Of all the sixty-six books in the Bible, I believe Paul in Romans gives the clearest explanation as to why Jesus died. First of all he recognizes the truth of God’s warning in the Garden of Eden. In Romans 6:23, Paul agrees with the record in Genesis: “Sin pays its servants: the wage is death” (Phillips). But the natural connection between sin and death is not the only charge leveled against God. We also recall Satan’s charge that God had lied about His concern for human good. Look at Genesis 3:4-5: “But the serpent said to the woman, `You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it [the Tree of Knowledge] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God'” (RSV). Notice the additional charge that God is selfishly withholding something that would be for their best good.

Now who is telling us the truth? God, or the great former lightbearer, Lucifer? How do you determine who is telling the truth? Did God gather His family together and say, “I am telling the truth, the Devil is lying!” Which would only encourage the Devil to say, “No, I am telling the truth. God is lying.” As we have emphasized so much, matters like this cannot be settled by claims or denials. God’s way was to take His case into court. Look at the marvelous words of Romans 3:4: “That you may be shown to be right in what you say, and win your case when you go into court.” (Goodspeed)

Now the Bible often speaks of such councils of the heavenly family. And if you wonder how many attend such meetings, look in the book of Daniel where it says a hundred million beings are present as the court meets. The heavenly council is also described in the first two chapters of Job. There we have a powerful example of how God resolves questions, particularly when the charges of Satan are leveled against Him and His friends before the heavenly court. In the council scene of Job, Satan accuses God of manipulating Job’s faithfulness, and he accuses Job of being unworthy of God’s trust. Did God say on that occasion, “That’s a lie Satan; this man is perfect!” No, instead He said, “You’ve raised a serious question. The only way to answer it is to show you.”

We find that demonstration in the rest of the book of Job. Did Job show himself to be a trustworthy friend of God? Did he trust God because he was being richly rewarded or did he still trust God in the face of seeming abandonment? The book ends with God saying, “Thank you, Job, you’ve said of Me what is right” (based on Job 42:7). Job was God’s friend all the way through and God could then turn to the heavenly court and say, “Do you need any more evidence about the falsity of Satan’s charges and the trustworthiness of my friend Job?”

This is God’s way. God Himself has been accused. But He does not merely deny the accusation. He says: “Let Me show you, My children. Let Me show you the falsity of these accusations and the truth about Myself, and you decide.” Imagine the humility of the Infinite One submitting His character and government to the scrutiny and investigation of mere creatures. But that’s God’s way, and it is the only way to really establish love and trust while maintaining the fullest sense of freedom.

Lou: I want to shift gears just a little bit. Here is a question that arises, perhaps, out of a bit of frustration: “If scholars and theologians still disagree about God, what chance do I have to figure all this out?”
Graham: Yes. I’d tell this person to read the gospels again. They’re not that complicated. I think theologians have made it complicated. It impresses me that “the common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37). I think we’re the ones that have made the Bible appear to be difficult.

Lou: I once received letters from an individual who talked about the impression of the Holy Spirit, about how the Spirit came on him and he wrote and wrote. That leads me to a question that someone else has raised: “If I pray for the Holy Spirit to guide and then I have this deep conviction, isn’t that enough?”
Graham: It might seem to be. Fortunately the Bible warns us about that and offers some safeguards. This warm feeling of conviction within could come from prejudice, it could come from indigestion, it could come from all kinds of things. The Spirit will not lead you away from what He has already inspired. So we should always judge the work of the Holy Spirit by the revelations He has previously inspired.

Lou: But what difference does it make what kind of Person I believe God to be? What does it matter as long as I submit to His authority? Why not just say, “God has said it; I believe it; that’s it.”
Graham: Well, that reminds me of what we said about Saul of Tarsus. The conception of God that Saul had drove the way he did evangelism before his experience on the Damascus road. In God’s name he imprisoned people and he had them stoned to death. But when he got the true picture of God so dramatically, Saul proceeded from the thunders of Sinai to the still, small voice at the mouth of the cave in a few minutes. He really grew up in a hurry. His new picture of God changed his whole approach to evangelism.
Lou: So you’re saying that one’s picture of God inevitably affects everything.
Graham: Everything: the way we worship, the way we witness to others, the way we behave.

