Baptism is an important step in following Jesus. It symbolizes one’s death to sin, burial of the old life, and a resurrection to new life in Christ—just as Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose to life again (see Romans 6:3-5). Jesus commanded His followers to make disciples and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 28:18-20). Baptism has no saving virtue in itself. Jesus is our only Savior. But those who love Him will follow Him in baptism to signify their decision to accept Him as their Savior.

According to the Bible, what are the prerequisites for being baptized?

1. Confess your sins. The Bible says of John the Baptist: "Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins (Matthew 3:5, 6, NKJV). We need to acknowledge that we are sinners and confess our sins to God. If we do, He will forgive us (see 1 John 1:9).

2. Repent of your sins. When Peter preached to the people in Jerusalem on Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus, many of them were convicted by the Holy Spirit and asked Peter what they should do. He replied, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38, NKJV).

3. Believe on Jesus Christ and accept Him as your Savior from sin. When Philip met an Ethiopian and told him about Jesus, the Ethiopian wanted to be baptized. Philip told him, " ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ . . . . And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:37, 38, NKJV). "He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16, NKJV).

Many who have wanted to defend the credibility of the Bible have claimed that is inerrant—that is, without error of any kind. But the Bible itself does not make such a claim. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant, however it does claim to be true. "The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever” (Psalm 119:160, NKJV). It is important to note that "true” does not mean "inerrant.” (For more information see the topics: "Bible: Does it contradict itself?” and "Bible: Is it inspired by God?”)

 

Some have felt that if the Bible is not correct in every detail, then it can’t be relied upon. However, the "all or nothing” position is not a biblical one, even if it has been proclaimed by great men and spiritual giants. John Wesley, for example, wrote in his journal for August 24, 1776: "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” However, Paul tells us, "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9, NKJV). He also counsels us not to "give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:4, NKJV).

 

Once we get over the need to harmonize all the biblical details, fear disappears, and we can turn to the all-important task of listening to the essential message of Scripture, seeking to understand God’s will so that His truth can live in us. Whatever minor contradictions may seem to exist in the Bible, God has apparently let creep in. So although there may be minor discrepancies or details in the Bible, we can trust its teachings completely. Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away before any of it would fail (see Matthew 5:17,18).

 

Over the centuries God has had faithful witnesses to whom He has committed His truth and who have preserved His Word. The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been preserved through the ages by the miraculous care of God.

 

Many Bible readers, if they think they have found an inconsistency in its pages, often take the position that if they cannot trust every detail of the Bible record, they cannot trust it at all. The basic question, however, is: Does trustworthiness demand absolute perfection? If we view the Bible as a treatise on philosophy or science or history, then perhaps one might point to incidental flaws. But Scripture is more like a letter from a dear friend or family member. And if we determine its trustworthiness in much the same way as we do a trustworthy person, then absolute perfection is not required. The Bible has not been given to us in grand supernatural language, but in the language of ordinary humans. In order to reach human beings where they were, Jesus took on the form of humanity—the divine united with the human. Likewise, the Bible is a blend of the divine and human—God speaking to us through human beings.

 

We need to come to the point where we can take the Bible just as it is—the Inspired Word of God. We need to let God take care of His own Book, His living oracles, as He has done for ages. If those who focus on what they see as errors in Scripture, instead would cling to the Bible and obey its teachings, their criticisms in regard to its validity would come to an end, and not one of them would be lost.

 

For nearly a century liberal, critical scholars have stressed the diversity in the documents of the Scriptures, but current theological thinking contains a renewed emphasis on the essential unity of the Bible. Its great unifying principle, its central theme, is the plan of salvation and the working out of that plan in human history. However, the unity of the Bible must not be interpreted as uniformity. In the various books of the Scriptures the plan of salvation is viewed from various angles and stress is laid on various aspects, with varying emphasis.

 

Like its author, Jesus Christ, the Bible is the result of a mysterious combination of the divine and the human. Just as the human mind is incapable of fully explaining how Jesus, the divine Son of God, could become a man and live with us on earth, so it cannot fully explain the Bible’s unity of the divine and the human. In writing the various books of the Bible, the authors’ own personalities had full play, and their own style and vocabulary are reflected in the finished product. Yet the Bible, is nevertheless "given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV). While men did the writing, they did so as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (see 2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, in a special sense the Bible is the Word of God.

Concerning Biblical numbers, genealogies, and dates it would be wise if both the casual and the analytical reader would consider them interesting, even fascinating events rather than crucial events requiring a higher level of precision than is evident in the Scriptures themselves. Leaving it at that, they could live at peace with their respective conclusions.

 

Yes, there are variations in scripture such as in specific numbers, in facts within stories, and in the words of Jesus. Let's take a look at those.

 

 

Many question the number variations listed in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. There is a slight difference in what was supposed to be two identical lists. Nehemiah's list was used nearly a century later to guide him in the resettlement of Jerusalem. Of the 42 numbers given by Ezra (v. 3-60), 18 differ from the corresponding numbers in Nehemiah 7. The differences are small, and can be explained by assuming that the lists were drawn up at different times, and that during the interval the population figures varied, owing to deaths and births, or for other reasons. There are also varying forms between the two lists that refer to certain individuals but that occurs throughout the Bible. This is particularly true in the New Testament when there are references to names in the Old Testament.

 

 

The question of the 2 demon possessed men of Matthew 8:28-34 versus the one man in Mark 5:1-20 is often disturbing to people. One Bible commentary tries to explain it in this fashion: "Matthew speaks of two men. Apparently, however, one was outstandingly fierce. Similarly, Matthew speaks of two blind men at Jericho (ch. 20:30), where Mark (ch. 10:46) and Luke (ch. 18:35) speak of but one, probably for some similar reason. It is worthy of note that Matthew, no doubt an eyewitness to both events, mentions two men in each instance."

