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. 21:1919And 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. (2 Samuel 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 17:11And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word. (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. 2:1414But 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 Corinthians 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, 3332Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Romans 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 22:28-3028Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. 30Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (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 2:22(And this taxing was first made when 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 5:22But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (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.