A Refutation of an Attack on the Bible
Paul Wilson
Table of Contents
A Refutation of an Attack on the Bible: The Editor's Column
During the month of December, Life magazine came out with a double-size issue in which the topic was "The Bible." It was well illustrated by works of religious art, and pictures of ruins in other lands. The cover carried a picture of Moses 'with the ten commandments, by Rembrandt. It was doubtless calculated to attract the religious element among its readers; but, alas, it is written in such a manner as to undermine the faith. It is a sad commentary on Christianity in this once favored land when a publication with great coverage and almost unlimited means at its disposal can disgorge such patent unbelief. We consider that this elaborate article can only come from a source which the editors little suspect. We may use the language of sacred Scripture, and comment, "an enemy hath done this." It could scarcely be more damaging if it were designed by a sinister power.
At one time this nation was well grounded in the fact that the Bible is the Word of God-not that all people believed the Bible, but by and large it was respected. Its precepts were admired, even when not bowed to; and it served as a great restraint against ungodliness and lawlessness. Now we are witnessing a rapid growth in these unlovely and noxious weeds on every hand. The Word of God said long ago, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom. 3:18. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Pro. 1:7. When once the veracity and trustworthiness of God's immutable Word is destroyed in the soul, man has no anchor to hold him steady. He easily becomes the plaything of his lusts, and becomes what Scripture calls, "to every good work reprobate." When confidence in God is displaced, and the fear of God is removed through "philosophy and vain deceit," the restraining influences are gone.
It would be a bold man who would publish a prominent magazine and entitle it, INFIDELITY; but the very essence of the Life article could make more infidels than a brochure entitled as such. Furthermore, this article is buttressed by claims for super intelligence of its many contributors, and by extravagant avowals of later developments which seem to discount all that ever went before. But we aver that present-day claimed superiority of knowledge and research, which boldly sets aside a "thus said the LORD," is certainly lacking in modesty, and has an abundance of self-confidence. But let it be affirmed according to Him who is THE TRUTH, "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48). Let men remember that "the judgment of God is according to truth" (Rom. 2:2).
We are greeted in this article (which we have reviewed by request) by the assertion that this Book is composed of "words written by men." The thought that it is the Word of God is categorically refused; the very idea of its being inspired by God is not in their thinking. Now if God dictated not only the thoughts but the words of Scripture, then it has a claim on men's consciences. If God has written words, even though He may use the pen of a man, He is able to make His mind known through that instrumentality. The infidel minds of men deny to God the ability to cause words to be written for us; but infidels claim this ability and this right for themselves, and freely use it to their shame and everlasting ruin. We may well paraphrase the words of the Apostle Paul, and say, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you" that God can make His mind known? The basic fault lies in this, that men refuse God's Word because it is God's word to them. It speaks to their consciences, and that they will not have. If a man has a sharp knife, one jab with it is sufficient to prove its keen edge. One jab is worth more than a thousand words, and so with the Word of God; it cuts between joints and marrow, and is a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Men are very cunning and crafty in seeking to reject the Word of Him who cannot lie, because it contains unpalatable truths which bind their consciences.
But to return to Life's article. The next thrust at the Word of the living God states that "most of its words were written down by others who remain nameless." This is a bold statement for a man "whose breath is in his nostrils" to make. From whence has he that superior wisdom that enables him to pronounce on the penmen whom God in His wisdom chose to use? The fact is, that men today reject it forthwith as the Word of God, and fancy to themselves that if they can discount it by questioning the names of the penmen, they can obviate their bounden duty to Him. We will see more of these daring charges concerning anonymity of the various writers.