 

 

In various places in the Gospels the writers report differently the words of Christ. They also give different accounts of certain matters, for example, the inscription on the cross. These variations have been seized upon by skeptics as proof that the Gospel writers are unreliable, even false, and thus certainly not inspired. A careful examination proves the opposite. Those who wrote the Gospels, along with the other followers of Christ, considered themselves witnesses of the events of our Lord's life. They staked everything on truthfulness of their witness.

 

 

In a court today, if witnesses all testify precisely the same regarding an incident, the conclusion is, not that they are truthful, but that they are perjurers. Why? Because experience teaches us that no two people see an event exactly alike. One point impresses one witness; another point impresses another. Again, they may all have heard exactly the same words spoken in connection with the event, but each reports the words a little differently. One witness may even report certain parts of a conversation that the other witnesses do not report. But so long as there is no clear contradiction in the thought or meaning of the variant statements, the witnesses may be considered to have told the truth. Indeed, apparently contradictory statements may often prove to be not contradictory at all, but actually complementary.

 

All experience, and especially the experience of the courts through the long years, leads to the conclusion that truthful witnessing need not be - indeed, should not be - equated with carbon-copy identity of testimony of the different witnesses to an event, including their testimony as to what was said at the particular event.

Many prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled, and this fact develops faith in the Bible. As we study world history in the light of these prophecies it adds authenticity. Consider a very basic and wonderful prophecy in which God gave a Babylonian king an outline of history from his time to the end of the world. Read this remarkable dream in Daniel, chapter 2. God outlined for King Nebuchadnezzar the four great world kingdoms from his time right on down to our time: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Then the Roman Empire would be divided into ten divisions, which are the European nations that exist today. The Great King, who is represented by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, refers to the coming of Jesus and His eternal kingdom.

Other chapters in Daniel give the same information with added details and in a different way.

Many prophecies recorded in the Bible were given many years, even hundreds of years, before the event took place. Yet events happened exactly as the prophecy said they would.

Why should we believe the Bible is true? First, only God can foretell events hundreds of years before they happen. Second, as we study we find the answers to many of today's questions, even though they were written centuries ago.

Evidence of the book's inspiration includes prophecy, archeology, cohesive unity, accuracy, and Christ revealed.

PROPHECY - See the following and compare them with history: Babylon (Isaiah. 13:19-22), Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3-5), Sidon (Ezekiel 28:21-23), Cyrus (Isaiah. 44:28,45:1), Medo-Persia & Greece (Dan. 8:20,21), and Jesus' Birthplace (Micah 5:2).

ARCHAEOLOGY - Moabite stone discovered in 1868 at Dibon, Jordan, confirming Moabite attacks on Israel as recorded in 2 Kings 1 & 3.

The Lachish letters discovered in 1932-1938, 24 miles north of Beersheba, describing the attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem in 586 B.C. History confirms this.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948. They date back to 150-170 B.C. and contain all or parts of the Old Testament books except the book of Esther. They confirm the Bible's accuracy.

Cyrus' Cylinder records Cyrus' overthrow of Babylon and his subsequent deliverance of the Jewish captives. Again, this is supported by history.

The Rosetta Stone discovered in 1799, in Egypt, by Napoleon's scientists, was written in three languages - hieroglyphics, demotic, and Greek. It unlocked the mystery of understanding hieroglyphics. Understanding hieroglyphics helps to confirm the authenticity of the Bible.

COHESIVE UNITY - Evidence of the Bible's inspiration also includes its cohesive unity. In more than 3000 places the Bible declares itself inspired (2 Peter 1:21). Making such claims of itself implies that the Bible is either inspired by God or a fraud. When one studies the Bible keeping it's context clean and understanding the central theme, there is a cohesive unity throughout the Bible that clears apparent contradictions.

ACCURACY - Certainly it is inconceivable that a book so accurate through the centuries could be considered anything less than inspired by God. No other book has ever been compiled by this many writers over such an expanse of time.

CHRIST REVEALED - the greatest evidence of the Bible's inspiration is evidenced in the Christ it reveals and the changes in those who study it (see John 5:39, Acts 4:12, Matthew 11:26-28).

The King James Version of the Bible, released in 1611, was authorized by King James in order to have as accurate a translation as possible, which could be printed and widely circulated. The original Old Testament writings were in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. Jerome (5th century) translated the Bible into Latin, called the Vulgate, which has become the official Roman Catholic Bible. The Council of Trent in 1546 met to consider doctrines and published a list of books, which were to be considered canonical, that is, to be included in the Bible. This list included the 39 books of the Old Testament, plus 7 Apochraphal books, plus the New Testament 27. The Jews, however, do not accept the 7 Apochrapha as canonical. The Jewish Bible is limited to the Old Testament. The Greek translation of these books is known as the Septuagint which is the oldest known translation of any large literary work and most widely used translation of any ancient writing. It is thought to have originated toward the end of the 3rd century BC or the beginning of the 2nd century BC. The earliest reference to this work dates around 132 BC. This translation is much older than the Masoretic translations of the first five centuries AD.

Since the Bible was hand written in the centuries prior to the invention of the printing press, few copies were available. The Latin translation (Vulgate) was the most common. Reformers such as Luther and Tyndale translated portions of the Latin Bible into the common language of the people; Luther into German and Tyndale into English. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the English language in about 1400 AD. While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it. Furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation.

In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, kept from God's word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. Since the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" the accuracy of the Bible has been verified. In more recent years many translations of the Bible have been done.

The New King James version uses the Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, the Septuagint along with a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew manuscript including manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Caves.

We advise that several translations be used by those who cannot read the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

Several translations are available at Bible Gateway, which makes it easy to find verses and compare different versions at the same time.

The prophet Moses began the first five books of the Bible sometime before 1400 B.C. The apostle John penned the last book of the Bible, Revelation, about A.D. 95. Scripture contains books and letters from over 40 prophets and messengers of God, all of whom wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. See 2 Tim. 3:16,17.

