remain except Lives of the First Twelve Caesars, and a fragmentary work of biography dealing with the stories of outstanding orators.
It was in his record of the life of Vespasian that he mentioned "the ambiguous oracle," referred to by Josephus and Tacitus. He writes, "There had been for a long time all over the East a prevailing opinion that it was in the fates that at the time someone from Judea should obtain the empire of the world. By the event, it appeared that a Roman emperor was meant by that prediction. The Jews applying it to themselves went into a rebellion."
It is my very decided conviction that the writings of the prophets, translated into Greek and circulated all over the Roman Empire, constituted the so-called "ambiguous oracle." Daniel had accurately predicted the time when the Messiah would make His advent. It is thus no wonder to me that poets and other scholars in the Roman Empire were in such a state of expectancy that Virgil, who wrote close to the very time that Herod the Great was in power, penned the words:
"The last age, decreed by Fate, is come;
And a new frame of all things does begin,
A holy progeny from heaven descends--"
The fact that the poet applied this to
Salonius, the new-born son of the Consul Pollio, with whom he
sought to gain political favor, does not set aside the point I am
making. Jesus was not rejected because He was unexpected, but
because He was unconventional. Based upon the prediction of
Daniel, the world was in a state of anticipation, but Jesus did
not act as they expected a Messiah to act. He did not come riding
in on a prancing steed, but entered Jerusalem meek and lowly,
riding on an ass.
I am seeking no escape from reality when I say to you that it seems to me that my Jewish friends should be the last to speak critically on this score. They do not accept Jesus as arbiter of their lives, and have never recognized His leadership in the role of peacemaker. With due respect for all involved, I suggest that, unless you are willing to work for the peace that one seeks to promote, you should not judge Him too harshly if peace does not ensue. I am quite certain that Jesus laid down principles of human behavior that would make war abhorrent, but it is not principles stated but principles practiced that brings about the desired change in states and conditions.
When Isaiah prophesied that the one who sat upon the throne of David would be designated "Prince of Peace," he was simply foretelling the nature and character of His rule. He would not extend His sway or increase His territory by bloodshed or the use of armaments. He would employ peace as a strategy and produce peace as a result. Being a prince of peace, shedding no blood but His own, would distinguish Him from all political princes in the world. The princes known to Isaiah made war, but he spoke of Him who would be called the Wonderful Counselor, and whose sole plea would be for peace.
Wars and fighting are the result of sin. If sin is conquered, the cause for war will be removed, and peace will be the result. All wars exist in human hearts before they are transferred to the battlefield with its tragic carnage. The problem with man's attaining peace is that man cannot overcome sin by his own power. He cannot lift himself up by his own bootstraps. It is my conviction that only through trust in Jesus, the sinless one, can man get rid of the guilt and stain of his own sin.
In the final analysis, peace is personal. One can have peace within, even while the world around him is falling apart, coming unglued, and blowing away. I must tell you that a sense of my own relationship to God through trust in Jesus Christ has brought to me an inner serenity and tranquillity obtainable by no other means nor from any other source. I am never with distraught persons, Jew or non-Jew, without wishing they could experience the same love, joy, and peace that have come to me.
Man will not be changed by a code of ethics, regardless of how good that code may be. He may learn to perform with all of the social graces, and yet be "ripped off" inside. A classical example is the New York actor who recently attended a cocktail party, at which someone said, "He was his old urbane, witty, and charming self." In the wee hours of the morning, he went straight from the party to his apartment, placed a revolver against his temple, and blew out his brains.
Before we sit in judgment upon Jesus as having failed to live up to advance prophetic billing as the "Prince of Peace," perhaps we need to understand what peace is. I have no desire nor inclination to define it in such a manner as to "get Jesus off the hook." I do not think He has muffed the peace assignment at all; but it is important to me as a person to understand what is implied in the term shalom. This is so often pronounced as a greeting, and may by its common usage have become as empty and inane an expression as many other such greetings.
You will think I am presumptuous when I refer to the original implications of a Hebrew word in the presence of Jewish teachers and professors such as some of you. I feel no reluctance to do so, because I know you are in a position to correct any misapprehension under which I labor, and above all else I want to be correct. What may appear to be brashness in your sight may actually be my willingness to make myself vulnerable, for the sole purpose of helping us all to greater heights of understanding.