A sleight-of-hand cheat is used to set aside all that God recorded, saying that it was only really passed down from father to son, and none of it was recorded. This is base presumption, if not bold effrontery. The article then goes on to claim that nothing was written down until about the year 1000 B.C., when the Hebrews began to record things. But will they please tell us how it was that the Hebrews were so deficient -in such an art when the surrounding nations were adept in it long before? But by this master stroke, they are free to claim that when the Israelites began to keep records, they recorded old stories and poems, which apparently were grossly inaccurate, for "their scrolls required frequent recopying, leaving room for many changes, some on purpose, and some inadvertent." Here is a crucial blow: when they did write, they did not write God's words, but "old stories and poems," which were frequently revised. Thus every claim for inspiration is rejected, and all we have left is a collection of old stories which were handed down inaccurately, then recorded inaccurately, and changed frequently. To believe this is to reject everything, even to God Himself.
This beginning of Hebrew writing is explained to be about the time of Solomon; but whence came all of Solomon's great wisdom? "And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.... And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." 1 Kings 4:29-32, 34. He may well have attained to things that some men of letters still lack. But according to these rejecters of the Bible truth, the surrounding peoples were far in advance of the Hebrews. This, we judge, is a state of mind bent on finding fault with the Bible to discredit it.
And where was the "sweet psalmist of Israel" when the poetic gems were penned? Furthermore, David's songs were divine utterances prophetic of the coming of Christ. The Lord Himself often referred to the sayings of David as pointing toward Himself. He also called David a prophet, and said that "He, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ" (Acts 2:31). What a lie this gives to these men of the cloth who reject the Word of God. Yes, David wrote fluently and frequently, and Solomon his son excelled all the children of his day, to say nothing of Moses five hundred years earlier. But more as to this later.
How glad some people seem to be when they can point out some flaw in the Bible, although if they recognized their insufficiency for these things, they would be very hesitant to perhaps display their ignorance. Take, for instance, this charge: "Another burden of the Bible is its internal contradictions and crudities." What bold presumption! To bolster their boldness they ask, "Was it God or Satan who prompted David to take a census?" A schoolboy who had faith in God and reverence for His Word would be able to answer the quibble. Did not the Lord Jesus say to Peter, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat"? Was it Satan's desire to sift Peter? Yes, doubtless; but the Lord in His all-perfect wisdom permitted it. Did not Satan desire to thrust Job into the crucible? Yes, surely; but God overruled the trials and brought blessing to Job in the end. Was it not even so in David's case? The Lord permissively gave Satan license to provoke David to count Israel; but divine wisdom was demonstrated in the end, for through this trial David discovered the place where "mercy rejoiceth against judgment." There is no conflict or discrepancy in the two accounts, nor crudity, as alleged. Satan provoked David, but God overruled it and permitted the incident. There is no difficulty where the will is not perverse!
Now note this infidel notion: "But the logic of later Protestantism produced a degree of fundamentalist `bibliolatry' that maintained every word was divinely and equally inspired." Here then is the crux of their attacks on the Bible. They show their colors when and where a man or a people stand firmly for divine revelation in every part. Any true child of God who has worked with biblical research knows that there are mistakes of copyists and the like, and human errors of transcription have occurred; but careful God-honoring criticism has had its place in clearing up difficulties; but holy reverence is unknown to these modern apostles of free-thinking German-oriented higher criticism. Many of the difficulties disappear as the mist when there is reverence for God. With an anointed eye the difficulties dissolve. But the malevolent charge of "bibliolatry" is as unjust as it is untrue. It is not idolatry to honor God's Word, but it is gross idolatry to worship at the shrine of science "falsely so-called." Life alleges that Darwinian geology challenged the literal truth of Genesis.
If men would listen to science, which they set in contradiction to God and His Word, they might note the words of two eminent philosophers, John S. Mill and Herbert Spencer. These great men who were not noted for belief in God and His Word, said boldly that science can give no account of permanent and primary causes of the universe as it is. Further, that "science begins where creation ends. Science can investigate the effects of creation, but can give no account of the wonderful powers which wrought in creating." Herbert Spencer in particular added, "The only thing science can do is to conduct its students to a blind wall, on the other side of which lies the solution wholly outside science." The believer, on the other hand, can understand what the wise men of the world reject: "By faith we understand"; it is that simple, full, and complete, and is devastating to the wisdom of the world which God will bring to naught.