The various Bible writers lived at different times, some separated by hundreds of years. In many cases they were complete strangers to one another. Some were businessmen or traders, others were shepherds, fishermen, soldiers, physicians, preachers, kings-human beings from all walks of life. They served under different governments, and lived within contrasting cultures and systems of philosophy. But here is the wonder of it all: When the 66 books of the Bible with their 1,189 chapters made up of 31,173 verses are brought together (KJV), we find perfect harmony in the message they convey. As the great scholar F.F.Bruce noted: "The Bible is not simply an anthology; there is a unity which binds the whole together."

The Bible writers gave God's messages by voice and pen while they lived, and when they died, their writings lived after them. These prophetic messages were then gathered together, under God's leading, in the book we call the Bible.

The Scripture says in II Peter 1:20-21, "You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit revealed to the prophets the messages of Scripture. The writers of the Bible wrote not according to their own will or whim, but only as they were moved, or controlled, by the Spirit of God. The Bible is God's own book!

II Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The Holy Bible affects human beings so profoundly because "all" the Bible is "God-breathed." It's more than a nice collection of moral principles; it's more than a great book; it's an inspired document, God's book. The prophets related what they saw and heard in human language, but their message came directly from God.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.

The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388.

A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.

From which language was the KJV was translated? Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate. As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch. And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale's New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.

The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752.

The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects.

No.  Ash Wednesday is actually of pagan origin and was admitted into the church beliefs of the Catholic Church a few hundred years after Christ. This was the era when Constantine was attempting to weld pagans and Christians into a unit within the Roman kingdom.

Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent and always falls forty-six days before Easter. Roman Catholic churches of the Latin Rite use this service to prepare church members to better appreciate the death and resurrection of Christ through self-examination, repentance, prayer, fasting, and self-denial. Ashes from the burned palms of the preceding year's Palm Sunday are blessed. With these ashes, the priest marks a cross on the foreheads of worshipers, saying, "Remember, man, that dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19 KJV). From Biblical times, sprinkling oneself with ashes has been a mark of sorrow for sin. Besides showing their sorrow for their sins, those who honor Ash Wednesday add to this meaning of penance a second point; the need to prepare for a holy death.

Although Ash Wednesday is not a day of holy obligation, Roman Catholics attend Mass on this day in order to mark the beginning of the Lenten season.

The churches of the Anglican Communion, as well as some other Protestant churches observe Ash Wednesday. Eastern Rite churches do not. Their Lent begins on the preceding Monday.

Sitting on the back porch of a Nova Scotia bed and breakfast one evening, I was engaged in a rather remarkable discussion with the owner of the house. "Long before Columbus," she said, "people from Europe visited this part of the world. We know that because they find a lot of stuff around here that just doesn't fit what we were taught in school. I think the Knights Templar visited this place and stashed their treasure."

It was interesting, and there is a lot of evidence that Europeans had visited North America well before Columbus set foot here. But then the story got stranger:

"In fact, I think the Knights Templar knew something about Jesus that the church has been hiding from us for years. I think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a child. There are lots of ancient documents that have been suppressed by the official church to prove it. The Holy Grail isn't actually the cup that Jesus drank from at the last supper—it's the hidden bloodline of Jesus!"

I knew immediately that she had been reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail, written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. The book raises questions about the Christian church's historical understanding of Jesus, suggesting—among other things—that He was married, had a child, and did not actually die on the cross. As the book hit stores across the nation, a Los Angeles Times book review proposed that the book was, "Enough to seriously challenge many traditional Christian beliefs, if not alter them."

The book did not, obviously, topple the Christian church and for a good reason. No credible historian took it seriously because the weight of historical evidence clearly contradicts it. Furthermore, even though many people are easily romanced by a good conspiracy theory, this one was far enough off the wall that most people simply didn't buy it—until it was reincarnated in a new format when The Da Vinci Code hit bookstores.

This time the strange theory hit a chord with much of the general public. The Da Vinci Code has sold more than 40 million copies, and Hollywood recently splashed its contents across the big screen. Then in a move almost certainly calculated to maximize publicity for the magazine, National Geographic announced that it was in possession of an ancient "gospel" that presents an alternate version of the events surrounding Jesus' death: the gospel of Judas (Even though many people seem to assume that this document has only recently been unearthed, it was actually discovered years ago).

An obscure theory has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of public discussion. Popular news magazines are running stories about it. The television airwaves are full of "davinciesque" specials. Christian churches are voicing their concern over all the publicity Dan Brown's book is receiving.

Christians, of course, are naturally troubled by the book and for good reason. If the theories presented by Dan Brown are true, then the foundations of a two-thousand-year-old Christianity have been essentially ripped out from under the church. Among other things, the claims presented in the book include:

Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child with her.

Jesus intended for Mary Magdalene to become the head of the Christian church, but because of a patriarchal conspiracy, the concept of the "sacred feminine" was rejected and her role in the formation of the early church was stolen from her. The church has suppressed women ever since.

Jesus was never considered to be divine by the early church; this was an idea adopted by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

The four Gospels presented in the New Testament were put there by the Roman Emperor Constantine to cover up what had been done. Many other "gospels" that revealed the truth were covered up.

Secret societies, like the Knights Templar and the Priory of Zion (a group whose members are said to have included such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci) have carefully guarded these facts for centuries in the face of oppression from the organized Christian church.

The book, of course, is sold in the fiction section of the bookstore, and no publisher has yet made the claim that it is historically verifiable. Yet the clever manner in which Dan Brown presents his material has, while not convincing many people, still confused them. An author's note in the book assures us that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

This gives the average reader—who is understandably not widely educated in ancient Christian history—the distinct impression that The Da Vinci Code is at least historical fiction, based on real events.That's where the essence of the concern over the book really lies. The lines between fact and fiction have been carefully blurred, making it seem as if many of the strange theories listed above might actually be true. The reality is that The Da Vinci Code is wildly inaccurate.

Take, for example, the book's suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls contain some of Christianity's earliest documents (the assumption is made that these were suppressed by the early Christian church) - a claim that is utterly impossible. The Dead Sea scrolls are exclusively Old Testament documents.

