Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Thursday, June 9, 2022
The historic development of language and communication prepared the way for the birth of Jesus. God orchestrated this timing, along with the development of roads, postal services and a 200-year period peace within the Roman Empire (known as the Pax Romana) to prepare the world for the arrival of Jesus.

It sometimes seems like an inevitability, doesn’t it? Every Christian holiday season, another skeptical article or news story attacking the deity of Jesus or the historicity of the holiday. While some may still doubt what they read about the birth or resurrection of Jesus, the authors of the New Testament were certain: Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a blameless life, was unfairly executed, and then rose from the grave to prove His deity. In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote that God planned the appearance of Jesus perfectly:
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters. (Galatians 4:4-5 NASB)
But how, precisely, had God arranged time and history to prepare for the arrival of Jesus? What did Paul mean when he wrote that Jesus arrived in the “fullness of time”?
As a thirty-five-year-old homicide detective and skeptic, I also wondered why God – if He really existed – would reveal himself two thousand years ago. Why not come in this generation, given our ability to communicate truth claims on the internet? I began an investigation of the historic “fuse” leading up to the explosive appearance of Jesus.
While it’s true that the internet provides an excellent means by which to communicate claims about Jesus, there’s a much older approach that can be just as effective. Books and manuscripts are excellent messaging tools. They’re inexpensive, portable, easy to produce, and require little in terms of technology. But like much of the information we find on the internet, even the oldest books and documents are dependent on a historic invention: writing.
The first and most ancient forms of writing (dating back to around 3500 BC) are now called pictographs (or proto-cuneiform). Symbols representing objects were pressed into wet clay with primitive writing tools. When dried, these clay tablets were used to retell events and to serve as trading documents between merchants. But pictographs were limited. They could describe only simple topics easily communicated with visual symbols.
Had Jesus arrived at this point in history (prior to 3500 BC), complex concepts involving His nature and teaching would have been impossible to communicate in writing. Worse yet, the tablets would have been incredibly fragile, given the nature of clay.

Related Posts:

That they who desire our denomination to be diverse in its practices – that is, to be a so-called ‘big tent’ and nationwide church – ought to take heed, for this exulting in practical diversity lends itself quite easily to a spirit which regards a broad church as being more important than a doctrinally sound one. History everywhere attests that such a latitudinarian disposition ill serves denominations of all stripes, and that union among those with different doctrines or practices – as between the Old and New Schools, or of the northern church after its union with the Cumberland Presbyterians in the early 1900s – stirs up all manner of difficulty and frequently leads to doctrinal decline.

[Read Part Part One, Part Two, and Part Three]