The gratuitous remark that the Bible "is certainly not myth all the way through" is not commendatory; for on closer examination nearly all things are challenged and weighed in the balances of unbelief. To allow of myth in any degree is offensive to the spiritual mind, for by the same measurements nearly every basic truth of God is discarded, openly or covertly.
Another false premise is contained in this: "The subject of the story is the continuing encounter and dialog on this earth between man and God." God has no continuing dialog with fallen man, for he is at enmity with God. It is an assumption that man in his wickedness is on speaking terms with the Holy God. This is the basic error of Cain, who presumed to approach God without a sacrifice, without an offering of acceptable worth. "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain" (Jude 11).
A Refutation of an Attack on the Bible: The Editor's Column
We further learn from God that the reason Cain slew his brother was because his deeds were evil-yes, evil in seeking to approach God as though he were not a guilty sinner. This same evil is inherent in Life's comment on the dialog between men and God. "If Thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquity, 0 LORD, who shall stand?" Psalm 130:3. "God... commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). There is no security except by "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ."
Next comes a daring challenge to the God in whom their breath is: "In this continuing story God seems to develop from one kind of deity to another; but from our later standpoint the human generations to whom he disclosed himself are also seen to have been improving their comprehension of the Eternal." This statement is false in every detail. "In the beginning God" is the same God all the way through-the Creator-the One with whom man has to do. He says in another place, "I am the LORD, I change not" (Mal. 3:6). With Him there "is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jas. 1:17). It is a libel on God to even suggest that He changes from one kind of deity to another. But this is current infidelity, which sets aside His sure Word, the Word of Him who cannot lie, and suggests that the whole idea of God just grew up according to the vain delusions of men.
Think of calling the divine record in the prophecy of Isaiah a "most dramatic piece of effrontery in religious history." If God will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain, what will He do with those who mutilate His Word, which He has magnified above all His name. We can say of these leaders, as was said by the Lord of Judas Iscariot, "it had been good for that man if he had not been born." Did not God have a right to send for the Assyrians to chastise His guilty people who had given up "their glory" for them that were no gods? He sent them as "the rod of His anger" in just retribution. Who shall challenge God's right to do so? This boldness is rank effrontery, to say the least. The statement is false that God was preparing the Israelites for "another way than David's to be 'a blessing to mankind.' " Verily, "let God be true, but every man a liar." His word will stand, and great David's greater Son will yet wield the scepter, a righteous scepter, not only over Israel in the coming day, but over a cleansed and subdued earth, man's claims and daring notwithstanding.
Then the old infidelity that came out of Germany during the emergence of higher criticism, so-called, has shown its ugly head in the challenge to the Word of God that there were two different Isaiahs. Was it ingenuity or willful unbelief of the Lord's own words that led these false prophets to imagine two (or maybe more) Isaiahs. The Lord Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth on the sabbath and stood up to read; He was given the scroll of Isaiah the prophet and He read from the 61st chapter, saying, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me," whereupon He details the present and future purposes of His coming. Did the Lord not know that this was written prophetically by Isaiah? or dare infidel reasoners suggest that He either did not know, or else accepted a common error? These modern unbelievers divide the book of Isaiah at the 40th chapter and attribute the latter part to an unknown Isaiah. But in John 12 we read the emphatic statement: "... yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet [not some other man by the same name] might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" vv. 37, 38. Then the Spirit of God-the Spirit of truth-added, "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." vv. 39, 40. Let us note it well, that all these verses from Isa. 53:1; 61:1-3; and 6:10, though written according to infidel notions by different Isaiahs, are each and all said to be written not only by Isaiah, but by the same prophet. O the shocking incredulity of men who are predisposed to reject the truth! They would not treat the writings of Mohammed, or of any other writer, religious or otherwise, in like manner.