Additionally, the ancient manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi in the 1940s are said to contain the "earliest" Christian documents. This simply isn't true. The writings of the New Testament were all completed before the first century expired; the books discovered at Nag Hammadi, at the earliest, date back to the late second century. (The one exception would be the gospel of Thomas which might date back as early as 130AD. This still puts it many years after the books of the New Testament were completed).

The story presented in The Da Vinci Code also seeks to persuade us that the four Gospels we now have in the New Testament are only there because of the political ambitions of the Roman Emperor Constantine. This supposedly happened at the Council of Nicea (325 AD), when the church needed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to prove their newly-adopted theory that Jesus was divine. They purportedly selected the four Gospels we have today from as many as eighty other "gospels" which told a different story.

This assertion is utter nonsense, as any well-versed historian can tell you. There was no occasion on which the church sorted through eighty documents. Additionally, the veracity of the New Testament Gospels had been well established by the Christian church for hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea, which is proven by the fact that earlier church writings make constant reference to them as authoritative documents. The so-called "other gospels" are never mentioned in any list of books considered authoritative for the Christian.

There is also no record of the Council of Nicea making the decision that Jesus was divine. This was a doctrine well understood by the Christian church since the first believers wrote about His miracles and His claims to Godhood. The only topic of discussion at Nicea dealing with Christ's divinity had to do with how God the Son related to God the Father—but the fact of His divinity was not questioned, nor introduced for the first time.

Constantine would have been a relatively easy target for the likes of Dan Brown, because he did make a number of questionable decisions that are well recorded throughout history. We know, for example, that his influence allowed some pagan ideas to drift into the thought patterns of the Christian church. But Constantine did not create the canon of the New Testament or invent the notion of Christ's divinity. Those notions are utter fiction and a deliberate assault on the well-documented historicity of the Christian faith.

And what of the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? This was supposedly hidden from us for a number of reasons, including the way established Christianity frowns upon sexual relationships—including those found within the context of marriage. While the Christian church at large has, on occasion, taken a less-than-healthy attitude toward positive sexual relationships, this assertion is simply wrong. The New Testament book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that "marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled." (Hebrews 13:1) Marriage in Christian teaching does not diminish the sanctity of the individual; it rather elevates it.

If Jesus had been married (He was, after all, fully human in addition to being fully God), it would not have been a sin. The book of Ephesians—written in the mid-first century—uses marriage as a striking illustration of the sacred relationship of Jesus to His church. Listen to the words of Jesus Himself:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:5, 6

How could marriage be considered as defiling when God Himself thought of it? And yet Dan Brown insinuates that the early Christian believers had a poor view of it and covered up the "fact" that Jesus was married. The fact is that Jesus did not marry, and there is not one shred of ancient historical evidence to prove it - in or out of the biblical record. An appeal is made to the ancient Gospel of Philip, which was probably written sometime in the late 3rd century, because of the mention that Mary Magdalene was a "companion" of Jesus, and that He often kissed her. There are a number of things that I should probably point out:

The gospel of Philip is not an eye-witness account like the four canonical gospels. Even if threads of the genuine story of Jesus can be found in it, it is still a work of fiction. A "companion" is hardly a spouse. Many people greeted each other with a kiss in Jesus' day—it does not mean it was sexual in nature. Judas greeted Jesus with a kiss on the night of His betrayal.

Just what are these strange "other gospels" that Dan Brown and others refer to in their attempt to overthrow the traditional understanding of Jesus' life? As Christianity spread in the early centuries, so did problems and distortions of the Christian message. Among these groups were the Gnostics, who adopted a rather incredible version of the story of salvation. They believed that an inferior god—known as the Demiurge—created the material world we live in. According to their understanding, this was a grave mistake, because a material existence is less than ideal.

We should have never been created to live a physical existence in the first place. The mission of Jesus Christ, in Gnostic theology, was to set us free from the prison of the material world and the mistakes of the Creator. They wrote a number of so-called "gospels" and other books—the vast majority of which were written more than 100 years after the books of the New Testament - to espouse these views.

The gnostic world view is in direct competition with the view presented in both the Old and New Testaments. In opening chapters of Genesis, we are told that creation was "very good," and that it was man's rebellion against God that corrupted it. In the New Testament, we discover that Jesus Himself is the Creator. (See passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, 17, Hebrews 1:1-3. So much for the idea that Jesus wasn't understood to be divine by Christian believers until the fourth century!)

He came to set us free from the consequences of our rebellion against the Creator through His sacrificial death at the cross, not from the physical, material world. In fact, the Bible clearly indicates that we will eventually be restored to a newly-created world for all eternity once the effects of sin have been eradicated. (See Isaiah 65:17-25, Revelation 21-22)

What is particularly interesting is the appeal to the ancient Gnostics to both elevate the status of women and endorse sexuality that seems to permeate The Da Vinci Code. In reality, the Gnostics spurned the physical world (including sexual relationships), and demeaned women to a degree that would have been unimaginable for the early Christian church. Take, for example, this saying taken from number 114 from the gospel of Thomas:

Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

It is hardly a ringing endorsement on the value of womanhood. In other Gnostic writings found at Nad Hammadi, Jesus warns his disciples to pray somewhere that women are absent and to destroy the "works of womanhood." The appeal to Gnostic writings to elevate the "sacred feminine" is strange indeed, given the anti-female tone found in many of them. In the New Testament Gospels, you will never find a statement from Jesus that demeans women. As accomplished New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III points out, the Gnostic gospels really can't be called gospels at all:

"...the term gospel ("Good News") is not just a Christian term, but rather one that was already in use in the Greco-Roman world before the canonical gospels were written. Because the ancient world didn't have a free market economy, public gifts from higher-status persons were what greased the wheels of society and commerce. Emperors were lauded for their good deeds of benefaction and their triumphs in wars. The "gospel" was good news about actions taken on behalf of the people by the emperor (or another wealthy person). The benefactors weren't in the main, praised for their great philosophical or wise utterances.

