1913 321 Dear Mr.—,
I am at last sitting down to give you in writing a few thoughts relative to the book, "Problems of the Future," you gave me so long ago. I do not propose to attempt a detailed "reply" to the book. My main purpose is to examine Chapter 9 dealing with the Gospels, for this I judge to be the centre of the attack on Christianity. If these Gospels could be proved to lack divine authority, to be incorrect or misleading, then indeed Christianity had a poor basis to rest upon, so that for the purpose of the present argument it seems to me to be of the greatest importance to enquire whether our author's statements as to these records are reliable.
I proceed to consider the passage on p. 117 relative to the birth and infancy of the Lord. It is as follows: — "The two accounts of Matthew and Luke are contradictory. The second admits that Nazareth was the abode of Joseph and Mary, and accounts for the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem by the supposed necessity of Joseph's going there to be taxed, as being of the family of David; while the first assumes that Bethlehem was the abode of the parents, and says that they only went to Nazareth some years later from fear of Archelaus, who had succeeded to his father Herod. Matthew describes the Massacre of the Innocents at Bethlehem, and says that Jesus escaped it by flying into Egypt, while Luke omits all mention of the massacre, the miraculous star, and the wise men of the East, and says that the parents took the babe straight to Jerusalem." I quote the passage in full so that you may have it before you, should you not have a copy of the book at hand.
Let us look first at chapter 2 of Luke's Gospel. Here we read (Luke 2:4-5) that, in consequence of the decree of Augustus, Joseph and Mary went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be taxed (or registered). While they were there, the Child was born, and because there was no room in the inn, was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger, both these circumstances indicating a stable as the place where the shepherds found "Mary and Joseph and the babe" (verse 16). In the twenty-second and following verses we find that when the days of Mary's purification were accomplished, the parents took the Child to Jerusalem. This must have been about a month after the Child's birth (see Leviticus 12:4). The 39th verse states that "when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."
Turning to Matthew, we find a marked contrast in the whole structure, but I hope to show that there is no "contradiction." Minute details as to the circumstances surrounding the birth are not given, because Matthew's purpose is to present Christ as the King of the Jews — the Messiah. Whereas Luke presents Him in the wider aspect of the Son of Man, and we are given the intensely interesting human details so perfect in their place. They would be out of place in Matthew.
It is of importance, I think, to the question in hand, to determine — at any rate approximately — at what time the visit of the wise men from the East took place. In Matt. 1:25 we get the simple fact of the birth; and in the next chapter we find "there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him."
To begin with, it is to be remarked that the expression "when Jesus was born" (in chap. 2. I) does not strictly answer to the force of the original, which would be more correctly rendered "Jesus having been, born," and you will see it is simply added "in the days of Herod the king." The time at which the wise men's visit took place is thus not given in verse 1. This we must gather from the remainder of the chapter.
There can be little doubt from the text that these wise men had come some distance — "from the East." From the time they first saw the star, until the time they set out from Jerusalem to find the child, we have at least to allow (1) for preparations for the start, (2) for the journey to Jerusalem, and (3) for the time spent at Jerusalem, remembering that travelling at that time was very slow, as indeed to this day it is in the East, where modern methods of transit are not available.
Now verses 3-7 of our chapter show us that Herod (fearful of the consequences to him, a usurper, of the birth of the true King) enquires where Christ should be born, and is informed by the leaders of the Jews — from their scriptures — that the appointed place is Bethlehem. He then privately calls the wise men and enquires what time the star appeared. When he has ascertained these things, he sends the wise men to Bethlehem to search for the child. In the 9th verse, the star which they saw, or had seen, in the east, appears (that is to say, re-appears) and now guides them to the place "where the young child was." Having presented their gifts and done homage, being warned of God, they depart into their own country another way. After the wise men were departed, the parents, at God's bidding by the angel, take the young child into Egypt.
Mark the next phase. You will remember that Herod had diligently enquired what time the star appeared. Now he is enraged, and commands that all the children, or more correctly male children, in Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof are to be slain, from TWO YEARS OLD AND UNDER, "according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men" (verse 16).
The conclusion to me is inevitable, that at the time of the visit of the Magi and the massacre of the infants, Christ was at any rate approaching two years of age, for it seems unreasonable to suppose that Herod gave the command to kill all the children from two years old and under, knowing that the Child whose death he desired was only a few weeks old.