Previously we commented on a sad statement, that God was preparing Israel for another way of blessing for mankind, rather than through David. But little as it may seem, this is a flat rejection of the Lord Jesus as Savior, for He had to come through Abraham and David; not otherwise could He come. Now this article presupposes that the second "pseudo" Isaiah opened another 'way than the way of faith, referring to a suffering servant who would "atone for the sins of the whole human race." This IS nowhere predicated even of the Messiah, for it is unadulterated universalism, that all the human race will be saved, and that, mark you, not dependent on faith in Christ. Universalism is a lie' of the enemy of souls who makes light of the atoning work of Christ on the one hand, and of the eternal demerit for sin on the other.
To accept the statement that "Jesus' contemporaries felt the end of the world was a real possibility, perhaps very close at hand," is to reject Him as God, and to limit the Son of God who knew all things, to the fashion of those who lived at the time. The editors also remark that "the story" of "Jesus' second coming has continued for 1,900 years without a second coming. Instead, it has given believers a hope that sustains them in this life on earth, where the harvest of human accomplishment in history surpasses all that went before. The hope is not dead and the harvest not fully gathered yet." This is a brash setting aside of the hope of His coming, and a setting up the achievements of men (with the best to come) as the hope on earth. Oh, sad indeed if that is all the hope the believer has. God is not glorying in the accomplishments of men. He is waiting until man's wickedness is fully ripe; then He will cut it all down with His sickle. Man is boasting great things as never before. But God's Word says, "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. The present reminds us of God's sure word concerning judgment to come. Men are saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?" 2 Pet. 3:4.
The statement that "Christ made love the supreme commandment" is not true. Before we read that "God is love," we read that "God is light." In Him is no darkness at all. He was the light that manifested man's guilt, but men hated the light and cast Him out of the world. People would rather live on in their sins than come to repentance. So Life's premise is not on solid ground, but on wishful thinking that supposes God will be indifferent to their sins.
On page 15 the editors go back to Genesis 1 to undermine faith in the God of creation. This sublime statement of the facts of God's creatorial power is cast aside for "tradition and myth upon myth." Think of the unholy and profane vaporing of heathens under the influence of demons as a substitute for divine unfoldings of truth. But we read in 2 Timothy, "They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." This is verily true today, and "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
Think of the audacity which ventures out where angels would not tread, in order to say, "Who this lone writer [of, Genesis 1 and 2] was nobody knows." But we read the unequivocal statement that was made by the Lord of glory: "Have ye not read in the book of Moses...?" Mark 12:26. Of course infidelity does not scruple to reject both Moses and the Lord Himself. In another verse of the same book, Mark, the Lord says that Moses, "For the hardness of your heart... wrote you this precept." If this is not true, then why recognize the Bible at all? Another solid statement regarding Moses and his writings is found in Luke 24: "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He [the Lord Himself] expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Here again the book of Moses is used to explain those things that Moses wrote of Him. Also in John 5:46 is found this conclusive statement: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me." Not only is what Moses said confirmed, but also what he wrote. This scripture emphasizes the plain fact that these modern writers neither believed Moses, nor Christ. But their rejection is wrapped up in the all-inclusive word "scholars." That word covers a multitude of sins, for it clothes its statements in the air of respectability and seeming authenticity. "Forever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89. As far as God is concerned, it is settled on earth also; and the very Word will judge him who rejects it, to his eternal ruin.
These proud, boasted "scholars" have sought to separate the Scriptures into many parts, fancying a variety of authors in order to conjure up a scheme to discredit them. There is nothing but remarkable unity and beauty in the Scriptures, which is unperceived by the natural mind, which is at enmity with God. The Scripture uses the word "Elohim" in some places, and "Jehovah" in others; but in each several place this is done with a perfection in detail. This is thoughtlessly and categorically rejected by would-be "scholars." These latter-day infidels do not hesitate to pronounce on that which is above them, and to imagine a hodge-podge of manuscripts, in some of which they use "J" for Jehovah. They are even so bold as to say, on page 17, that "the place is clearly marked where 'J' picks up the thread." Be it carefully noted that Elohim is used of God as the Creator; but when it comes to the use of Jehovah, it signifies His relationship and man's moral responsibility. We quote here the words of a man of God regarding the charges of many and varied manuscripts: "the wretched incubus complicated cobweb on cobweb, woven by the brains of Teutonic legend mongers, without a single fact." W. K.