When early Christians picked up the term gospel, they had in mind the goods news of things Jesus had done, while also including some of his teachings." (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel Code (Downer's Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2004), p. 97)

All four of the New Testament gospels drive relentlessly toward the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His teachings are emphasized, but they inevitably lead us to the cross and what Christ accomplished there in our behalf. They underscore the fact that we cannot save ourselves, so God did something to save us. That is why these four books are gospels—Good News.

The gnostic "gospels," on the other hand, do not tell the story of God becoming man and giving His life to save sinners. Instead, they present a different Jesus, one who speaks in mysterious riddles and vague philosophical sayings. This is because the Gnostics, far from being more pluralistic and accepting than the early Christians, were terrible elitists who believed that only people who were mentally capable of achieving hidden mystic knowledge would find salvation.

The door was not open to all; others were despised as inferior and unworthy. The Gnostics essentially left you on your own to find salvation. The God who created you, they said, was incompetent and made a terrible blunder when He did it. If you can't seem to wrap your head around secret knowledge, there is no hope for you. That is not good news. It is not a gospel.

Why has The Da Vinci Code struck such a chord with so many people? Why would somebody choose to reject the real good news of Christian belief—the divinity of Christ and His victory over the grave in our behalf? It's hard to tell. Maybe it has something to do with the scandals in the Christian world over the last couple of decades that have rocked the faith of so many people in things they used to count on. That's possible, but I somehow doubt that is all that's going on.

If we accept the Bible as true, it is an admission that the Creator has some claims on our lives. The misunderstanding is that somehow, these claims will enslave us and rob us of the liberty we crave. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you come face to face with Jesus Christ, you will discover that the Bible is reliable and the words of Jesus present both hope and truth. "If you abide in My word," said Jesus, "you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31)

What is freedom? For Dan Brown and others, freedom appears to be a release from the claims of the biblical Christ. But in the end, this leaves you with a serious problem that forces you into unimaginable bondage: you have to sort out your sin problem all by yourself. You become a slave to the material world, fighting to escape it with all your might. That's not freedom. As Jesus stated, "Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:34)

God does not offer us slavery in the New Testament Gospels; He offers us the chance to become sons and daughters of the Most High God. And He offers us this opportunity through what Jesus accomplished at the cross. Has there been a historical conspiracy to hide the truth? Absolutely. The Bible describes it well: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4

There is a cover-up taking place, and The Da Vinci Code, ironically, is part of it. It's a deliberate attempt to keep the truth of the Gospel - the Good News of what Jesus has done for you—out of your hands. The so-called "light" of The Da Vinci Code, in reality, is a shroud of darkness being thrown over the hope that God wants you to have.

So why does Dan Brown feel the need to present an alternate version of Christianity? Why not simply reject the Christian faith all together? Many years ago, the New Testament Scriptures predicted that in the last days, just before Jesus returns, there would be those "having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" (2 Timothy 3:5)

There is no question about it: a Jesus who did not die for us and was not divine is an attempt to have a form of Christianity that denies the power behind it. It has been stripped of all hope. This is the real problem with Dan Brown's Jesus. Without the resurrection of God's Son, the grave will be the end for all of us:

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 1 Corinthians 15:13-20

It's hard to imagine someone who is truly delighted in the message of The Da Vinci Code—at least if they understand what Dan Brown is really saying. Where is the hope? Where is the Good News? Where is God?

Our generation is susceptible to the ideas presented in The Da Vinci Code because for most of us, it's been a while since we've looked at what the Bible actually says about Christ and what He did for us. Why not take a fresh look at the biblical gospels and the major themes of the Bible? I think you'll be amazed at how much more meaningful they are for your life than the Jesus of the best-sellers list and the silver screen.

- Pastor Shawn Boonstra

This woman, unknown by name, figures in the narrative of Lot regarding his escape from Sodom (see Genesis 19). The angels commanded her to flee from the doomed city with her husband and daughters. They warned the little group not to look back. "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be destroyed” (verse 17, NKJV). The angels even took her hand to hurry her on her way, because she and Lot lingered, reluctant to leave their home.

Lot’s wife, alone of the four fugitives, disobeyed the angel’s warning and looked back at the destruction of the doomed city. As a result, she "became a pillar of salt” (verse 26). Jesus recalled her disobedience with the warning, "Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32, NKJV).

This is all that the Bible has to say about this unfortunate woman whose heart remained in Sodom even as her feet were carrying her away. We do not know her name; she is referred to only as "Lot’s wife.”

There does not seem to be any passages in the Bible referring to Noah's wife other than the account beginning in Genesis 7:7. It does not give her name, however, according to Jewish tradition her name is Naamah - the sister of Tubal-cain, a descendant of Cain, the son of Adam and Eve (see Genesis 4:22). Why Tubal-cain's sister (a daughter of Lamech by his wife Zillah) should be specifically mentioned is unknown. Jewish tradition made her Noah's wife. Her name, meaning "the beautiful" or "the pleasant one," reflects the worldly mind of the Cainites, who looked for beauty rather than for character as the chief attraction in women.

Nichol, Francis D., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C., Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1978.

We really don’t know their names, because the Bible doesn’t tell us. However, tradition has it that the wise men who came to honor the infant Jesus were named Gaspar, Balthasar, and Melchior.

The wise men, also known as magi, were men belonging to various educated classes. Our English word magician comes from this same root. But these wise men were not magicians in the modern sense of sleight-of-hand performers. They were of noble birth, educated, wealthy, and influential. They were philosophers, the counselors of rulers, learned in all the wisdom of the ancient East. The wise men who came seeking the Christ child were not idolaters; they were upright men of integrity.

They had apparently studied the Hebrew Scriptures and found there a clear transcript of truth. In particular, the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament must have claimed their attention, and among these they found the words of Balaam: "A Star shall come out of Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Numbers 24:17, NKJV). They certainly were acquainted with the prophecy of Micah: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel” (Micah 5:2, NKJV; see also Matthew 2:5, 6). They probably also knew and understood the time prophecy of Daniel regarding the appearance of the Messiah (see Daniel 9:25, 26) and came to the conclusion that His coming was near.

