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 center 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 inquire 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 (verses 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 Lev. 12:44And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. (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. 1:2525And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 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. 2:1) 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 traveling 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) inquires 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 inquires 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 inquired 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 inquired 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. 2:1111And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 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 (chap. 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 inquire 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 Son 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 23:4646And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (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 23:3434Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (Luke 23:34) 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 (15:25) “they crucified him,” while it was about the ninth hour (Matt. 27:4646And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 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 23:4646And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (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—
The Lord was crucified.
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 learned, 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 1:1818No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (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; 17:517And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:17)
5While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Matthew 17:5); Mark 1:11; 9:711And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mark 1:11)
7And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Mark 9:7); Luke 3:22; 9:3522And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:22)
35And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (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 8:2929And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (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 Cor. 5:2121For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (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 2:2222Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: (1 Peter 2:22)), but in Him is no sin (1 John 3:55And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and 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 23:3434Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (Luke 23:34)), caring for His mother (John 19:2727Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. (John 19:27)), blessing a dying robber (Luke 23:4343And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (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 forever in blessedness with Himself in glory.
[F.T.T. ]
(To be continued)