Here is another daring bit of presumption: "His [Adam's] expulsion [from Eden] is called the Fall of Man. Yet in one sense it was also the Rise of Man, for his new-found knowledge exalted him far above the other creatures of God's creation." This is plainly the lie which the devil gave to Eve. He suggested that God was withholding something good from them, and held out the bait that they would be as gods and have the knowledge of good and evil. This is now put forward as a big improvement for men. Think of it, to give up communion with God and the blissful condition of an unfallen state for what is now thought of as an advance. The devil hid his sting from. Eve and did not tell her that the conscience they acquired would be a bad one and cause them to flee God's presence. Now in these last days the devil's lie is still preferable.
Could the following statement be classified as other than wickedness? "God seems to have acted as much out of anxiety as anger—a strange state of mind for an omnipotent God." God has magnified His Word above all His name, and. He will avenge the insults to His Word. We hesitate to even quote the bold and unblushing challenge thrown at God, but we are assured that "God is not mocked."
Surely no man with the fear of God in his consciousness would give utterance to the thought that He began with no ultimate plan for man, and that all the way from creation to the days of Abraham, and then add that God at that point, "abruptly took a new tack." Do we not read that, "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world"? Acts 15:18. Nothing ever caught God by surprise and forced Him to change His plans. The thought is preposterous, but it seems worthy of its inventors who will reap the due reward of their deeds.
Are the modern tales about Abraham and his family regarding his God supposed to be amusing? After impugning the "J" writer, they refer to the scriptural accounts as "wonderfully human, funny, and even outrageous." God never intended His sacred Word to be amusing or outrageous. "Far be the thought." He has recorded the doings in life of various men for our instruction. Has it not been written that "these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [or ages] are come"? 1 Cor. 10:11. There is a word which modern "scholars" may well heed: "Be wise now therefore, 0 ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little." Psalm 2:10-12.
All of the beauty and wisdom of Joseph's dealings with his brothers when they came down into Egypt to buy corn is lost on those of the natural [unsaved] men to whom the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14). Joseph, the lovely picture of the Lord Jesus, who was loved by his father and hated by his brothers, is at last exalted; and his brothers have to come before him on bended knee. In this sublime portrait, Joseph is a type of Christ in His future dealings with Israel when they acknowledge their sins. He leads his brothers on step by step into full repentance worthy of Him of whom he is a type.
A Refutation of an Attack on the Bible: The Editor's Column
Another quotation from Life: "The patriarchal narrative in Genesis—the story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—has a legendary flavor. But many details of the story are now confirmed and elucidated by outside sources, particularly archeological data relating to the very region of Mesopotamia which the patriarchs called their home." This sounds more circumspect and as though at last there is a good word for Scripture, but it is not so; for men who will not believe except on circumstantial evidence, do not believe God at all. At this point a story of a Hurrian woman is introduced as an original which bears striking similarity to the divine record. Thus the Israelites are supposed to have evolved their own explanations of old Hurrian customs. Such suggestions belittle God and His Word, but they suit the carnal mind of man.
The Book of Job comes in also for slighting disparagement. The sacred Book of Job with its rich fullness for a subject soul is more or less relegated to a story from the "golden age" of Hammurabi where a godly man is unjustly punished. With what horrors must angels behold human irreverence! Job, one of the oldest books on record, displays God's wisdom and power; it also gives a list of sensible questions which many wise men of today cannot answer. Even the future resurrections, both of the just and the unjust, are pictured there. Nothing short of divine revelation could have compassed such great truth at such an early epoch.