Shalom is not a shallow term. It is one of several words in the Hebrew to indicate wholeness, completeness, or perfection. It is translated "peace" 172 times in Scripture. Isaiah so uses it twenty-three times, and Jeremiah eighteen times. A study of the word as used by the prophets will show that it was a term used to describe the greatest and highest good that could come to the people of God. Let me cite an example. In the height of his strength, David subdued the maritime region of Palestine, and captured the cities held by the Philistines along what we now call the Gaza Strip. He then directed his might against what is now Arab territory, and overthrew Hadadrezer, a wealthy desert chieftain. When he had finished this conquest, the king of Hamath, another sheik who had been harassed by Hadadrezer, sent his oldest son to see David. The Bible says, "He sent Hadoram his son to king David, to inquire of his welfare, and to congratulate him" (I Chronicles 18:10). The word rendered "welfare" is shalom.
There is an interesting usage of the same word in Jeremiah 38:4. The prophet of God got himself into serious trouble with the politicians and the clergy in the national capital by telling the truth, not an uncommon thing even in our day. The Chaldean army, which had swept everything before it, was approaching Jerusalem from the north, descending through Syria. The prophet had revealed that Jerusalem would be destroyed because of the wickedness and idolatry of the people. The leaders refused to accept this as true and conspired to keep it from the ears of the people by suppressing the news media. Their method was quite effective. Any reporter who weakened morale by suggesting the overthrow of the city would be killed under a trumped-up charge of treason.
But Jeremiah was a prophet of God. One time he became discouraged because the people laughed at him and ridiculed him as a gloomy fanatic. He resolved to keep his mouth shut and speak no more in the name of the Lord. But the word of the Lord was as a fire in his bones. He became weary from holding in. He had to speak or burst. Even the threat of death could not deter him. He knew there were four government spies trailing him everywhere he went, taking down what he said for evidence.
But he told the people that the Lord had revealed to him that those who remained in the city, under the false hope that it could not be taken, would die by the sword, by famine, or disease. Those who abandoned the city and surrendered to the Chaldeans would live. He emphatically said, "This city shall surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon's army, which shall take it." The secret service representatives hurried away and told the king, "We petition you to kill this man at once. He is destroying the morale of our soldiers and creating unrest among the citizens by encouraging them to give up and desert the city. This man is not seeking the welfare of the people, but their hurt."
Jeremiah was proven to be right by subsequent events, but our purpose in citing this incident is to call attention to the fact that the word rendered "welfare" is shalom. In Psalm 38 is an apt description of a conscience burning and troubled under the weight of sin. The bard of Israel says, "Neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin" (v. 3). The word "rest" is a translation of shalom.
During the troublesome times that ensued in Israel after Saul was slain and David ascended the throne, rivalry occurred between two factions. One was led by Joab, the other by Amasa. Joab plotted to kill Amasa, and feigned friendship with him in order to get close enough to murder him with his sword. A description of their meeting is given in 2 Samuel 20:9: "And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him." It is not necessary to continue with the gory details. My point is served when I tell you that the word "health" is a rendering of shalom.
What I am saying to you is actually very simple. You object that Jesus of Nazareth cannot be the Messiah because the Messiah was to be the "Prince of Peace." You cite the wars that have been fought since the advent of Jesus as proof that He cannot qualify. Yet the word for "peace" is not limited to cessation from hostilities on the battlefield. It is not restricted to a truce or pact hammered out by delegates from nations engaged in armed conflict. The word shalom, which was used by Isaiah, has many applications, and Jesus could be the prince of peace by qualifying in any one of them.
If Jesus outlined for mankind a way toward universal welfare, He is the prince of peace. If He provided rest from a guilty conscience, He is the prince of peace. If His way is the way of health, wholeness, and restoration of the good life, He is the prince of peace. To your fathers, shalom meant much more than cessation from strife. It was a positive force within, which stemmed from a sense of a right relationship with the Eternal One.