Lou: Someone has written this: “Our Great Dane is gentle, faithful, patient, trusting, of lovely disposition. What does this dog’s wonderful quality of character say about the human lack of achievements along these lines?”
Graham: Oh, I rather like that question. I think we can learn a lot from nature. Even the posture of a Great Dane is magnificent compared to our slouching! There are so many ways in which the animals are an example to us. But when it comes to faithfulness, think of a dog that weighs more than most of us, having enormous strength, yet being safe to have around in the house all the time! I think it’s wonderful that mere creatures can show these wonderful qualities, and I think it speaks well of God.

Lou: A final question: “Why did Jesus have to die? Wasn’t God’s mercy sufficient by itself?” Isn’t that the topic of chapter eight?
Graham: The answer to that question is really the climax of everything. Everything points to the cross. And fortunately, that’s where all Christians agree. We may have many different theological opinions, but almost all Christians agree we ought to go to the foot of the cross. We ought to watch the way Jesus died. We ought to listen to His cry and ask the question, “Is death the result of sin? Is it torture and execution at the hands of our gracious God?”
Lou: No one should overlook the next chapter.

Lou: You spoke of the charge that God is arbitrary, harsh, severe and so forth. The question has come in, “If you’re talking about arbitrary, isn’t something like the fourth Commandment arbitrary?”
Graham: Well, it is often so described and it is felt to make a beautiful test of our obedience. But if that is all the Sabbath is, it won’t be much of a blessing. Jesus said, “I gave it to you as a gift; you weren’t made for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The best answer for every question, in my book, is to go back to Genesis and read all sixty-six. If you start with Genesis and read through, you will find all the meanings of the Sabbath. The Sabbath reminds us of all that was revealed about God during Creation Week, the message of freedom, and how He shares His creative power with us (Exod 20:11). And then it was given to remind us of the Exodus (Deut 5:15), another monument to freedom. The Sabbath also came after crucifixion day. So the Sabbath reminds us of all the answers given on crucifixion Friday (Luke 23:54-56). And then Hebrews says the Sabbath is a type of the rest to come (Heb 4:9-11). I don’t know of any commandment that has more reasons. Therefore I will not call it arbitrary. That idea comes from “here a little and there a little,” you see. When we take the Bible as a whole, God has never asked us to do anything arbitrary. The Sabbath command is actually the most meaningful and significant of the ten.

Lou: All right. Maybe the fourth does have a great deal of meaning if you look at the whole record, all sixty-six books. But what about the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other Gods?” That sounds a little peevish, wanting to be the only one.
Graham: Yes. How about number one and also number two? “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, and I am a jealous God. I don’t like it when you have other gods.” (based on Exod 20:3-6). Well again, if you take the whole Bible and you are convinced of the kind of person God is, I am glad He says what He does. If He were not in support of freedom and the quality of life that He has revealed, then it would be arbitrary of Him to be the only one. But God says, “Being the kind of God I am, wishing nothing but the best for you, and valuing nothing more than your freedom, I don’t want you to go after Dagon or Molech. Molech would require your babies to be burned alive in his hollow hands. And there are those crocodile and frog gods in Egypt. And also Ashtoreth and Baal–don’t go after them. In fact, if you go after something abominable, you will become abominable yourself. But if you make Me your God, you will become ever more free, and ever more intelligent. So don’t hurt yourself.”

Lou: You’re saying it’s a request, a plea. It is said out of love.
Graham: Right. But that only makes sense if God is not arbitrary, if He is the kind of Person we believe Him to be. He is really saying, “Don’t lose your freedom and every other good thing you have by going after these degraded deities. Stay with Me. When I say that I am jealous; I mean that I am jealous for you. I don’t want you to be hurt.” I like that.