"J," mark you, not Moses, is the author of Abraham's program, because "J" "could not have gotten his material from cuneiform documents for they had been covered up for centuries before he began to write." Infidelity will not allow of Israelitish writing in those days, although Moses did write, and centuries before. The evil is compounded by the claim that this mythical "J" "could only have obtained his material from earlier Israelite traditions." Away with such rubbish! It all boils down to a flat rejection of God and His inspired Word. Men have strained their brains to propound a theory which will get rid of the only true answer-God and His Word. Then to add to man's ingenious false devices, we are told how these things, like the ultimate vision of Abraham, "required a long time to incubate." We prefer to believe God, if every man should be proved a liar. God called Abraham, and he had but to obey. We are told that "Abraham believed God," but belief in God is lacking in all this. We are reminded of the words of Job: "But ye are forgers of lies." Higher criticism, new or old, is utterly false.
Another old and false story is rehearsed in the claim that the Israelites did not cross the Red Sea, but "the Sea of Reeds," which Life suggests was "probably one of the shallow lakes between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Suez." In this manner, any possibility of divine intervention is rejected. But it is strange indeed how that Pharaoh and his armies with their chariots were so easily drowned in a shallow lake where is a "causeway" that "is usually safe to cross." One thing seems evident, the writers and editors of Life are bent on removing everything savoring the sign of God's power by which His will was accomplished.
The Lord's giving the Israelites flesh to eat is now regarded as a natural phenomenon by saying that migratory quail "often fall exhausted to the ground" after their flights. But suffice it for the believing child of God that He sent them flesh to eat. Then the miracle of the manna is explained away as the excretion of insects after feeding on the "tamarisk bush." But they ignore the astonishing fact that none fell on the sabbath, but twice as much fell on the previous day. And all through their long journey until they ate the old corn of the land of Canaan, it never failed. Did any army ever have such an abundant store? That manna, food from heaven, was a type of Christ as His peoples' food, as the bread that came down from heaven. Of course the miraculous is rejected for the vain deceits of men.
The divine hand which wrought a victory at Jericho is regarded as Joshua's using "psychological warfare." There is also a question raised about whether there was a providential tremor that helped the walls of Jericho fall down, but they are strangely silent about that part of the wall that remained standing. Why did it not all topple instead of leaving Rahab's house intact?
The laws which God gave to Israel regarding the clean and unclean animals were designed by God, especially to point up the importance of not being defiled. There are still spiritual significances for Christians in this day, for God had then and has now a right to regulate the conduct of His people. He is holy and requires holiness. But the inference that "the core of this material may go back to primitive taboos" is an insult to God and unworthy of soberness.
A remark that "the story [of David's killing Goliath] may not even be accurate; a verse in 2 Samuel credits the slaying of the Philistine giant not to David but to Elhanan." Now one has only to read 2 Sam. 21:19 and the filmy cobweb of scriptural criticism will vanish like the dew on a sunny morning: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." Now skeptic, can you not discern between Goliath and his brother? Shall we suggest that perhaps in all the criticisms, the beam is in the eye of the critic? Perhaps the removal of the beam of unbelief would enable people to see the truth of God clearly.
Joab was David's chief captain, but there is evidence in Scripture that while he did mighty acts, he was not a man of faith. He was guided mostly by policy, and at the last he betrayed where his heart was. At the end, Solomon represents Christ when He reigns prosperously and judges righteously, which He will do in a soon coming day. At that time those who, as Joab, were not true to David, will meet their doom. But we quail before Life's remark, "It is difficult to read without anger the passage in which the execution [of Joab] is carried out." Those who reject Christ's word just as surely come into the judgment of God.
Did the one who wrote that if there had been no prophets, there would have been no apostles, and that "Jesus of Nazareth would have remained at his carpenter's bench," weigh those words? There was no such possibility, for He came from God when the fullness of time had come. He came from God for His appointed mission-to save lost sinners-and nothing could thwart that purpose of grace.
And when the prophets came with a "thus saith the LORD," it is a travesty to say that, "Gradually, from the tradition of primitive seers and mystics whose revelations came in the form of dervish-like ecstasies and frenzies, there emerges a strain of sternly moral prophecy." This all savors of the enchantments of the heathen, as for instance those of the false prophet Balsam. Where in the whole of Scripture is there anything resembling the activity of demons suggested by the description? Elijah, prepared by God in private, appeared suddenly on the scene and said, "There shall not be dew nor rain these years" (1 Kings 17:1). He came with a distinct message which was fulfilled in its season. To allow the thought that the prophets used enchantments, as was suggested, is to impugn the "thus said the LORD."
