The Christadelphian 1875 65-71

THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
THE Jewish Chronicle of Jan. 8th, makes the following excellent remarks in connection with the Montefiore scheme for the agricultural development of Palestine: “It is true that we have long ceased to dwell in it in any considerable numbers. Our independence as a people exists no longer. We have, like other races, cast our lot with the nations whither our sires were long ago scattered, and to which in effect we belong. And yet, unlike other races exiled from their original territory, we have preserved a distinctive embodiment. We have not become absorbed with other races. We present to the world and to history the singular and unprecedented spectacle of a people fulfilling patriotically every duty of citizenship in the land of our birth, fused with our countrymen in every service and duty of the State, and yet preserving a certain idiosyncrasy so pronounced, that if the banner of the millennium were raised, and the trumpet of Messianic redemption sounded, our people, be they Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, Persians, Tunisians or Chinese, would gather together to resume the nationality which one day will surely be restored.
What other race in the world presents this remarkable ethnological and physiological characteristic—a characteristic which is quite an anomaly and almost a paradox? . . Firmly believing as we Jews do in the unassailable truth of the Scriptures, we do not need the evidence of unearthed monuments, or of disinterred inscriptions to attest a truth which stands high on a rock beyond the reach of human evidence, and fenced by faith in an immortal revelation. We need no stone, no brass, no structure, to prove a truth of which the existence of ourselves, the Jews, is an unfailing living testimony. We are the witnesses of the past—the living, breathing, animated, visible witnesses, even though the dead witnesses be deeply buried beneath the surface soil of modern cities and untilled fields.”
Alleged Error in Matthew’s Genealogy
A letter, signed by “A Christian,” appears in the Rock, in which the writer remarks that the seeming error in the genealogy of Christ is easily accounted for, although it is one which has puzzled many Biblical scholars. It is recorded in the 17th verse of the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, “So all the generations from Abraham to David, until the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations,” thus making forty-two generations in all.
A faithful transcript of the generations enumerated in the modern or common version of the New Testament, shows that there are only forty-one generations. On, however, comparing the 11th verse of the first chapter of Matthew in the modern version with that of an old version (Beza’s edition), the reader will find the missing generation accounted for:—
NEW VERSION.
“And Josias begat Jechonias,”
OLD VERSION.
“And Josias begat Jakim; and Jakim begat Jechonias,”
Jakim, therefore, fails to be added to the genealogy in the modern version which will complete the forty-two generations mentioned in verse 17.
Jesus an Historic Reality
A book has just been published by Dr. Beke (recently deceased), entitled Jesus, the Messiah, intended as an answer to a hostile work recently issued under the name of Supernatural Religion. The Evening Standard, reviewing Dr. Beke’s work, says, “Dr. Beke’s opinions derive weight not merely from his extensive erudition, but from his independent standpoint. He speaks and thinks for himself, repudiating as he does all allegiance to any special section of the Christian Church. His motto evidently is that of Horace, ‘Nullius addictus jurare in verba majestri.’ We are therefore prepared for some startling statements in the volume before us, notwithstanding its abounding merits, when we read in the preface Dr. Beke’s confession of faith—
‘That the doctrines of the Christian (‘Ecclesiastical’ Christianity) are not those of the apostles and early disciples of our Lord Jesus—the Old Christians or Messianites—is every day becoming more evident; but to assert on this account that Christianity is not a Divine revelation, and thereby to reduce our Lord to the rank of a mere teacher of human morality, however pure, is virtually to deny the power of the Creator and Ruler of the universe to interfere with His creatures, and to subject Him to the same laws that govern them; thus making the Supreme Being to be nothing more than an immutable component part of an infinite perpetual motion. The objections raised to the personal history of our Lord Jesus, on account of its ‘miraculous’ character, will hardly be extended to the history of his countrymen, the Jews, of whom, as of the Gentiles, that is to say all the nations of the earth, he is the Messiah, Christ, or Anointed King.’