On the night of Christ’s birth, a mysterious light appeared in the sky which became a luminous star that persisted in the western heavens (see Matthew 2:1, 2). Impressed with its import, the wise men turned once more to the sacred scrolls. As they tried to understand the meaning of the sacred writings, they determined to go in search of the Messiah. Like Abraham, they knew not at first where they were to go, but followed as the guiding star led them on their way.

The tradition that there were three wise men arose from the fact that the Bible mentions three gifts (see Matthew 2:11), but the Bible doesn’t say how many wise men made the journey to see the baby Jesus. The unfounded idea that they were also kings came from the imagery of Isaiah 60:3.

The Bible records the fact of Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:23,24, (NIV) "So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." This was before Adam and Eve had any children.

Then in Genesis 4:1 (NIV) the Bible records, "Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain." In Genesis 5:4 (NIV) it states, "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."

Genesis 4:17 (NIV) mentions Cain and his wife having a son named Enoch. Regarding the identity of Cain's wife, she was one of the family of Adam, no doubt Cain's own sister. Obviously, the earliest inhabitants of earth had no other choice than to marry their brothers and sisters in order to fulfill the divine command, "Be fruitful and multiply."

In Genesis 3:20 we read that Eve was "the mother of all living," and in Acts 17:26 it says God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." In Genesis 5:4 we are told that Adam had daughters as well as sons, and it is reasonable to assume that daughters were born to Adam and Eve soon after Cain and Abel. The fact that they are not mentioned by name does not prove that they did not exist.

The custom long remained in vogue as seen in Abraham's marriage to his half sister Sarah in Genesis 20:12. In that period of the world men and women had not become diseased, deformed, and mentally deficient as they are today. Because of these conditions in many families up to our present time, close intermarriage between members of the same family were later prohibited (see Leviticus 18:6-17). All descendents of Cain perished at the time of the Flood.

The disciples/apostles of Christ were the foundation stones of His church. In Revelation 21:14 we are told that the twelve foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem will have in them the names of the twelve disciples/apostles. It is evident, therefore, that our Lord attaches great importance to these men.

 

As we study these courageous first-century lives, and what discipleship meant in the time of Christ, we may expect to be aided in developing a Spirit-directed twenty-first century discipleship as Christ must have meant it to be.

 

The following information uses the New Testament accounts of these 12 men, along with the most respected legends and traditions. We do not mean to infer, that legend and tradition constitute historical fact. We do feel, however, that they do have value in the study of the lives of these men who "…turned the world upside down…"

 

 

Andrew was the brother of Peter, and a son of Jonas. He lived in Bethsaida and Capernaum and was a fisherman before Jesus called him. Originally he was a disciple of John the Baptist (Mark 1:16-18). Andrew brought his brother, Peter, to Jesus (John 1:40). He is the first to have the title of Home and Foreign Missionary. He is claimed by three countries as their Patron Saint-Russia, Scotland and Greece. Many scholars say that he preached in Scythia, Greece and Asia Minor.

 

Andrew introduced others to Jesus. Although circumstances placed him in a position where it would have been easy for him to become jealous and resentful, he was optimistic and well content in second place. His main purpose in life was to bring others to the master.

 

According to tradition, it was in Achaia, Greece, in the town of Patra that Andrew died a martyr. When Governor Aepeas' wife was healed and converted to the Christian faith, and shortly after that the Governor's brother became a Christian. Aepeas was enraged. He arrested Andrew and condemned him to die on the cross. Andrew, feeling unworthy to be crucified on the same-shaped cross as his Master, begged that his be different. So, he was crucified on an X-shaped cross, which is still called Saint Andrew's cross and which is one of his apostolic symbols. A symbol of two crossed fish has also been applied to Andrew, because he was formerly a fisherman.

 

 

Bartholomew Nathanael, son of Talmai, lived in Cana of Galilee.

 

Tradition says he was a missionary in Armenia. A number of scholars believe that he was the only disciple who came from royal blood, or noble birth. His name means Son of Tolmai or Talmai(2 Samuel 3:3). Talmai was king of Geshur whose daughter, Maacah, was the wife of David, mother of Absolom.

 

Bartholomew's name appears with every list of the disciples (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). This was not a first name, however; it was his second name. His first name probably was Nathanael, whom Jesus called "An Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile" (John 1:47).

 

The New Testament gives us very little information about him. Tradition indicates he was a great searcher of the Scripture and a scholar in the law and the prophets. He developed into a man of complete surrender to the Carpenter of Nazareth, and one of the Church's most adventurous missionaries. He is said to have preached with Philip in Phrygia and Hierapolis; also in Armenia. The Armenian Church claims him as its founder and martyr. However, tradition says that he preached in India, and his death seems to have taken place there. He died as a martyr for his Lord. He was flayed alive with knives.

 

His apostolic symbol is three parallel knives.

 

JAMES, THE ELDER

 

James, the Elder, Boanerges, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John the Apostle; a fisherman who lived in Bethsaida, Capernaum and Jerusalem. He preached in Jerusalem and Judea and was beheaded by Herod, AD 44 (Acts 12:1,2). He was a member of the Inner Circle, so called because they were accorded special privileges. The New Testament tells us very little about James. His name never appears apart from that of his brother, John. They were an inseparable pair (Mark 1:19-20; Matthew 4:21; Luke 5:1-11).

 

He was a man of courage and forgiveness-a man without jealousy, living in the shadow of John, a man of extraordinary faith. He was the first of the twelve to become a martyr.

 

His symbol is three shells, the sign of his pilgrimage by the sea.

 

JAMES, THE LESSER (OR YOUNGER)

 

James, the Lesser or Younger, son of Alpheus, or Cleophas and Mary, lived in Galilee. He was the brother of the Apostle Jude.

 

According to tradition he wrote the Epistle of James, preached in Palestine and Egypt and was crucified in Egypt. James was one of the little-known disciples. Some scholars believe he was the brother of Matthew, the tax collector. James was a man of strong character and one of the most fiery type. Tradition tells us that he also died as a martyr and his body was sawed in pieces. The saw became his apostolic symbol.