Lou: We would not want our children to have anything that would hurt them.
Graham: Isn’t that kind of jealousy all right? I always felt my parents were jealous for my reputation. I derived great comfort from that. My mother wouldn’t tell on me for anything. And so we have a God who is jealous for His children, and that’s marvelous.

Lou: What about the raising of Lazarus? He was dead for four days! Wasn’t that outstanding evidence of Jesus’ authority? Wouldn’t you believe just on the basis of that performance?

Graham: We call that His crowning miracle, don’t we? And yet it’s significant that Elijah had resurrected the dead before (1 Kings 17:17-24). So even that was certainly not unique. What matters, I think, is the total situation within which Jesus did that. For example, He had just been crying a short while before (John 11:35). And they said, “Behold, how He loved him” (John 11:36). Actually, the very gentleness of Jesus was the kind of thing that disappointed many of His followers. But then moments later He demonstrated that He could resurrect the dead. And the theologians knew exactly what this implied. That’s why it says, “From then on, they plotted to murder Him” (John 11:53). They realized that step by step He was demonstrating beyond question that He was not only infinitely powerful but equally gracious, the One who fitted the Old Testament description.

More than that, He had the wisdom to wait until the fourth day and they must have realized it. Likely they had questioned His resurrection of Jairus’ daughter before (Mark 5:22, 35-43; Luke 8:41-42, 49-56). And so this time He waited until the fourth day, because some of them believed that the spirit hovered nearby for three days after death, in case of resuscitation. For this reason, He waited until the fourth day, until the most skeptical person in His audience would admit that Lazarus was really dead. And then, when He said “Roll away the stone,” He wanted to hear them say, “Don’t roll it away, he stinks” (John 11:39). Because then they would all admit that he really was dead. “Now,” He said, “come forth” (John 11:43-44). They had no answer for that. And when you’ve run out of evidence, you turn to violence. And they tried to kill Him.

Lou: So the raising of Lazarus did not serve to convince them, it actually turned them against Him all the more. In fact, it sealed His doom.

Graham: Yes. But to some of us, the idea that God could one minute be crying and the next minute resurrecting the dead; that sounds good.

Lou: So the chief priests went about to even plot Lazarus’ death (John 12:9-11).

Graham: That’s right; to get rid of the evidence. Lazarus was going around explaining his death and resurrection. They didn’t like that testimony.

Lou: One more incident out of the Old Testament, the story of Elisha and the young men that came out and ridiculed him, after which they were attacked by two “she bears” (2 Kings 2:23-24). Once again, that looks like a pretty spectacular show.
Graham: The first thing we need to do is establish the irreverence of the day. You read back a little further, and the king of Israel was consulting Beelzebub, the god of flies (2 Kings 1:16). Moreover, these boys knew that Elijah had been translated to heaven. Yet they were so unimpressed that when Elisha came by, evidently a little short of hair, they said, “Hey baldy, why don’t you go up too?” The irreverence in Israel was so serious that God almost lost contact with His people there. But he didn’t send a flood this time, instead He sent two she-bears. Word of this went out among the Israelites, and reverence picked up—but so did fear. It is very difficult for God to relieve us of our fear and still maintain our reverence and respect. That’s a most delicate thing to accomplish.

Lou: All right, you’ve covered a number of God’s spectacular interventions in the Old Testament, but what about Jesus’ public ministry in the New Testament? When he turned water into wine at the wedding of Cana, didn’t that catch a lot of attention? Wasn’t that a use of miracles to establish authority?
Graham: Such methods do have some usefulness at the beginning. I wouldn’t deny Jesus the right to use whatever method He wishes to get attention. But what counts is the way the miracle is conducted and what follows after the miracle. After the miracle got their attention, they observed and tested Him. As a result, some rejected Him and some accepted Him.
Actually, turning water into wine is not that unusual in the Bible. Do you remember how Moses turned bitter water sweet in the wilderness (Exod 15:23-25)? And didn’t Elisha do something similar (2 Kings 2:19-22)? That’s not so remarkable. To me what’s more remarkable is that Jesus was attending a wedding, and He wanted it to be happy. He was very pleased to be there and to help them. He is the One who thought up marriage in the first place. I love it that His first miracle was at a wedding.