The chapter devoted to the sources of the history of Jesus is an able and exhaustive vindication of the historical current account of what Jesus Christ did and said, as recorded in the gospels. For this purpose, Dr. Beke adduces the evidence of three almost contemporary heathen writers—Suetonius, Tacitus, and the elder Pliny—and of those epistles of Paul (to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians) which have been admitted as contemporary and genuine documents, even by the most adverse critics of the Christian faith. Dr. Beke meets the difficulty that no contemporaneous Jewish writer has mentioned the name of Jesus. . . . Deliberate suppression of the name is the only reasonable solution of the problem of their silence, and there is evidently the strongest possible presumptive proof, not only of his personal historical existence, for on the best of grounds has it become a maxim of law, that the suppression of evidence, like the destruction or mutilation of any written document, affords presumption that there was an interested motive at work for preventing the truth from being made manifest. Now the fact that the crucifixion of the Messiah Jesus was felt by the heads of the nation to be a national sin and disgrace, would have been an adequate, and more than an adequate, motive for the suppression of this fact, and with it the existence of Jesus himself. Dean Milman, when noticing the remarkable circumstance, that the Jewish historian, Josephus, suppresses the whole incident of the golden calf made by Aaron at Mount Sinai, as recorded in Exodus, observes that ‘Josephus, jealous of the national honour, omits the whole scene.’ May we not infer that the same feeling of jealousy for the national honour prompted the Jewish chroniclers to suppress in like manner the history of Jesus Christ?
‘We have among ourselves a similar instance of the suppression of an historical fact, on account of its having been looked on as a national disgrace, in the treatment to which the Protector Oliver Cromwell has been subjected. Although independent historians could not be prevented from making mention of him both personally and in connection with the nation which during eleven years he governed not ingloriously (just as the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus bore testimony to the existence of our Lord Jesus), still officially, that is to say, in the annals of the legislature of the realm, the Protector is ignored. Charles the First ceased to reign in the year 1649, and his son Charles the Second, who during the following eleven years was a fugitive and resided abroad, is nevertheless alleged to have immediately succeeded his father on the throne; the year 1660, in which he returned to England, being recorded as the twelfth year of his reign in our statute books, which contain no traces of the Protector Cromwell, or of the laws passed by the British Parliament under his government, except in so far as the same laws were confirmed or re-enacted after Charles’s true accession to the throne, or Restoration,’ as it is improperly designated. And to this day no memorial of the great Protector is to be seen among those of the sovereigns and statesmen whose effigies ornament our Houses of Parliament. In fact, from the Royalist point of view, there never was such a person as Oliver Cromwell in connection with the government of England, just as from the ‘orthodox’ Jewish point of view, there never was such a person as Jesus the Messiah, or Christ.’
Against M. Renan and the able writer of ‘Supernatural Religion’, Dr. Beke shows that Jesus had every right to claim the title of ‘Son of David,’ and that the designation was not given to him as a ‘pious fraud, as the family of David had long been extinct,’ an assumption of which there is not a tittle of historical evidence. No nation preserved its family pedigrees with more scrupulous care, or more fidelity or accuracy, than did the Jewish nation. Even to the time of our Lord, and long after, such pedigrees were most carefully kept; and is it conceivable that the genealogy of the Royal family, the first of all in rank, should be lost sight of and neglected? Paul claimed, as an indisputable and well-known fact, his descent from the tribe of Benjamin, and the historian Josephus claimed to be not only a priest of the lineage of Aaron, but to be descended, on the female side, from the Asmonean princes.”
Paul’s Case of itself a Conclusive Proof that the Bible is True
The American Tract Society have published a book, entitled Evidences of Christianity. One of its chapters deals with the case of Paul. This chapter is by Lord Lyttelton, who it appears, in early life was an unbeliever in revelation, and undertook to prove the untruthful character of the Bible by an analysis of the case of the apostle Paul. He sat down, and went thoroughly into it, but the result was the very oposite of his intention. He became convinced by his study of the case of Paul, that the Bible was true. It may be mentioned that a similar result followed in the case of one of Lord Lyttelton’s friends, also an unbeliever, who undertook to treat the resurrection of Christ with the same object as Lord Lyttelton undertook the case of Paul: the effort ended in his conviction that Christ rose.