 

 

John Boanerges, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of James, the Apostle. he was known as the Beloved Disciple. A fisherman who lived in Bethsaida, Capernaum and Jerusalem, he was a member of the Inner Circle. He wrote the Gospel of John, I John, II John, III John and Revelation. He preached among the churches of Asia Minor. Banished to the isle of Patmos, he was later freed and died a natural death. John was one of the prominent Apostles. He is mentioned in many places in the New Testament. He was a man of action; he was very ambitious; and a man with an explosive temper and an intolerant heart. His second name was Boanerges, which means son of Thunder. He and his brother, James, came from a more well-to-do family than the rest of the Apostles. Since his father had hired servants in his fishing business (Mark 1:20) he may have felt himself above the rest. He was close to Peter. They were acting together in the ministry. Peter, however, was always the spokesman for the band.

 

John mellowed with time. At the latter part of his life, he had forgotten everything, including his ambition and explosive temper, except his Lord's command of love.

 

It is said that an attempt was made on his life by giving him a chalice of poison from which God spared him. He died of natural causes. A chalice with a snake in it is his symbol.

 

 

Judas Iscariot, the traitor, was the son of Simon who lived in Kerioth of Judah. He betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and afterwards hanged himself (Matthew 26:14,16).

 

Judas, the man who became the traitor, is the supreme enigma of the New Testament because it is so hard to see how anyone who was so close to Jesus, who saw so many miracles and heard so much of the Master's teaching could ever betray him into the hands of his enemies.

 

His name appears in three lists of the 12 Apostles (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:19). It is said that Judas came from Judah near Jericho. He was a Judean and the rest of the disciples were Galileans. He was the treasurer of the band and among the outspoken leaders.

 

It is said that Judas was a violent Jewish Nationalist who had followed Jesus in hope that through Him his nationalistic flame and dreams might be realized. No one can deny that Judas was a covetous man and at times he used his position as treasurer of the band to pilfer from the common purse.

 

There is no certain reason as to why Judas betrayed his master; but it is not his betrayal that put Jesus on the cross-it was our sins.

 

His apostolic symbol is a hangman's noose, or a money purse with pieces of silver falling from it.

 

 

Jude, Thaddeus, or Lebbeus, son of Alpheus or Cleophas and Mary. He was a brother of James the Younger. He was one of the very little-known Apostles and lived in Galilee. Tradition says he preached in Assyria and Persia and died a martyr in Persia.

 

Jerome called Jude "Trinomious" which means "a man with three names." In Mark 3:18 he is called Thaddeus. In Matthew 10;3 he is called Lebbeus. His surname was Thaddeus. In Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 he is called Judas the brother of James. Judas Thaddeus also was called Judas the Zealot.

 

By character he was an intense and violent Nationalist with the dream of world power and domination by the Chosen People. In the New Testament records (John 14:22 NIV) he asked Jesus at the Last Supper, "But Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" Judas Thaddeus was interested in making Christ known to the world. Not as a suffering Saviour, however, but as ruling King. We can see plainly from the answer Jesus gave him, that the way of power can never be substituted for the way of love.

 

It is said that Jude went to preach the gospel in Edessa near the Euphrates River. There he healed many and many believed in the name of the Master. Jude went from there to preach the Gospel in other places. He was killed with arrows at Ararat. The chosen symbol for him is the ship because he was a missionary thought to be a fisherman.

 

 

Matthew, or Levi, son of Alpheus, lived in Capernaum. He was a publican or tax collector. He wrote the Gospel that bears his name. He died a martyr in Ethiopia.

 

The call of Matthew to the apostolic band is mentioned in Mark 2:14, Matthew 9:9; and Luke 5:27-28. From these passages, we learn that Matthew also was called Levi. It was a common custom in the Middle East at the time of Christ for men to have two names. Matthew's names mean "a gift of God." The name Levi could have been given to him by Jesus. It is likely that James the lesser, who was one of the twelve Apostles, was Matthew's brother, also the son of Alpheus. Although we know little about Matthew personally, the outstanding fact about him is that he was a tax collector. The King James Version calls him a publican, which in Latin is Publicanus, meaning engaged in public service, a man who handled public money, or a tax gatherer.

 

Of all the nations in the world, the Jews were the most vigorous haters of tax gatherers. To the devout Jew, God was the only one to whom it was right to pay tribute in taxes. To pay it to anyone else was to infringe on the rights of God. The tax collectors were hated not on religious grounds only but because most of them were notoriously unjust.

 

In the minds of many honest, Jewish men, these tax collectors were regarded as criminals. In New Testament times they were classified with harlots, Gentiles and sinners (Matthew 18:17; Matthew 21:31, 33; Matthew 9;10; Mark 2:15,16; Luke 5:30). Tax collectors had been known to assess duty payable at impossible sums and then offer to lend the money to travelers at a high rate of interest. Such was Matthew. Yet, Jesus chose a man all men hated and made him one of His men. It took Jesus Christ to see the potential in the tax collector of Capernaum.

 

Matthew was unlike the other Apostles, who were all fishermen. He could use a pen, and by his pen he became the first man to present to the world, in the Hebrew language, an account of the teaching of Jesus. It is clearly impossible to estimate the debt that Christianity owes to this despised tax gatherer. The average man would have thought it impossible to reform Matthew, but to God all things are possible. Matthew became the first man to write down the teachings of Jesus. He was a missionary of the Gospel, who laid down his life for the faith of his Master.

 

The apostolic symbol of Matthew is three money bags which reminds us that he was a tax collector before Jesus called him.

 

 

Simon Peter, son of Jonas, was a fisherman who lived in Bethsaida and Capernaum. He did evangelistic and missionary work among the Jews, going as far as Babylon. He was a member of the Inner Circle and authored the two New Testament epistles which bear his name. Tradition says he was crucified, head downward, in Rome.