Now the events we have looked at in Luke occurred very shortly after the Child's birth, so that there is ample room for them all between the last verse of the 1st chapter of Matthew and the 1st verse of the 2nd chapter.
I ask, in what point are the two accounts of Matthew and Luke contradictory?
In connection with it, I would point out that Matt. 2:11 speaks of the wise men coming into "the house," and that they opened out their treasures. No hint of a stable. Herod sent them to Bethlehem, and the star went before them till it came and stood over where the young child was. Matthew does not say that the parents "only went to Nazareth some years after the birth," but simply mentions the fact that they came and dwelt there (Matt. 2:23), all that was necessary. Luke tells us it was "their own city." It is helpful to remember that the parents of Christ were in humble circumstances (as many other descendants of kings have been), and further, that it was only a faithful few who were looking for Christ and who owned Him when He came (see the early chapters of Luke). The unbelieving leaders, and I suppose the mass of the Jewish nation, did not know of the mighty event that had taken place. But the visit of the wise men awoke Herod and the Jewish leaders to enquire into a matter that so closely concerned them.
I pray you not to cast all this aside because you have previously come to another conclusion, for I am assured that if you honestly and thoroughly examine the case, you must agree that Samuel Laing, in this instance at least, is not justified in making the charge of inconsistency.
I have gone into this case thus fully, as I take it to be a typical instance of the superficial way in which the Bible is read by its critics. Because the same events are not recorded alike in the two Gospels, they are alleged to be contradictory. Why so? Does it not strike you as remarkable that the two narratives we have examined, though strikingly different in their main argument, should fit in so perfectly with one another?
Take again the statement on page 116 that "the two accounts and genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not agree," etc.
The "accounts" we have already looked at sufficiently, I think, for the purpose in hand.
With regard to the genealogies, I see no difficulty. Of course there is a difference, as the different designs of the two Gospels required, but both are true genealogies. In Matthew the legal title — through Joseph — of Christ to the throne of David is traced. In Luke (where, as we have already noticed, He is looked at as on of man more particularly) we have His line up to Adam, and God, not down from Abraham, as in Matthew; consequently I believe that the line in Luke is through Mary, not Joseph. With this the text is quite consistent, if (as I believe it should be, in order to more faithfully represent the original) the 23rd verse of the 3rd chapter of Luke, et seqq., be read: — "Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed, son of Joseph,) of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi," etc.
I understand that the Talmud admits that Heli was the father of Mary. So that if one genealogy is that through Joseph, the legal father, and the other that through Mary, the real mother, where is the disagreement?
With regard to the statement on page 117 (following on the statement as to the supposed discrepancy between Matthew and Luke as to the nativity, etc.) that "The other two Evangelists, Mark and John, make no mention of any such occurrences, and begin their biographies with the visit of Jesus, when a grown-up man, to John the Baptist," where is the necessity for another recital of the details of the Lord's early days, after what we have in Matthew and Luke, especially in view of the fact that the designs of Mark and John are so different from those of Matthew and Luke? As I understand it, Mark presents Christ as the Divine Servant (though withal the Eternal Son), while in John we see His glory as Son of God shining forth pre-eminently. What need for genealogies, etc., here?
It seems to me to be simple enough, except to hearts hardened and minds blinded by self-will. I am assured that if human books were in question, there would not be so much difficulty. Do you not agree that if, for instance, two works on King Edward were written, one relating to his official life as king, and the other to his private life as a man, the contents of the two books would be decidedly different? Would you expect to find in the public history minute details of his private life? or would it be consistent to burden the record of his private life with detailed accounts of State ceremonies? This is only an illustration, I admit, but is not the analogy a true one?
I turn now to another question of fact, on page 122, where the author — after referring to the words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" recorded by Matthew as uttered by the Lord when on the cross — ventures to state that "the author of Luke … transforms the expression into 'My God, into thy hands I commend my spirit,' and inserts 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do,' which words are not found in any other record," etc.
Where is the author's authority for this statement? In Luke 23:46 I read: — "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," and in the 34th verse, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Well, you may say, "What of that?" Just this, that our author has misquoted the statements in Luke's Gospel, which, if rightly taken, are so beautiful, and quite consistent with the other Gospels.