Lord Lyttelton, by request, threw into literary form the reasons which, in the consideration of Paul’s case, led him to the acceptance of the Christian faith where he intended its confutation. The result is the chapter on Paul in the book referred to. From this a few extracts will be acceptable to the reader. After a few introductory remarks, the chapter proceeds: “In the 26th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, written by a contemporary author and a companion of Paul in preaching the gospel, as appears by the book itself (20:6, 13, 14; 27:1, &c.), Paul is said to have himself given this account of his conversion and preaching, to King Agrippa and Festus the Roman governor. (Here read Acts 22.; 9., &c.) And agreeably to all these accounts, Paul thus speaks of himself in the epistles he wrote to the several churches he planted: the authenticity of which cannot be doubted without overturning all rules by which the authority and genuineness of any writings can be proved or confirmed. Here read Gal. 1:11–24; Phil. 3:4–8; 1 Tim. 1:12–16; 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 15:8). Now it must of necessity be, that the person attesting these things of himself, and of whom they are related in so authentic a manner, either was an impostor, who said what he knew to be false with an intent to deceive; or he was an enthusiast, who by the force of an overheated imagination, imposed on himself; or he was deceived by the fraud of others, and all that he said must be imputed to the power of that deceit; or that what he declared to have been the cause of his conversion, and to have happened in consequence of it, did all really happen, and therefore the Christian religion is a Divine revelation.
1.—PAUL NOT AN IMPOSTOR
Now, that he was not an impostor, who said what he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive, I shall endeavour to prove, by showing that he could have no rational motives to undertake such an imposture, nor could have possibly carried it on with any success by the means we know he employed. First, then, the inducement to such an imposture must have been one of these two: either the hope of advancing himself by it in his temporal interest, credit, or power, or the gratification of some of his passions, under the authority of it, and by the means it afforded.
Now these were the circumstances in which Paul declared his conversion to the faith of Christ Jesus: that Jesus, who called himself the Messiah, and Son of God, notwithstanding the innocence and holiness of his life, notwithstanding the miracles by which he attested his mission, had been crucified by the Jews as an impostor and blashemer; which crucifixion not only must, humanly speaking, have intimidated others from following him or espousing his doctrines, but served to confirm the Jews in their opinion that he could not be their promised Messiah, who according to all their prejudices, was not to suffer in any manner, but to reign triumphant for ever here upon earth. His apostles, indeed, though at first they appeared to be terrified by the death of their Master, and disappointed in all their hopes, yet had surprisingly recovered their spirits again, and publicly taught in his name, declaring him to be risen from the grave, and confirming that miracle by many they worked, or pretended to work themselves. But the chief priests and rulers among the Jews were so far from being converted, either by their words, or their works, that they had begun a severe persecution against them, put some to death, imprisoned others, and were going on with implacable rage against the whole sect. In all these severities Paul (enthusiastically) concurred, being himself a Pharisee, ‘brought up at the feet of Gamaliel,’ (Acts 7.; 9:22, 23), one of the chief of that sect, nor was he content, in the heat of his zeal, with persecuting the Christians who were at Jerusalem, ‘but breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went into the high-priest and desired of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.’—(Acts 9:1, 2). His request was complied with, and he ‘went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests.’—(Acts 26:12). At this instant of time, and under these circumstances, did he become a disciple of Christ.
What could be his motive to take such a part? Was it the hope of increasing his wealth? The certain consequence of his taking that part was not only the loss of all that he had, but all hopes of acquiring more. Those whom he left were the disposers of dignity and power, in Judea; those whom he went to were indigent men, oppressed and kept down from all means of improving their fortunes. They among them who had more than the rest, shared what they had with their brethren; but even with this assistance the whole community was hardly supplied with the necessaries of life. And even in churches he afterwards planted himself, which were much more wealthy than that of Jerusalem, so far was Paul from availing himself of their charity, or the veneration they had for him, in order to draw that wealth to himself, that he often refused to take any part of it for the necessaries of life.—(1 Cor. 4:11; 2 Cor. 12:14; 2 Thess. 3:8; Acts 20:33, 34.)
It is then evident, both from the state of the church when Paul first came into it, and from his behaviour afterwards, that he had no thoughts of increasing his wealth by becoming a Christian; whereas by continuing to be their enemy, he had almost certain hopes of making his fortune by the favour of those who were at the head of the Jewish state, to whom nothing could more recommend him than the zeal that he showed in that persecution. As to credit or reputation, that too lay all on the side he forsook.