Kind words are spoken for a German "scholar" who wrote about Jesus, when his work brought down the wrath of some men. Even kind words are found for Dr. Albert Schweitzer who was thoroughly heterodox, who boldly rejected the Savior on so-called "insufficient evidence." Many today, as Judas Iscariot, kiss and do obeisance while they betray Him.
Life charges that the "details of the resurrection" hardly match "in any two of the gospels, let alone among all four." This is a grave charge that cannot be substantiated. The Spirit of God indicted each of the gospels and gave each writer to record that which suited the mind of the Spirit. There is no contradiction when the believer is willing to let in the light; but where there is a pre-disposition to find fault, it is comparatively easy to ignore facts and strain on points.
It is absurdly inaccurate and impious in character to say that the Lord had "a profound religious experience—in all likelihood connected with John the Baptist." This is the very essence of apostasy, and every real Christian should shrink from it with shock and revulsion. It is a complete rejection of Jesus as the Son of God—the One who came from God and went to God—the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, by which all things and persons will be judged. To suggest that He did not realize His true identity is a libel upon the Son of God. All His acts, His words, and His ways testified to who He was. He came in all respects as foretold in the prophetic scriptures. There was unmistakable evidence as to who He was. And in the signs and wonders which He performed there were many which were predicated of the Messiah only; He only opened the eyes of one who was born blind (see John 9). To say that the priests and others did the same is to beg the question and will not bear close examination. These challenges all prove one fact, a predisposition to reject the Christ of God.
The Isaiah of Scripture is rejected; Daniel the prophet is disparaged; the writers of the New Testament are belittled; the second coming of Christ is passed off as a phantom; so really there is little of any worth left for a wayfaring man who is seeking peace with God. The true Bible is displaced or discredited, and only covers of the Book are left. When statements made in The Acts are branded as palpable exaggerations, we might say with Mary, "They have taken away my Lord."
To accuse the writers of the gospels of being merely copyists of one another is to reject outright the Holy Spirit of God who indicted all the books of the Bible. Furthermore, Mark has been accused of plagiarism. May we make one point unmistakably clear: if the Spirit of God caused all four gospels to record the same incident, it was His prerogative; or if He gave an eyewitness not to record that which does not belong to the line given by the Spirit through the writer, who shall gainsay it? "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14. These "scholars" also invented "Q" for certain "unknown" writers. Poor gullible mankind! "deceived and being deceived."
The Apostle John who wrote the Gospel bearing his name is now said to have dropped his stories into the account "at his own convenience." This is a libel on John and on his Master. We will quote another example of these critics' blind unbelief: "A clear example [of the supposed confusion of John] is the 'cleansing of the temple'—that famous scene in which Jesus indignantly scourges the moneychangers and stock dealers who had set up shop in the outer court of the temple complex, upsets their tables and drives them out. In the Synoptics [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] this comes at almost the end of his career; John puts it at almost the beginning." Now we wish to append a few lines from a servant of God with spiritual perception: "Not only is this clearing of the temple distinct from that which the Synoptic Gospels relate on His last visit to Jerusalem, but it is instructive to remark that, as they only give the last, John gives only the first. It is a striking witness but a significant fact, as we have already seen doctrinally in his introduction, that he begins where they end, not in a barely literal way, but in all the depth of what Jesus is, says, and does. The state of the temple, the selfishness which reigned there, the indifference to the true fear and honor and holiness of God while there was the utmost punctiliousness in a ritual show of their invention, were characteristics of the ruined state of a people called to the highest earthly privilege by God's favor."-William Kelly.
In the "scholarly" investigation of John's Gospel, these men of no faith state: "One thing nearly everyone now agrees on is that he [John] was not the Apostle." What a strange bit of information!! There is no writer who so fits the character and description of John, as John the Apostle. We say in the language of the Lord, "but wisdom is justified of all her children."
