In
March, 2013 I wrote an article titled “Is The Bible Allegorical?” in response
to Bill O’Reilly’s declaration on his national T.V. program called “The Factor”
where he said that the Old Testament scriptures are simply “allegory” as
opposed to factual history. Included in
his statements were the accounts of Adam and Eve, The Flood, Jonah and the
Whale, etc. I pointed out that this
turns the Bible upside down and denies the statements of Jesus, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John and the apostle Paul, and reduces the Bible into a story of myths
and lies.
Since
that time O’Reilly along with Martin Dugard have completed a book titled,
“Killing Jesus” which is a #1 best seller.
This is part of a series of books including “Killing Lincoln”, “Killing
Kennedy”, etc. All of these books have
been best sellers. No one questions that
O’Reilly has the gift of writing. I also
realize that I am a complete nobody when it comes to national exposure compared
to O’Reilly with his radio and T.V. programs and nationally acclaimed
books. So who am I to question anything
that O’Reilly says or writes? My
defense is simple. Questioning one’s beliefs and actions is the Biblical way
and, in a free society, it is also the American way. We must base our conclusions on the validity
of the arguments and the evidence, and not on the person making the
arguments. I am sure that O’Reilly
himself would agree with this. He is
putting this out for public consumption, and an honest response is both healthy
and good.
For
the most part, I find O’Reilly’s book to be interesting and well researched and
does contribute in a positive way to an understanding of both secular and
Biblical history. Likewise, I am glad
that the book “Killing Jesus” is being so widely read. To say the least it
shows an interest in what happened to Jesus Christ and presents a compelling
story coupled with a lot of historical background information. Hopefully, this will cause people to read the
Bible itself which is both historically accurate as well as “theological” (a
terms used by O’Reilly to describe the Bible).
In spite of this, I have some serious problems with sections of the book
which I will examine briefly.
I
have read the book several times. In
the congregation where I preach, several men and I have gotten together to
discuss and review the book in a private setting because #1 it is about the
Bible and #2 it is widely read. The
conclusions of these men on just about every particular point coincides with my
own. These men are students of secular
history as well as the Bible.
My
area of lifetime study and concern is the Bible itself. Any attack upon the creditability of the
Bible is an attack upon the whole foundation of what I believe as a Christian,
and so I take these matters seriously.
I find that the book, “Killing Jesus” is indeed an attack on the
Biblical record even though it is more subtle than most attacks I have read. We have a mandate from Christ to “examine everything carefully, hold fast to
that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).
As Christians we should “always being ready to make a defense to everyone
who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with
gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).
My first red flag came on the very first page of the book
where O’Reilly writes: “Of course we have the Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, but they sometimes appear contradictory and were written
from a spiritual point of view rather than as a historical chronicling of Jesus’s
life.” However, he appears to contradict himself in
the footnotes on page 22 where there is a long discussion about the historical
role played by the gospel accounts in the writing of this book. The role of the four gospels in the writing
of this book is also emphasized on page 275 which states: “So researching Killing Jesus required a plunge into classical works
such as the four gospels and the Jewish historian Josephus. These sources provided a jumping-off point,
giving us the basics, and then demanded new levels of deeper research to tell
the story in as much detail as possible.”
So did O’Reilly rely on the
gospel or not? My reading of the book
tells me that he did indeed rely heavily on the gospels, and that a lot of the
information came solely from the gospels. Yet when e-mails questioned O’Reilly for
twisting some of the Biblical accounts, O’Reilly quickly dismissed his critics
by saying on National T.V., “The Bible is theological and not historical!” I will address some of his responses at the end
of this article. I also apologize for
making this article much longer than what I typically write.
O’Reilly has an ego problem for he writes in the preface
of his book, “But the incredible story
behind the lethal struggle between good and evil has not been fully told. Until now.”
So the world has to wait
until O’Reilly writes his book to know this!?