The sect he embraced was under the greatest and most universal contempt of any then in the world. The chiefs and leaders of it were men of the lowest birth, education and rank. They had no one advantage of parts, or learning, or other human endowments to recommend them. The doctrines they taught were contrary to those which they who were accounted the wisest and most knowing of their nation professed. The wonderful works that they did were either imputed to magic or to imposture. The very Author and Head of their faith had been condemned as a criminal, and died on the cross between two thieves. Could the disciple of Gamaliel think he should gain any credit or reputation by becoming a teacher in a college of fishermen? Could he flatter himself that either in or out of Judea, the doctrines he taught could do him any honour? No; he knew very well that the preaching Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness.—(1 Cor. 1:23.) He afterwards found, by experience, that in all parts of the world contempt was the portion of whoever engaged in preaching a mystery so unpalatable to the world, to all its passions and pleasures, and so irreconcilable to the pride of human reason. “We are made,” says he to the Corinthians, “as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things unto this day.”—(1 Cor. 4:13.) Yet he went on as zealously as he set out, and was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
Certainly, then, the desire of glory, the ambition of making to himself a great name, was not his motive to embrace Christianity. Was it, then, the love of power? Power over whom? Over a flock of sheep driven to the slaughter, whose Shepherd himself had been murdered a little before. All he could hope from that power was to be marked out in a particular manner for the same knife which he had seen so bloodily drawn against them. Could he expect more mercy from the chief priests and the rulers than they had shown to Jesus himself? Would not their anger be probably fiercer against the deserter and betrayer of their cause, than against any other of the apostles? Was power over so mean and despised a set of men worth encountering so much danger?
But still it may be said, there are some natures so fond of power that they will court it at any risk, and be pleased with it, even over the meanest. Let us see, then, what power Paul assumed over the Christians. Did he pretend to any superiority over the other apostles? No; he declared himself the least of them, and less than the least of all saints.—(Eph. 3:8; 1 Cor. 15:9). Even in the churches he planted himself, he never pretended to any primacy or power above the other apostles; nor would he be regarded any otherwise by them than as the instrument to them of the grace of God, and preacher of the gospel, not as the head of a sect. To the Corinthians he writes these words: ‘Now this I say, that everyone of you saith: I am of Paul! and I of Apollos! and I of Cephas! and I of Christ!—Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?’—(1 Cor. 1:12, 13.) And in another place: ‘Who, then, is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?’—(1 Cor. 3:5). ‘For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.’—(2 Cor. 4:5). All the authority he exercised over them, was purely of a spiritual nature tending to their instruction and edification, without any mixture of that civil dominion in which alone an impostor can find his account.
Such was the dominion acquired and exercised through the pretence of Divine inspiration by many ancient legislators—by Minos, Rhadamanthus, Triptolemus, Lycurgus, Skima, Talencus. Zoroaster, Xamolxis, nay, even by Pythagoras, who joined legislation to his philosophy, and like the others, pretended to miracles and revelations from God, to give a more venerable sanction to the laws he prescribed. Such in latter times was attained by Odin among the Goths, by Mohammed among the Arabians, by Mango Copac among the Peruvians, by the Sofé family among the Persians, and that of the Zeriffs among the Moors. To such a dominion also, did the many false Messiahs among the Jews aspire. In short, a spiritual authority was only desired as a foundation for temporal power, or as the support of it by all these pretenders to Divine inspiration; and others whom history mentions in different ages and countries to have used the same arts.
But Paul innovated nothing in government or civil affairs; he meddled not with legislation; he formed no commonwealths; he raised no seditions; he affected no temporal power. Obedience to their rulers (Romans 13.,) was the doctrine he taught to the churches he planted; and what he taught he practised himself; nor did he use any of those soothing arts by which ambitious and cunning men recommend themselves to the favor of those whom they endeavour to subject to their power.
Whatever was wrong in the disciples under his care he freely reproved, as it became a teacher from God, of which numberless instances are to be found in all his epistles. And he was careful of them when he had left them as while he resided among them, which an impostor would hardly have been, whose ends were centred all in himself. This is the manner in which he writes to the Philippians: ‘Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’—(Phil. 2:12). And a little after he adds the cause why he interested himself so much in their conduct.—(Phil. 2:15–17.) Are these the words of an impostor, desiring nothing but temporal power? No; they are evidently written by one who looked beyond the bounds of this life.