That a group of elders meeting in organized fashion to discuss or decide upon the affairs of the church or of some part thereof may be rightly termed a presbytery.
That the National Partnership, as it meets the criteria above, may be fairly termed a presbytery.
That presbyteries should be formally organized and should operate according to normal prescribed processes, as provided for by the constitution of the church.
That the normal affairs of presbyteries should be reasonably public and open, and that secrecy should be used only in cases of true need, as for example to protect the privacy of individuals involved in ministry in hostile nations, or in the early stages of discipline.
That irregular presbyterial operations, such as the use of secrecy when it is not needed, are out of accord with the practice of good church government.
That internal factions undermine the good order, unity, and peace of the church and confound its operations by leading men to form strong opinions on various issues prior to and apart from discussions upon them at stated meetings conducted for that purpose. What is meant to be done by the church in her courts is instead done by sundry factions behind the scenes, the courts being then not occasions for deliberation but rather occasions to act out what has already been decided.
That secretive formal or de facto factions within the denomination among her ministers and members were not intended by the founders of the church, and are not provided for by its constitution.
That the constitution not providing for such factions ought to call into question their validity and propriety, and that some such groups, if not formally unlawful, are yet contrary to the spirit and right practice of presbyterian polity, and threaten to undermine or corrupt it.
That needless secrecy in political organization cannot be defended in the Christian church, unless it be to avoid grave persecution by hostile governments or by others who would afflict God’s people. The avoidance of slander or unpopular controversy alone is not reason enough to act clandestinely, for the sufferance of such things is a part of the Christian life, and because there are means available to redress such sin if one is assailed by it.
That the publication of anonymous manifestos or open letters is out of accord with the conspicuous and forthcoming honesty that ought to characterize ministers of the gospel and other leaders in the church.
That the use of unnecessary anonymity bespeaks a spirit of cowardice or mischief and ill intentions – for why should a man hide his identity from his brethren if his words be true?
That the use of anonymity breeds distrust and suspicion and destroys all credibility as regards a letter’s claims or as regards the personal character of its author if he is discovered.
That the use of anonymity insults the audience, for it intimates that they are so unfair in judgment that they cannot be trusted to know an author’s name. It further denies them the opportunity of a personal response; for to whom does one address a response to an anonymous letter?
That the use of anonymity and secrecy, as they have recently been used by some in the denomination, is indefensible and suggests a poor character for those involved, and a probable unfitness for office.
That any right to secrecy in political organization in the Presbyterian Church in America is forfeit owing to the fact that the denomination from which we separated, the former Presbyterian Church in the United States, is believed to have been hastened in its doctrinal decline by the politicking of the clandestine “Fellowship of Saint James.”
That those who hide their machinations can little object if others, feeling suspicious because of their secrecy, are moved by an understandable concern to disregard their imagined right to privacy in such matters and to avail themselves of their secrets when they are brought to the light.
That they who accuse others of bad faith and ‘toxicity’ for prying into their secrets ought to consider that they should have no such secrets into which to pry, and that it was their own bad faith in clandestinely organizing that provoked such behavior in others. He who acts dishonorably has but little ground for complaint if others do likewise.
That such secrecy may be interpreted as involving its participants in undermining the peace and purity of the church, and that the denomination would be within its rights and the dictates of prudence to legislate against it going forward, and to punish judicially those that are involved in it.
That the National Partnership meets the foregoing description and owes it to the church either to disband, or else to at least forgo its secrecy and to do as honor and honesty demand and come forth into the public eye as an open organization.
That those organizations and groups which have a formal, public character must take great heed lest they fall and become mere political factions whose efforts are wholly taken up with questions of intradenominational politics.
That this, which applies to such groups, applies also to the individuals associated therewith. Many a man has ruined his effectiveness as a minister by giving too much of his effort to polemics.
That the slowness by which the courts of the church operate is neither just nor wise, and is a disservice to all parties involved. He who would remove leaven from a lump must move quickly, else the possibility of doing so is lost. For the church to move as slowly as it has hithertofore done is to yield the momentum to wrongdoing, which has much occasion to multiply itself while awaiting the adjudication of cases involving it.
That the slowness and ineffectiveness of our courts demoralizes the pious, who see in the advance of wickedness and the weakness of all official responses to it the certain triumph of such wrongdoing.
That the apparent slowness wherewith God often moves in judging wickedness provides no warrant for the church to move with equal slowness. For God is longsuffering and patient, and he has his purposes which are often hidden from us or that are best accomplished by forbearing the prevalence of wickedness for a time. The judgments of God’s people are often quick (Ex. 32:25-28, Nov. 25:6-8, 2 Sam. 4:11), a principle that the Presbyterian Church in America ought to embody as well, lest she be found to be guilty of sloth and a lack of the commanded zeal for holiness.
That no one has any right to office, office existing rather for the benefit of those who are served than for that of those who would hold it (Mk. 10:42-45).
That many yet act as though there is a right to office, and that any qualifications respecting it are an infringement upon their rights, not least their rights of conscience.
That those who elevate their own rights above the rights of the church, whether as a whole or in its sundry presbyteries, proceed from a principle that is contrary to the heritage of the Reformed churches and which owes its character to other, more radical Protestant traditions, and to the values of contemporary American society at large.
That the standard of ordination is not the practice of other denominations, least of all those that are looser in doctrine or broader in practice than ourselves. Many men of great talent and just character are yet not eligible for ordination in the Presbyterian Church in America because of their incomplete adherence to our doctrinal standards, or for other reasons determined by the presbyteries.
That the freedom of the conscience applies to those things which are either contrary to Scripture (as some of the practices of Rome), or else ungoverned by it (Book of Church Order, Preliminary Principle 1).
That the individual’s conscience is not free in those matters – as questions of vital doctrine or gravely consequential practice – in which God has endowed his church with ministerial power or with the power to govern itself. No man may teach whatever he deems right and expect for it to have the approval of the church, for it is the essence of church government that it exists to provide good order and to suppress the teaching of that which tends to cause confusion or disorder.
That presbyteries may sometimes exercise this power to forbid the teaching of that which is not obviously false, if it is thought that such teaching would have an ill effect upon the church. For not all truths are equally profitable, and the manner in which they are taught matters greatly.
That they who desire our denomination to be diverse in its practices – that is, to be a so-called ‘big tent’ and nationwide church – ought to take heed, for this exulting in practical diversity lends itself quite easily to a spirit which regards a broad church as being more important than a doctrinally sound one. History everywhere attests that such a latitudinarian disposition ill serves denominations of all stripes, and that union among those with different doctrines or practices – as between the Old and New Schools, or of the northern church after its union with the Cumberland Presbyterians in the early 1900s – stirs up all manner of difficulty and frequently leads to doctrinal decline.
That the bluntness of speech of these theses, and of other dissenting opinions, is not motivated by hatred.
That these theses are not intended to offend anyone, but are offered as a humble and sincere reproof. For both Scripture and common human experience teach that flatterers are vile and that it is a kindness to speak frankly with one who has erred. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