He does modify his statement by writing, “At least, that is the goal of this book.” So actually this is not a flat
statement, but a goal. I do see a bit of
modesty in that. Anyone who has
followed O’Reilly realizes that he is known for his bluster and showmanship and
his top ratings add to his willingness to puff out his chest, but he is perhaps
more humble than some of his statements seem to indicate. When he goes after some bad people, I have to
do a little clapping on the side lines.
He is direct, articulate and has an unusual skill with words. He has the power and means to do a lot of
investigation before inviting guests on his program. But he is also rude and
bombastic. I think that the combination
of all of this gives him high ratings and sells books. He also likes to be on both sides of many
issues. But I must continue discussing
his book. I will refer to this as
O’Reilly’s book although he has a co-author, Martin Dugard, both coming from
Catholic theological backgrounds. It is
not clear who did the major research work, but due to the workload of Bill
O’Reilly, I am assuming that most of the book was written by Martin Dugard. The book contains more misstatements than I
have time or space to review, but I will list a few.
Early Years and Teaching
On page 18 he writes about Luke’s account of Anna and
Simeon. Of them he writes: “Two complete strangers, an old man and an
old woman---neither of whom knew anything about this baby called Jesus or his
fulfillment of prophecy---saw him from across the crowded place of worship and
went to him.” If the writer thinks
that they knew nothing about Jesus and his fulfillment of prophecy, then
perhaps the author should take a few moments to read what they said about Jesus
on this occasion (see Luke 2:29-35, 38).
In the footnote it says of Anna: “Anna
is referred to as a ‘prophetess’ in the Gospel of Luke. This makes her the only female in the New
Testament so honored.” That is news to a lot of people who can
plainly read that the daughters of Phillip could prophesy as well as other women
(see Acts 21:8-9; Acts 2:18).
On pages 96-98, the book repeatedly states that John the
Baptist preached the coming of “the end
of the world”. This is a total
misstatement of the message of John.
Where did John ever teach such a thing?
Where did the prophecies relating to John as found in Isaiah or Malachi
teach such a thing? It is also stated
that “the Pharisees were sticklers about
religious law” when in fact Jesus accused them of being the very opposite. They bound on the people their own
traditions making void the laws of God (see Matthew 15:1-9). In the
sermon on the mount recorded in Matthew 5 thru 7, Jesus exposed their false teaching about the
law and stated with authority the true meaning of the law. It is a common mistake to accuse the
Pharisees as being too careful about keeping the law. They followed neither the letter nor the spirit
of the law. Perhaps this is a picky
point, but the book should have stated that it was the reputation of the Pharisees to be sticklers of the law. But I do not need to add to this for the lawlessness of the Jewish leaders was
made clear in O’Reilly’s book.
The book states: “Like
the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth has long hair and a beard” (see Page
103). We know that John the Baptist had
long hair due to his taking the Nazarite vow, but were is the evidence that
Jesus had long hair? In those days,
long hair on men was rare. Even the
book states that the Caesar had short hair.
Whether a matter of accepted custom or the teachings of Christ, Paul
instructed men to have short hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14.
Graphic and Lewd Language
One of my objections to the book is the explicit and
graphic descriptions of the sexual lives of the Roman rulers (see especially Chapter
Seven, pages 108-118). For this reason
alone the book is not proper reading for young people. The Bible describes illicit sex, but never
goes into such details as does this book.
Is this done to sell more copies?
The Bible simply deals with facts without going into all the gory
details that characterize the writing of modern novels! The apostle Paul wrote this: “But immorality or any
impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which
are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. . . . . . Do not
participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to
speak of the things which are done by them in secret” (Eph. 5:3-4,
11-12). It is a common practice now to
tell everything and not censor anything, but much of this is not fit to either
to be seen or mentioned.
God is about love, not rules
Nowhere did Jesus tell Nicodemus that “God is about love, not rules” as
written on page 128. This account is
found in John 3. Jesus taught that the
love is God is in harmony with the laws of God.