 

In every apostolic list, the name Peter is mentioned first. However, Peter had other names. At the time of Christ, the common language was Greek and the family language was Hebrew. So his Greek name was Simon (Mark 1:16; John 1:40, 41). His Hebrew name was Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5 and Galatians 2:9). The Greek meaning of Simon is rock. The Arabic meaning of Cephas is also rock.

 

By trade, Peter was a fisherman. He was a married man (1Corinthians 9:5) and his home was Capernaum. Jesus probably made His headquarters there when He visited Capernaum. Peter was also a Galilean as was typical of many of the other disciples. Josephus described the Galileans this way, "They were ever fond of innovation and by nature disposed to change and delighted in sedition. They were ever ready to follow the leader and to begin an insurrection. They were quick in temper and given to quarreling and they were very chivalrous men." The Talmud says this of the Galileans, "They were more anxious for honor than for gain, quick-tempered, impulsive, emotional, easily aroused by an appeal to adventure, loyal to the end." Peter was a typical Galilean. Among the twelve, Peter was the leader. He stands out as a spokesman for all the Apostles. It is he who asked the meaning of the difficult saying in Matthew 15:15. It is he who asked how often he must forgive. It is he who inquired about the reward for all of those who follow Jesus. It is he who first confessed Jesus and declared Him as the Son of the Living God. It is he who was at the Mount of Transfiguration. It is he who saw Jairus' daughter raised to life. Yet, it is he who denied Christ before a maiden. He was an Apostle and a missionary who laid down his life for his Lord. It is true, Peter had many faults, but he had always the saving grace of the loving heart. No matter how many times he had fallen and failed, he always recovered his courage and integrity.

 

Peter was martyred on a cross. Peter requested that he might be crucified head downward for he was not worthy to die as his Lord had died. His apostolic symbol is a cross upside down with crossed keys.

 

 

Tradition says that Philip preached in Phrygia and died a martyr at Hierapolis. Philip came from Bethsaida, the town from which Peter and Andrew came (John 1:44). The likelihood is that he, too, was a fisherman. Although the first three Gospels record his name (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), it is in the Gospel of John that Philip becomes a living personality.

 

Scholars disagree on Philip. In Acts 6:5, we have Philip as one of the seven ordained deacons. Some say this is a different Philip. Some believe this is the Apostle. If this is the same Philip, then his personality came more to life because he had a successful campaign in Samaria. He led the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ (Acts 8:26). He also stayed with Paul in Ceasarea (Acts 21:8) and was one of the major figures in the missionary enterprise of the early church.

 

The Gospel of John shows Philip as one of the first of many to whom Jesus addressed the words, "Follow Me." When Philip met Christ, he immediately found Nathanael and told him that "we have found him, of whom Moses … and the prophets, did write." Nathanael was skeptical. But Philip did not argue with him; he simply answered, "Come and see." This story tells us two important things about Philip. First, it shows his right approach to the skeptic and his simple faith in Christ. Second, it shows that he had a missionary instinct.

 

Philip was a man with a warm heart and a pessimistic head. He was one who would very much like to do something for others, but who did not see how it could be done. Yet, this simple Galilean gave all he had. In return God used him. It is said that he died by hanging. While he was dying, he requested that his body be wrapped not in linen but in papyrus for he was not worthy that even his dead body should be treated as the body of Jesus had been treated. The symbol of Philip is a basket, because of his part in feeding of the five thousand. It is he that stressed the cross as a sign of Christianity and victory.

 

 

Simon, the Zealot, one of the little-known followers called the Canaanite or Zelotes, lived in Galilee. Tradition says he was crucified.

 

In two places in the King James Version he is called a Canaanite (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18). However in the other two places he is called Simon Zelotes (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

 

The New Testament gives us practically nothing on him personally except that it says he was a Zealot. The Zealots were fanatical Jewish Nationalists who had heroic disregard for the suffering involved and the struggle for what they regarded as the purity of their faith. The Zealots were crazed with hatred for the Romans. It was this hate for Rome that destroyed the city of Jerusalem. Josephus says the Zealots were reckless persons, zealous in good practices and extravagant and reckless in the worst kind of actions.

 

From this background, we see that Simon was a fanatical Nationalist, a man devoted to the Law, a man with bitter hatred for anyone who dared to compromise with Rome. Yet, Simon clearly emerged as a man of faith. He abandoned all his hatred for the faith that he showed toward his Master and the love that he was willing to share with the rest of the disciples and especially Matthew, the Roman tax collector.

 

Simon, the Zealot, the man who once would have killed in loyalty to Israel, became the man who saw that God will have no forced service. Tradition says he died as a martyr. His apostolic symbol is a fish lying on a Bible, which indicates he was a former fisherman who became a fisher of men through preaching.

 

 

Thomas Didymus lived in Galilee. Tradition says he labored in Parthia, Persia, and India, suffering martyrdom near Madras, at Mt. St. Thomas, India.

 

Thomas was his Hebrew name and Didymus was his Greek name. At times he was called Judas. Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us nothing about Thomas except his name. However, John defines him more clearly in his Gospel. Thomas appeared in the raising of Lazarus (John 11:2-16), in the Upper Room (John 14:1-6) where he wanted to know how to know the way where Jesus was going. In John 20:25, we see him saying unless he sees the nailprints in Jesus' hand and the gash of the spear in His side he will not believe. That's why Thomas became known as Doubting Thomas.

 

Thomas became certain by doubting. By nature, he was a pessimist. He was a bewildered man. Yet, he was a man of courage. He was a man who could not believe until he had seen. He was a man of devotion and of faith. When Jesus rose, he came back and invited Thomas to put his finger in the nail prints in his hands and in his side. Here, we see Thomas making the greatest confession of faith, "My Lord and my God." Thomas' doubts were transformed into faith. Thomas was always like a little child. His first reaction was not to do what he was told to do and not to believe what he was asked to believe. The good news to him was always too good to be true. By this very fact Thomas' faith became great, intense and convincing. It is said that he was commissioned to build a palace for the king of India, and he was killed with a spear as a martyr for his Lord. His symbol is a group of spears, stones and arrows.