If the workers obediently cast their nets into the deep Christ’s way then those drawn into the net will be genuine because they are effectually called by God Himself. When He saves someone, it is always genuine for it is not simply a human decision, but it is the result of the washing of regeneration and belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. These are justified by God’s grace through the faith given to them by Him.

4 When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” Luke 5:4 (NASB)
The builder and sustainer of the Church, the Body of Christ, is the Lord Jesus not any man (Matthew 16:18). The building of the true Church is accomplished as God works through the foolishness of preaching to draw people from the darkness into the light and life that is found in Christ alone. It is built up in Christ through the means of grace, which are ordained by God not men. While we see that it is God who actually is doing the building, He has chosen to work through His servants to accomplish that which will bring Him glory. These servants that He uses as fishers of men are symbolically like the fishermen in their boats on the Sea of Galilee who cast their nets to catch fish to sell as their business. Let us make some comparisons. 
1 Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret; 2 and He saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake; but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets. 3 And He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the land. And He sat down and began teaching the people from the boat. 4 When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” 5 Simon answered and said, “Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will do as You say and let down the nets.” 6 When they had done this, they enclosed a great quantity of fish, and their nets began to break; 7 so they signaled to their partners in the other boat for them to come and help them. And they came and filled both of the boats, so that they began to sink. Luke 5:1-7 (NASB) 
This event happened immediately prior to our Lord calling His first disciples. Notice that without our Lord being with Peter, James and John they toiled all night and caught nothing. However, our Lord got in the boat, taught the people and told Peter, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” The difference this time was that this is a divine command, although Peter does not know it. The partners who had to come and help drag the great catch to shore were the brothers James and John. I don’t often like to make these sorts of analogies from Scripture for I have heard so many that are man-made things that some take and overuse to the deception of many. However, in this case, we are looking at something our Lord used to teach these men the truth about God and how He uses His servants to do His will in the preaching of the Gospel and the building of His Church.
If we compare the mindset of many Christians, they believe that it is their efforts, their ideas, their inovations that when added to preaching the gospel (if it even includes it) that will cause numbers to go up and that many will be added to the Kingdom because of their efforts. From this analogy, however, we learn that a true catch, the saving of many souls is always the work of God as He labors through His obedient servants. If He is not present then the fruit will not be genuine. If our Lord is not part of an evangelical push then it can only accomplish what men can do. Some may ‘decide for Jesus’ as the result of the entertainment or the glitz or the personality of the preacher, but is it genuine? No, it is as these fishermen laboring all night and catching nothing. However, if the workers obediently cast their nets into the deep Christ’s way then those drawn into the net will be genuine because they are effectually called by God Himself. When He saves someone, it is always genuine for it is not simply a human decision, but it is the result of the washing of regeneration and belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. These are justified by God’s grace through the faith given to them by Him. Numbers may or may not be large, but these who are effectually called and drawn by God are the real deal. The “catch” is miraculous for it is God’s work not man’s.
Read More