There is deep and solemn reason for the difference in the utterances of the Lord on the cross. Oh, that Samuel Laing had possessed the wondrous key to the right understanding of it! None but a pardoned sinner can rightly apprehend. I can only pray that I may be enabled so to present the case that you may be constrained to say, like the centurion and others, "Truly this was the Son of God." Let us turn then to the accounts of those solemn hours. It appears evident from Luke 34:34 that the words "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," were spoken about the third hour, when, as we learn from Mark's Gospel (Mark 15:25) "they crucified him," while it was about the ninth hour (Matt. 27:46), that "Jesus cried with a loud voice … My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Then in the 50th verse of the same chapter we are told that "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Turning now again to Luke we read, "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, and having said this, he gave up the ghost" (23:46). Clearly then, this second utterance addressed to the "Father" was spoken just at the close, as the first was at the beginning, of the blessed Lord's hours of suffering on the cross: What the second loud cry was I believe we get in John's Gospel (chapter 19:30), viz., "It is finished," these words being spoken after He had received the vinegar (i.e., about the ninth hour, see Matthew and Mark) just before He committed His spirit to the Father in the words recorded in Luke 23:46.
I would also point out, with regard to the hours given in the different Gospels, that it is important to see, that John (as throughout his Gospel) gives Roman time, reckoned from midday and midnight as we do, while the Synoptic Gospels give Jewish time, which was reckoned from six o'clock. Thus we have the following times connected with the Crucifixion:
6 a.m. — Pilate sits down "in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement" (John 19:13).
9 a.m. — (The "third hour " — Mark 15:25). The Lord was crucified.
12 midday to 3 p.m. — (The "sixth" to the "ninth" hour). The three hours of darkness (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
3 p.m. — Jesus died, i.e., at the ninth hour of Matthew, Mark and Luke, or the "third" hour after noon according to John's time.
I have brought the facts together from the different Gospels, so that you may see that there is no contradiction. Though the differences are striking, yet how beautifully do the accounts agree.
And now let me ask you to "hear me patiently" while I seek to point out as far as I have learnt, something of the meaning of these cries from the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Can anything be plainer in all the Gospels than the fact that that Blessed One God and Man wondrously united in one Person — was always, from the beginning to the end of His life here below, the object of the Father's delight? John speaks of Him as "the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18). A voice from heaven on two occasions (at His baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration) attested the fact that here was One in whom God was well pleased (Matt. 3:17; Matt. 17:5; Mark 1:11; Mark 9:7; Luke 3:22; Luke 9:35). Never for one moment in all that blessed life was it otherwise. Here was one who, unlike any other that has lived in this world, did always the things that pleased the Father (John 8:29).
Yes, He was pleasing the Father in those solemn hours on Calvary's cross. Why, then, those words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" There is only one explanation. Christ was there meeting God in all His holy nature and its righteous requirements in the judgment of SIN. Then was "He who knew no sin made sin" (see 2 Corinthians 5:21); then He took up as His own the guilt that belonged alone to others, for He not only "did no sin" (1 Peter 2:22), but in Him is no sin (1 John 3:5). Then indeed He bore the whole weight of God's wrath against sin, suffering as only an infinite Being could suffer, yet as man and for man; and, thank God, at the end of those three hours of darkness over the whole earth (or land), He could say "It is finished," and deliver up His spirit to the Father. Can you wonder that the very earth was convulsed at such a moment? There is much of the soul experience of Christ at that awful time, to be found in the 22nd Psalm, in the 1st verse of which we read the very words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Can you not now see that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are needed to give us a complete picture of the cross? They show us how the One who hung there was perfect through all — praying for His very murderers (Luke 23:34), caring for His mother (John 19:27), blessing a dying robber (Luke 23:43), but, beyond all, perfectly meeting God's righteous demands (involving as it did the hiding of God's face from Him when bearing sins), and laying a righteous basis on which the vilest sinner, who will but repent and believe in Him, may be fully and freely forgiven, and live for ever in blessedness with Himself in glory.
1913 337 Ponder it, I beg of you, and see how you stand in relation to it all. The guilt of the murder of the Son of God lies upon the world still. True, He laid down His life (John 10:17-18) — witness the loud, not feeble, cry just before He expired — yet the guilt of putting Him to death is man's. The Jews and Gentiles who joined in nailing Christ to the cross but express what man in his sin thinks of Him. Is it not so? Yet He was the expression (and on the cross pre-eminently) of God's love to man who has rebelled against Him. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Alas! men would rather perish everlastingly than bow to the blessed Son of God, who now sits at God's right hand ready to receive and pardon all who come to Him. True, the day is coming when He will sit as Judge and Executor of God's righteous judgment on this habitable world (Acts 17:31); but it is not so as yet. Now He waits to save and bless. Will you not then bow to Him here? He died for you, and is He not worthy that you should fall at His feet in repentance and own Him Lord? God has decreed (Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10) that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow (heavenly, earthly, infernal); but how infinite the blessing for the one who now bows to Him believingly and follows His footsteps in this scene where He is rejected. "If we endure [with him], we shall also reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12).