I think that Jesus has manifested every characteristic required of a prince of peace. A prince is one who directs and governs a principality, and Jesus has shown himself to be an exemplar and ruler of the principality of shalom. He reconciled us to God. He became the lifeline by which we return to the relationship of righteousness. He spanned the chasm eroded by sin and by the consequent fear of death. He is the "bridge over troubled waters."
If God has ordained that the Messiah be the prince of peace, and if Jesus is the Messiah, the fact will not be altered by either our acceptance or rejection of it. A truth is no less a truth if it is denied by all. It is my contention that you cannot base your rejection of the Messianic claim of Jesus of Nazareth purely upon the basis of war, in a world that has rejected His leadership and direction. You may sincerely deny that Jesus is the Messiah, but you must examine honestly and openly all of the testimony, without endorsing a position on the basis that it supports either a prejudice or presupposition.
What about the numerous prophecies that the Jews who associated with Jesus claimed He fulfilled? Can we casually dismiss specific predictions as to time and place on the ground that our own interpretation of the scope and nature of His rule seems to conflict with the state of world affairs subsequent to His coming?
"Our task is ended, and we also worship and look up. And we go back from this sight into a hostile world, to love, and to live, and to work for the Risen Christ. But as earth's day is growing dim, and, with earth's gathering darkness, breaks over it heaven's storm, we ring out, as of old they were wont, from church-tower, to the mariners that bugged a rock-bound coast--our Easter bells to guide them who are belated, over the storm-tossed sea, beyond the breakers, into the desired haven. Ring out, earth, all thy Easter-chimes; bring your offerings all ye people; worship in faith, for--
'This Jesus, which was received up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye beheld Him going into heaven.' 'Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!'"
I do not argue that Jesus is the Messiah from the standpoint that a brilliant Jew and erudite student such as Dr. Edersheim accepts Him as such. I do say, however, that if one so thoroughly familiar with the teaching of the prophets as to qualify as a lecturer in the Septuagint at Oxford concludes that Jesus was the Messiah, it should make the rest of us cautious about denying it. We should be particularly cautious if the basis of our opinion is that world conditions in the political world negate His claim.
I fear that the problem is much deeper than appears on the surface. While I would not want to be found guilty of stereotyping or generalizing, candor demands that I disclose my real feeling. The modern Jewish mind has revolted against the whole concept of the supernatural, until it has rejected the idea that the oracles given to your fathers constituted the Word of God. Lip service is paid in the synagogue and temple to that for which there is no corresponding place of reverence in the heart.
The same naturalistic and humanistic philosophy, which has eaten like a cancer at the core of the Christian faith, has also attracted you. It has left you with nothing to which you may cling for hope, except mere finite rationalization. This is not new. In 1796, David Levi, a learned Jew, wrote a book entitled Dissertations on the Prophesies of the Old Testament. In that work he affirmed that Deism and infidelity had made such large strides in the world that they had reached even the Jewish nation. He declared that so many Jews were infected by skepticism through reading the works of Bolingbroke, Hume, and Voltaire, that they scarcely believed in revelation.
If you do not accept the existence of God, it would make no difference what testimony I presented from your own Scriptures to validate the claim of anyone to be the Messiah. You will not regard one as a Son if you do not believe there is a Father. It is not enough to hold that God is "the ground of being," or "the sum of human experience," or "the composite of human reasoning."
I would not widen the gap between us. My purpose is to narrow it until we can at least shake hands across it. But I feel obligated to tell you that I believe with all my heart that God is a divine being with all of the attributes of personality. I believe that He possesses an infinite mind, that He is omniscient, and that He has revealed himself to man. It is no problem for me to accept Jesus. He alone, of all the millions who have trodden the surface of the earth, is the key figure to the glorious prophecies vouchsafed the descendants of Abraham.
At the risk of being repetitious, let me make it clear again. If Jesus is proven to be the Messiah by His fulfillment of predictions divinely given, I doubt that we can honestly disclaim this on the basis of an arbitrarily imposed definition of peace. To me, He is all that the prophets declared He would be. His claims are validated in my life and experiences, as certainly as I believe them to be in the testimony of those Jews with whom He associated while on earth. If Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah, there will be no Messiah, for the simple reason that the conditions imposed have been fulfilled in history. It is not a question of Jesus or someone else. It is a question of Jesus or no one else.