Many today are the same as those of other days; "they stumbled at that stumbling-stone," for they see and saw no beauty in Him. God said, "Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offense." (Rom. 9:32, 33.) Take, for instance, the beauty and perfection of Scripture concerning the genealogies of the Lord Jesus in Matthew and Luke; they are referred to as an "incongruity," which is only such to the unanointed eye of human, fallen nature.
The genealogy of Matthew presents the Lord as the legal heir to the throne of David through Solomon his son. This is in perfect accord with the design of the Spirit of God in Matthew, where He is presented as the Messiah, according to prophecy. All the subject material is therefore arranged accordingly; but in Luke's Gospel, He is portrayed as the Son of man, a man among men; and the design throughout is evident. His genealogy is therefore traced back to Adam, and He is thus seen as the true "Seed of the woman," who is to bruise the serpent's head.
Therefore, a little examination of the differing genealogies will prove perfection rather than "incongruity." In Luke, His lineage is traced down from David through his son Nathan, rather than through Solomon; and consequently the line comes down to Mary. Even the Jewish Talmud admits that "Heli" was the father of Mary. She was also of the seed of David, but not through the royal line of Solomon. This was necessary according to Jeremiah 22:28-30, where "Coniah" (or Jeconiah), a son through Solomon, had a curse pronounced upon him which precluded his having his son become the Messiah or ever reign as king: "Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless... for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." When this is seen, the perfection of the genealogies is marked, rather than any "incongruity." The words in Luke's Gospel, "which was the son of," are more correctly rendered, "which was of." The "son of" is marked as being missing even in the King James Version, where the words are in italics. All is harmony when viewed in God's light.
The same question mark which the article places over Christ's birth is equally placed over the account of His resurrection. But here, again, reverence and humility would alter the perspective. Matthew gives some details of His resurrection, but as far as that Gospel is concerned, He is seen on earth with a remnant of the Jewish people, a figure of His re-appearing at the end to that remnant. Mark tells us of His ascension, and leaves us with Him in heaven, working with the disciples down here (a most remarkable suffix to the account of God's perfect Servant). Then Luke tells the disciples of the coming down of the Holy Spirit not many days later; then the Lord leads them out to Bethany, from which place He ascends to heaven with uplifted hands, blessing them. John's Gospel lets His disciples know that He who had gone from them would come again for them. What beautiful order, and all designed and arranged according to the Spirit of God. Surely only a blind man can fail to see the beauties of Scripture, but there are none so blind as those whom the god of this world has blinded. May God in His grace open the eyes of some who would pervert the Scriptures, and lead them to repentance before their doom is sealed.
As for Mark's and John's not giving a genealogy, this is understandable to faith. It would not have been suitable to give the genealogy of a "servant," as He is portrayed in Mark. John presents Him in His beauty as the Son of God from all eternity. This precluded a genealogy, where His deity is given. What perfection!
Life points out that both Matthew and Luke place the birth of Jesus during the reign of King Herod, but then this magazine says that both gospels indicate that Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem because the census had been ordered—"whereas official records indicate this census was not made until years after Herod's death.... There are many similar difficulties—far too many, indeed, to catalog them here." Now there is no difficulty that has not been caused by careless reading and by inattention to the words and design of Scripture. Luke plainly tells us that the census was not made until Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). The census had been begun, but then stopped until after the death of Herod. God overruled in the affairs of men to order it so that Mary and Joseph would be in Bethlehem, according to the prophecy of Micah 5:2. These governmental figures little imagined that they were thus instruments in God's hands to have Mary and Joseph there at the right time. We herewith quote the words of the poet Cowper:
"Blind unbelief is sure to err, And scan His work in vain."
If Life thinks there are too many discrepancies to catalog, we feel the same way about Life's lists of supposed errors. We weary of them and would gladly turn to profitable and edifying subjects from the barren waste of the stock in trade of unbelieving skeptics.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.