I have examined these passages as test cases — touchstones for the reliability of the author's reasoning. I should much like to go into others, as, for instance, those relating to the resurrection, but I refrain, as my time is limited, and I think the cases taken up should suffice for the present purpose. I may say here that should you wish to go further into other points in the spirit of enquiry (not of controversy) I should be happy to assist you as I may be able.
Before passing on to notice one or two of the author's general statements of principle, I would say that I am including with this letter a little work (by one far better able to deal with the matter than I am) entitled, The Lord's Prophecy on Olivet. This in connection with our author's statement on p. 118 (based partly on a false conception of the meaning of the word "generation") that the Lord's predictions have been "refuted." I do not therefore myself enter into it here except to point out, as I have already done in conversation, that the word "generation" (see Psalm 12:7; Prov. 30:11-14) has a moral significance, apart from the sense in which it is generally used now.
Now as to some of the author's statements regarding the principles which have guided him to his conclusions. I do not enter into all the details of his reasonings; it will be more to the point to look "at the bases on which they rest.
First then, it seems to me to be contrary to reason to build such a structure as the author does on pages 109 to 111 on the statement of one man — Papias — who foolishly preferred oral tradition to written documents, simply because of the antiquity of the statement. Supposing Papias to have been an untrustworthy witness, the whole argument collapses. The evidence for the antiquity, genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures is far too strong to be overthrown by such a statement as that of Papias. In this connection I would recommend to your notice a work by Isaac Taylor, The Transmission of Ancient Books, setting this out in detail. If this be settled, the evidence of the Scriptures themselves is surely to be listened to rather than that of Papias.
Next, as to the argument with which pages 111 to 115 are largely occupied, and the conclusions reached on p. 115 that "of different biographies of the same person, that which contains the fewest miraculous legends (!) is almost certain to be the earliest and most authentic"; and consequently that the "minimum of miracle" is one of the main principles by which to test the relative value of the Gospels.
It all comes of shutting God out of the question. To one who believes in a living God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, miracles are no difficulty. How unreasonable to talk about the "minimum of miracle" when God is in question! If I acknowledge that there is One whose power upholds the universe, why should I doubt that He has been pleased to give special manifestations of His power, for special reasons, in raising the dead, healing the sick, or casting out demons? True, faith is needed; but thank God I am not called to have faith in what is unworthy of my trust, but in that of which God has been pleased to give me the surest proof. Besides, the author seems to me to refute his own argument, for the Gospel by Mark abounds with miracles, while the Gospel by John has very few; yet Mark is considered "the most authentic record." Why? This denial of God in any real sense very simply accounts for the author's utter inability to understand that which should be plain to the youngest believer in Christ. It blinds him to the wondrous moral beauty and perfection of scripture, and leads him to make unreasonable statements which he would not have made had he believed in God.
This leads me to notice the statements, on p. 94 and elsewhere, that God is "unknowable." I ask, is that a reasonable statement? A supreme Being, infinite in power and wisdom, unable to make Himself known! If the author had spoken, like the Athenians (Acts 17:23) of the Unknown God, I should have understood him better, but to deny that God can be known seems to me exceeding presumption.
Thank God, Christianity is infinitely beyond Agnosticism. The Christian knows God, the God who has revealed Himself in Christ, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). The Christian is given by the Holy Spirit an inward conscious knowledge of, and joy in, the God whom he has first come to know by reception of the testimony of Holy Scripture. It is easy to assume that persons who possess this blessed knowledge are only self-deceived. I can only point to the fact. The epistles of Paul, of Peter, and of John are full of that quiet confidence that knows no uncertainty, confidence that I am assured comes of nothing but belief of the truth. What right has anyone to say that these men were either deceivers or else poor foolish persons who deluded themselves into this state? The whole tenor of their writings gives the lie to such statements. Once establish that what they speak of is true, and everything is beautifully consistent. There is no effort, no exaggeration, no needless colouring, but all is majestic in its simplicity and straightforwardness, worthy of the God who inspired them to write.