But it may be said that he affected at least an absolute spiritual power over the churches he formed. I answer, he preached Christ Jesus, and not himself. Christ was the head: he only the minister; and for such only he gave himself to them. He called those who assisted him in preaching the gospel, his fellow-labourers and fellow-servants.
So far was he from taking any advantage of a higher education, superior learning, and more use of the world, to claim to himself any supremacy above the other apostles, that he made light of all these attainments, and declared that he came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, but determined to know nothing among those he converted, save Jesus Christ and him crucified. And the reason he gave for it was, that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.—(1 Cor. 2:1–5.)
Now this conduct put him quite on a level with the other apostles, who knew Jesus Christ as well as he, and had the power of God, going along with their preaching in an equal degree of virtue and grace. But an impostor, whose aim had been power, would have acted a contrary part; he would have availed himself of all these advantages; he would have extolled them as highly as possible; he would have set up himself, by virtue of them, as head of that sect to which he acceded, or at least, of the proselytes made by himself.
This is no more than what was done by every philosopher who formed a school; much more was it natural in one who propagated a new religion. We see that the bishops of Rome have claimed to themselves a primacy, or rather a monarchy, over the whole Christian church. If Paul had been actuated by the same lust of dominion, it was much easier for him to have succeeded in such an attempt. It was much easier to make himself head of a few poor mechanics and fishermen, whose superior he had always been in the eyes of the world, than for the bishops of Rome to seduce those of Ravenna or Milan, and other great metropolitans, to their obedience. Besides the opposition they met with from such potent antagonists, they were obliged to support their pretensions in direct contradiction to those very Scriptures which they were forced to ground them upon, and to the indisputable practice of the whole Christian church for many centuries. These were such difficulties as required the utmost ability and skill to surmount.
But the first preachers of the gospel had easier means to corrupt a faith not yet fully known, and which in many places could only be known by what they severally published themselves. It was necessary, indeed. while they continued together and taught the same people, that they should agree, otherwise the credit of their sect would be overthrown; but when they separated, and formed different churches in distant countries, the same necessity no longer remained. It was in the power of Paul to model most of the churches he formed so as to favor his own ambition; for he preached the gospel in parts of the world where no other apostles had been, where Christ was not named till he brought the knowledge of him, avoiding to build upon another man’s foundation.—(Rom. 15:20). Now, had he been an impostor, would he have confined himself to just the same gospel as was delivered by the other apostles, where he had such a latitude to preach what he pleased without contradiction? Would he not have twisted and warped the doctrines of Christ to his own ends, to the particular use and expediency of his own followers, and to the peculiar support and increase of his own power?
That this was not done by Paul or any other of the apostles in so many various parts of the world as they travelled into, and in churches absolutely under their own direction—that the gospel preached by them all should be one and the same, the doctrines agreeing in every particular, without any one of them attributing more to himself than he did to the others, or establishing anything even in point of order or discipline different from the rest; or more advantageous to his own credit, interest or power—is a most strong and convincing proof of their not being impostors, but acting entirely by Divine inspiration.
If anyone imagines that he sees any difference between the doctrines of James and Paul, concerning justification by faith or by works, let him read Mr. Locke’s excellent comment upon the epistles of the latter, or let him only consider these words in the first epistle to the Corinthians (9:27): “But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” If Paul had believed or taught that faith without works was sufficient to save a disciple of Christ, to what purpose did he keep under his body, since his salvation was not to depend upon that being subjected to the power of his reason, but merely upon the faith he professed? His faith was firm, and so strongly founded upon the most certain conviction, that he had no reason to doubt its continuance; how could he then think it possible, that while he retained that saving faith, he might nevertheless be a castaway? Or if he had supposed that his election and calling was of such a nature as that it irresistibly impelled him to good, and restrained him from evil, how could he express any fear, lest the lusts of his body should prevent his salvation? Can such an apprehension be made to agree with the notion of absolute predestination, as destroying the motive to good works, by some ascribed to Paul? He could have no doubt that the grace of God had been given to him in the most extraordinary manner; yet we see that he felt the necessity of continual watchfulness lest he should fall, through the natural prevalence of bodily appetites, if not duly restrained by his own voluntary care. This single passage is a full answer out of the mouth of Paul himself to all the charges that have been made of his depreciating good works in what he has said concerning grace, election, and justification.
(To be continued.)