Lou: What about the feeding of the five thousand or the feeding of the four thousand a little bit later? Actually, the story about feeding the five thousand is recorded in all four of the Gospels (Matt 14:21; Mark 6:44; Luke 9:14; John 6:10). So it certainly made a powerful impact on the gospel writers and on the people. On one occasion, at least, weren’t they ready to crown Him King afterward (John 6:15)?
Graham: That’s right! Now this illustrates the point superbly. Jesus realized that huge crowds were following Him for the miracles, and that’s all. So right after these miracles He told them something very serious, “Unless you really accept Me and My teachings you will not be saved” (based on John 6:50-63). And they all left Him. All they wanted was free food and free healing.
Then He turned to the twelve and said, “Do you also wish to go?” John 6:67, RSV. In the Greek there is a way of asking a question that includes the answer within the question, yes or no. So the way it’s worded in the Greek Jesus said, “You don’t want to go too, do you?” And they said, “No; to whom else should we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). They weren’t entirely convinced; there was so much they didn’t understand. But at least they chose to stay. Jesus must have wondered at that point whether it had been worth coming to earth. Only when He performed miracles did He get a crowd, and He did not wish to get a crowd that way. Doesn’t it say something though, that when He won a following by miracles, He turned them away. Miracles are no basis for authority.

Lou: But what about some other instances in the Old Testament where God uses force? Let’s go back to Mount Carmel and Elijah. What about the fire that comes down, burns up the sacrifice and even the stones, and licks up the water in the trench. That’s pretty dramatic.
Graham: Now that’s a classic case because it’s so dramatic, the fire consuming everything. I remember as a boy thinking of the stones burning and the water being lapped up. It’s significant, though, that when all the excitement dies down, Elijah himself is depressed. The impact of dramatic events doesn’t last long, it doesn’t have staying power. And so Elijah ran away and hid in a cave. Then his spirits rose again when he felt the earthquake, and he heard the wind, and he saw the fire, and he thought God was approaching. So it’s very significant that the Bible says God was not in the wind, He was not in the earthquake, and He was not in the fire. After these things came the sound of a small silence, “the still small voice.” And Elijah was informed that that was the sound of God approaching. God is willing to use dramatic means when the circumstances call for it. But when He has a friend, there is no more wind, earthquake, and fire. Just the still, small voice of truth. And I’m impressed that soon after that Elijah was ready to be translated to heaven.

Lou: Does that same principle provide answers for some of the other stories that people have raised questions about?
Graham: There are stories like that seemingly without number. If this picture didn’t fit consistently, I wouldn’t find it very believable.
Lou: Well, what about the plagues of Egypt then? Think of the tension there! Isn’t judgment involved?
Graham: Yes, among other things. When God speak or acts He is usually saying several things at once with great skill. The Israelites themselves were tempted not to trust God, because in those days you measured your god by success on the battlefield or by personal and national prosperity. What kind of a God would be the God of a people in captivity? Meanwhile, the Egyptians thought their gods were stronger, because they had tyrannized the Israelites and their God. So the plagues came. Certainly it encouraged the Israelites to believe that maybe God could do something for them after all. As for the Egyptians, many of the plagues were directed toward their deities. So Exodus itself says that God was judging the gods of Egypt (Exod 12:12). Through the plagues He was demonstrating the weakness of the gods there. So God encouraged the beginning of Israel’s trust with a show of power. We often need to be convinced that He’s infinitely powerful before we will be willing to listen to him and follow Him, even when He speaks in a still, small voice. But why does God take so long to move from the thunder to the silence? Because some people prefer thunder all their lives.