This divine certainty, this "love of God shed abroad in our hearts b the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 5:5), is what has enabled the martyrs from Stephen downwards to calmly face torture and death, and pray for their enemies in the midst of it. You may reason about it as you will, but can you produce anything like it as the fruit of Agnosticism, that seems almost to glory in not knowing? The glory of Christianity is that "we know" (1 John 5:20). And, just for a moment to return to our author's chapter 9, it is this wondrous confidence and strength, through the indwelling Holy Spirit sent down at Pentecost as the fruit of redemption, which explains the extraordinary change in the disciples which the author observes (p. 128) is recorded in the Acts; when those who were so feeble and trembling before boldly announce the name of Jesus at Jerusalem, and charge upon the Jews the sin of putting that One to death (Acts 36; Acts 3:13; Acts 4:10-12). That of which the Acts is a record is something far different from "a phase of religious controversies and metaphysical speculations"; it is the acting of a living, mighty power working in the hearts and consciences of men. Bitter enmity indeed was aroused in the hearts of those who refused the testimony, but wonderful results were produced in those who believed (Acts 2:44, etc.). Where is there another power that could so transform men "And observe, that same power is at work today. I could give you particulars of many cases of persons who have been completely turned round, and whose whole lives have been changed as the result of this same working of the Spirit of God producing in their souls repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. The case of the apostle Paul is but a sample — a striking one it is true — of what God has been doing ever since. It is not at all a question of mere assent to certain dogmas or creeds, but of a real inward change, resulting in living faith in, and love to, Christ, where before there was the opposite. No man is a Christian merely because he has been brought up to believe certain things, but he is one who has been brought to own himself a sinner and has turned to the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, finding in Him the blessed answer to every need of the soul. Agnosticism is a barren wilderness to the hungry and thirsty soul.
As an instance of this "conversion," I would like to bring to your notice the well-known case of William Hone, who carried his opposition to Christ and the Bible so far that he was thrice prosecuted for blasphemy (see brief notice in the Harmsworth Encyclopaedia). Well, this man was "converted" in his closing years, partly, I understand, through the instrumentality of a little child, and here are some lines written by him afterwards: —
"The proudest heart that ever beat
Hath been subdued in me "
The wildest will that ever rose
To scorn Thy word or aid Thy foes,
Is quelled, my God, by Thee!
Thy will, and not my will, be done;
My heart be ever Thine!
Confessing Thee, the mighty 'Word,'
I hail Thee, Christ, my God, my Lord,
And make Thy name my sign."
Was not that a change? I should thank God from the bottom of my heart if a fresh facing of the question on your part resulted in a similar change in your case. Harden not your heart against Him, I beseech you.
I add the testimony of another — a Christian man of great learning — taken from a letter: — "The more I look into infidelity, the more firmly, by grace, I am attached to the simple truth: the more I love it in its simplicity, the more I value this revelation, as revelation, and the goodness of God which has given it to us. But I value yet more than any means of receiving the truth, the precious Saviour of whom it speaks, and that in all its simplicity. Receiving Him as a little child, the more I desire to be a little child, and I see more and more that that is what we ought to be when God speaks. It is my joy to be a little child, and to hear Him speak. I may add, that the perfection of the word, its divinity, are ever more opened to my heart and understanding."
To this, as far as my little experience enables me, I can add my "Amen." Difficulties indeed arise, but one by one they are cleared, and I see that they have been the result of my own ignorance, not of mistake in God's word.
And now my task is almost done. The scientific part of the book I do not enter on. You have already a little book on the creation which deals with some of the questions at issue. I have no quarrel with scientific facts, but I do ask this: If I cannot trust an author to give me the right conclusions from the Gospel evidence, how can I trust him to do so from scientific evidence?
Here I close. I cherish the hope that enough has been set down to show that Christianity (that is, vital Christianity, not mere outward profession) is far different from what you have judged it to be. I shall be indeed thankful if it lead you to look afresh into that Book which you have long looked upon as worthless, to find it what millions before you have found it — a priceless treasure, because it reveals God to us, and lays bare to the believing soul those blessed yet solemn realities which to Samuel Laing were "behind the veil."
I remain, Faithfully yours for Christ's sake, F.T.T.