One can outwardly keep some requirements of the law without loving God,
but one cannot love God without keeping His commandments, for love is the
fulfillment of the law. These principles
are taught in both the Old and New Testaments.
One cannot separate true faith from obedience, nor can one separate true
love from doing what God says. Love is
the motivation, while obedience is the action.
Does man sinlessly or flawlessly keep the laws of God? No indeed!
But that is a far different question.
I have read books and books about why man does not need to follow God’s
rules or teachings in order to be pleasing to God, and the authors come up with
all kinds of human rules and measurements to accomplish this. I would rather just read what God says. It is a lot more clearly stated.
Catholic Influence?
The book does a good job of dealing with the questions of
“Who do the people say that I am?” and “Who do you say that I am” found on
pages 163-164 when Jesus spoke to his apostles in Caesarea Philippi. This indeed is the central question. However, the Catholic bias of the authors is
shown in a footnote on page 263 that states the foundation of the church is
Peter rather than Jesus Christ.
I found the same Catholic influence in dealing with Mary,
the mother of Jesus. It is the Catholic
position that Mary was sinless and remained a perpetual virgin. See references to this on page 265. I also observed many other areas of Catholic
influence such as making the sign of the cross (see page 262), etc. All of these things are based upon Catholic
tradition rather than things taught in the Bible.
Jesus Could Not Focus And Panic Overtook Him?
One of the most damaging things found in the book is the
statement made about the final hours of Jesus spent with his apostles. The book states: “So Jesus is having trouble focusing on his final message to the
disciples. Like every Jew, the Nazarene
knows the painful horror and humiliation that await those condemned to the
cross. He firmly believes that he must
fulfill what has been written in Scripture, but panic is overtaking him.” (page 212).
According to O’Reilly, Jesus finds it hard to focus and panic is
overtaking him. He certainly did
understand the awful ordeal to be faced reflected in the sweat as drops of
blood and the appeal to God to take the cross away, if it be possible. But He was also resigned to fulfill the will
of God. There was no lack of focus or
panic in the accounts of Jesus speaking to his disciples (See John 13 – 16), in
the arrest of Jesus, or when He was on trial by the Jews and the Romans. So this is a strange description of Jesus.
Also the book leaves out six of the seven sayings of
Jesus while hanging on the cross. Bill
verbally explained this on The Factor by stating that these sayings were left
out because of the very nature of crucifixion makes it impossible to speak. So he is willing to pit his judgment against
the testimony of the Biblical writers in this matter. Yet he has Jesus uttering the final words on
the cross, in his most weakened condition , just before He died. I say no more.
Rulers Blamed But Not The People
O’Reilly also blames the rulers of the Jews and not the
people for putting Jesus to death. But
the Biblical writers blame both the rulers and the people. Had not Jesus already referred to that generation
as being evil and adulterous? (see
Matthew 12:39-45). Here are some final
words of Jesus: “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes;
some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in
your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon
you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from
the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah,
whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these
things will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:34-36). Did
not Peter and the apostles teach that the Jewish people as a whole were guilty
of the blood of Jesus? (see Acts
2:36-37, 40). Bill left out of his book this very damaging
statement made before Pilate by the people: “And all the people said, ‘His blood shall be on us and on our
children’.” (Matt. 27:24). As Jesus hung on the cross during that
awful day, it was the people who mocked him, not just the leaders (see Matt.
27:39-44). The Catholics are taught that
blaming the Jews is anti-Semitic. But
facts are facts and the early church was composed of Jewish believers and later
Gentile disciples proving that God is no respecter of persons “But in every nation the man who fears Him
and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:35).
Early Christians Embarrassed by the Cross?