In the original lecture series done in 1984 at the Loma Linda University Church, Graham Maxwell spoke for about a half hour each Friday night following by written questions and answers from Lou Venden and also from the audience. The next several posts contain questions and answers from the seventh presentation, “The Question of Authority.”

Lou: Earlier you mentioned how God’s response to the great controversy was not a great show of power or force; you said He took His case into court. I wonder if you might explain just a bit more what you meant by the word “court.”
Graham: It is an absolutely magnificent verse in Romans 3:4. Sometimes it’s translated “You [God] must be shown to be right when you speak; you must win your case when you are being tried” (TEV). And the verse is so crucial in understanding why Jesus had to die, that in the next chapter we will look at that verse in a number of versions. Now I deliberately chose the translation that I used. The closest to the meaning of the verse is the translation by Goodspeed, although I modify that slightly. “God, may You win Your case when You take it into court” just rings a bell with me; it fits there. What court is this? It is the court of the universe.
Lou: Oh, that does answer what I was wondering. By “court” you mean the entire universe. Could we say that we are included in that court, too?
Graham: Very much. And I would want to use many passages in Scripture that speak of God taking His case into court. Look at the gathering in Daniel seven, when a hundred million angels are watching. Or in Job 1 and 2, where God conducts a conversation with the adversary about God’s friend, Job. There are many references to this in Scripture.

Lou: Our subject tonight raises many questions that have come up in the past, and I would like to press some of these questions. You talk about God establishing the authority of truth and trust and love, but didn’t God, in fact, use force and power? Isn’t the Old Testament record filled with incidents that would support the idea that God was putting on a show to intimidate us?
Graham: There’s no question! That’s what always astounds people who have never read the sixty-six books through before. Innumerable times God is pictured as showing His physical force and power. I don’t think He ever did it to win anybody. In fact, I don’t think He ever won anybody that way. He often did it simply to get their attention. Or at the time of the Flood, He did it in order to maintain His contact with the human race. But if it puzzles us, how it must delight the adversary to have this information to use! I think the devil is puzzled that God would hand him so much evidence in support of his accusations.

Lou: Let’s look at a specific instance. Here is Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus, and you’ve already referred to how Saul misunderstood Jesus. But here he is on the way. And Acts says that a great light flashed from Heaven and he fell to the ground. That’s a very impressive use of force or power. Didn’t it win Saul?
Graham: No, it just floored him. But it got his attention. And I would judge, with a man like Saul, nothing less would have gotten his attention, as he was quite a firebrand. Now already he was quite tormented within because of the behavior of Stephen. When Stephen said, “Lay this not to their charge,” he must have remembered the report that when that Heretic died on the cross, He said, “Father, forgive them.” And Saul knew his Old Testament well; he knew that this was ideal, godlike behaviour.
In order to stifle the prickings of his conscience, he went out to conduct another “evangelistic” effort. So God floored him on the Damascus road, and got his attention. But then notice what God did once he had his attention. He just said, “Saul, you’re having trouble with your conscience, aren’t you?”
And Saul said, “Yes, I really am.”
“Then why don’t you give in?”
“I give in. What do You want me to do?”
And Christ didn’t say, “I want you to do the following, and be sure you do it or else.” No, the Lord said, “Your way is to overwhelm people. Mine is for you to go and talk to Ananias, one of your peers. That’s all I’m going to say.” And from then on, Saul/Paul never pressured anybody. He said, “If you disagree with me, well—let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom 14:5).
Before the incident on the Damascus road, Paul put Christians in prison or had them stoned. Afterward he realized that persuasion can only really come when in the highest sense of freedom you yourself become convinced; and he adopted that method. Now he truly knew God. He didn’t change his diet, his Sabbath, his dress, his Bible, or even the name of his God. He changed his picture of God. But he wouldn’t have done it if God had not hit him with a two-by-four on the Damascus road.
Lou: So the show of force on the Damascus road was to get Saul’s attention. It fulfilled a function.
Graham: Well, we know from experience with children, you sometimes have to do this.