Another serious problem are statements found in the book
on page 262. He states: “Indeed, for centuries, Christians were
embarrassed by the cross, for it was considered a punishment best suited for
slaves, murderers, and members of the lowest class.” And again this statement: “The lack of representation of the cross may
have been due to the Church’s belief in his resurrection.” I try to be careful not to yank statements
out of context and examine the entire surrounding text. But these statements are within the proper
context and speak for themselves. Such statements come as a great surprise to
Bible students who know that the early Christians were motivated by the cross
and were not embarrassed or ashamed to preach Jesus Christ and Him
crucified. Jesus had earlier told his
disciples to “take up the cross and follow Him”. Contrary to O’Reilly’s book, they took glory
in the cross, for by the shed blood of Christ they were redeemed from their
sins. It was the pagans and the
unbelieving Jews who looked down on the cross, not the early Christians. The
apostle Paul wrote: “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but
to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I WILL
DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET
ASIDE.' Where is the
wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the
world? For since in the
wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God
was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those
who believe. For indeed
Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified,
to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:18-24). From the
beginning, the early church taught baptism and observed the Lord’s Supper and
both actions receive their significance from the cross (see Romans 6:3-5 and 1
Cor. 11:24-26). Such statements make me
wonder just how much these people actually know about the Bible. Must a person make “the sign of the cross” in
order to understand the significance of the death of Christ? Again, is this not a sign of Catholic
influence by the authors?
Some Final Notes
On the Factor, 11-19-2013. E-mail by Beth Hodge of Kingman, IN. “Bill, you think that calling Killing Jesus a
history book you can be excused for disputing the Bible. That is the ultimate history book.” Bill responds: “No, it is not, Beth. The Bible is a theological book and I don’t
dispute anything. I simply report what
actually happened to Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
That’s all I’m doing.” Yes,
Bill, we know what you are doing. You
are calling your book the ultimate history book about killing Jesus, as opposed
to the Bible which is merely theological.
No, Bill, you don’t dispute anything.
You have the facts. Period. That ends all disputes.
On the Factor, 11-20-2013. One person e-mailed to O’Reilly saying that he,
O’Reilly, was showing disrespect for the Bible.
He responded angrily and said that “She was the one showing disrespect for the Bible by
falsely accusing him of showing disrespect.”
Wow, Bill, you really told off that person for daring to disagree with
what you wrote. Then O’Reilly proceeded
to read e-mails highly commending what he wrote. Some
even wrote that they cried when they read the book. That is a normal response for crucifixion is
an awful ordeal.
After watching O’Reilly respond to some of those who dare
criticize his book, he is doing his cause no good. No one promotes O’Reilly more than O’Reilly
himself. His responses to criticism show
a high level of egotism. He might just
consider the fact that the Bible is a collection of books, both theological and
historical. I actually like the
accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John better, even though O’Reilly considers
these writings to be flawed and contradictory.
In spite of all I have written in this short review, my
overall opinion of the book is positive, as long as one reads it with a big grain
of salt. If it encourages people to read
the true account of killing Jesus in the gospels, then so much the better.
What I would truly love to see would be a real debate
between Bill O’Reilly and some capable Bible defender, and there are many, with
moderators (which would keep some of the bullying down) and the real rules of honest
debate followed. This would differ
considerably from the controlled environment of The Factor. I would center the proposition around the
nature of the Bible. I think that I would
even pay to see that. --- Lindy McDaniel, December, 2013
***
The photo at the beginning of this article was taken at
the Dallas Arboretum. This is a reminder
of the fall and Thanksgiving. Nancy and
I enjoyed Thanksgiving Day in our home along with my daughter Kathi and her
family as well as my brother Kerry Don and his family. We also had others who joined us. We had a great time together. We did a lot of visiting, eating, watching
the Dallas Cowboys and playing Texas “42”, just like all normal Texans. I take this time to wish everyone God’s
richest blessings over the holidays.
Our e-mail list continues to increase. If you know others who would like to receive
copies of these articles attached to e-mail, send e-mail address to lindymcdaniel77@Reagan.com. I welcome your comments and questions
regarding anything that I write.
0 comments:
Post a Comment