http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1537
A Subtle Argument for Inspiration
The Bible—is it God’s Word, or is it a mere human production? This is a question of supreme importance.
For many years this writer has made a special study of the various
lines of evidence that substantiate the Bible’s claim of being a book
given by God. There are numerous areas one may explore in confirming
such an affirmation.
EVIDENCE WITHIN THE PAGES
There are many segments of information contained within the writings of
Scripture that argue for an originating source that lies beyond human
genius.
For example, the sixty-six documents that compose the Book are
characterized by such a flow of continuity, and such an amazing harmony,
that it is impossible that they could have been authored over a span of
sixteen centuries by some forty writers, and then fortuitously flow
together in the fashion now found. The Bible’s unity argues for a
supreme, orchestrating Mind.
There are approximately 7,000 prophecies that adorn the pages of this
body of literature. The fact that these fore-statements (dealing with
nations, people, and events) were fulfilled in a precise way (e.g., the
more than 300 that previewed the coming Messiah) is more than
incredible.
One can only marvel at the uncanny accuracy of the Scriptures in the
academic areas upon which they touch—whether history, science,
geography, etc.
We have discussed this matter in detail in our book,
The Bible & Science.
BAFFLING OMISSIONS
But there are other lines of evidence that add weight to the biblical
claim of supernatural origin. Some of these are more indirect in nature.
For example, there are omissions in the Bible that are puzzling had its composition been directed by mere human impulse.
Why are there no descriptions of God or of Jesus Christ? Other volumes
of religious literature abound with portrayals of the features of their
divine characters.
Why were most of the biographical data of Jesus’ thirty-three years
upon this earth passed over in silence? Why do we know almost nothing of
the life-long labors of most of the apostles?
Writers guided by their own literary inclinations would scarcely have
neglected such intriguing details. This is not a circumstance easily
explained from a naturalistic vantage point.
Elsewhere we have dealt with this material in more detail.
In summarizing these two major points we may say:
-
There are things in the BibIe that could not have been the result of mere human intellect.
-
There are things not in the Bible that surely would have been there if the documents had been humanly engineered.
Now we will direct our attention to yet another class of data. We are
prepared to affirm that there are incidents recorded in the Bible that
would not have been placed there if mere human impulse had been the
guiding force in its composition.
STRANGE INCLUSIONS
In this section we will restrict our discussion to material in the New Testament.
If a writer is attempting to perpetrate religious hoax by means of
fabricated documents, he will make every effort to avoid controversial
issues which would “turn off” those he hopes to persuade by his
propaganda. In view of this well-recognized principle, one is shocked to
note some very strange inclusions to the New Testament record—if the
narratives were prepared by writers who knew Christianity to be a bogus
system, yet, nonetheless, wanted to persuade first-century citizens to
accept it. Consider some of the following cases.
An Out-of-Wedlock Birth
The New Testament record begins with the account of the birth of Jesus.
Joseph, a Hebrew man of the city of Nazareth, was “betrothed” to a
virgin girl named Mary. In Jewish custom, from the time of a woman’s
betrothal, she was treated as if she were “married,” though the union
had not been consummated. A betrothal could not be dissolved except by
divorce, and sexual activity with another was treated as adultery
(Edersheim, p. 148). At the very least Mary would have been disgraced,
had Joseph “put her away,” when he discovered that she was with child
(Matthew 1:19).
Now here is the significant point. If one aims to construct a religion
that he hopes will find acceptance within the ancient society of
Judaism, he would hardly begin it with the hero of the “plot” being born
out of wedlock! Such was scandalous to the Jewish mind. Yet this is
precisely the situation to which one is introduced—in both Matthew and
Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth. The only reasonable view of this
circumstance is this: the story of the birth of Christ is presented the
way it is because that is precisely how it happened—as unappealing as
that was to the Jews. The account has a significant sense of
authenticity.
A Despised Tax Collector
Let us reflect upon the fact that one of the apostles of Christ was a
Hebrew named Matthew (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-28). He is
the only apostle whose individual call is recorded in the Synoptic
Gospels. By occupation, he was a publican (tax collector) who worked on
behalf of the Roman government. Barclay has noted that “there was no
class of men in the ancient world more hated than tax gatherers” (1959,
p. 59). Ancient writers—both pagan and Jewish—put tax collectors in the
same category with harlots, robbers and a variety of other scoundrels
(Green,
et al., p. 805). Even the New Testament associates
publicans with the most disreputable people (cf. Matthew 21:31-32; Mark
2:15; Luke 15:1). The Jews distrusted the publicans so intensely that
they “declared them incapable of bearing testimony in a Jewish court of
law” (Edersheim, p. 57).
These facts being the case, who can imagine that forgers, contriving to
put together the New Testament documents in order to provide a
rationale for the success of Christianity, would have invented the
character of a “publican” as one of Jesus’ apostles?
To compound the matter, this “tax collector” is the writer who is
reputed to have composed the gospel record that was specifically
designed to present the case of Jesus, as the fulfillment of Old
Testament messianic prophecy, to the Hebrew people! The selection of
Matthew, as one of the apostles, has the “ring” of absolute truth.
A Volatile Mixture
Add to the foregoing situation the fact that there was another
controversial figure in the apostolic band. In Luke’s writings he is
called Simon the Zealot, the latter expression signifying his political
persuasion (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Palestine had come under Roman
domination in 63 B.C., and the Jews “choked” on that reality.
Accordingly, there developed a band of the most radical patriots
imaginable. They eventually became known as the Assassins, the name
being derived from
sica, a small, curved dagger which they
concealed beneath their robes. With these weapons, when opportunity
arose, they dispatched their enemies into eternity. Needless to say, the
Zealots hated the publicans (considering them traitors), and the
publicans feared the Zealots. It is hard to imagine a more unlikely
combination in the apostolic company, than Matthew the publican,
together with Simon the Zealot. Who, in the name of common sense, would
have invented this scenario in attempting to explain the astounding
success of Christ’s apostles? It is a mark of authenticity.
The “Woman” Issue
Some of the movements of Jesus, among the different elements of Hebrew
society during the days of His ministry, utterly defy explanation on
naturalistic bases. Think about these episodes for a moment.
Jesus once accepted an invitation from a Pharisee (the strictest sect
of the Jews) to dine at his home (see Luke 7:36ff.). During the course
of the meal, a woman (widely known as a “sinner,” i.e., likely a
prostitute) came into the house. Immediately, she went to the Lord’s
feet. She kissed the Savior’s feet profusely (so the Greek indicates),
and her tears of joy bathed them. She used her long hair as a “towel” to
gently dry them. Simon, the host, mentally criticized Christ for
permitting this disreputable lady to touch Him in this fashion (vs. 39).
Jesus, however, censured His Pharisaic host, yet commended the woman!
Christ is placed in a bad light from two common vantage points.
First, Jewish men normally did not associate with women in public (cf.
John 4:27). The Jewish attitude towards women was less than ideal. While
the Old Testament afforded significant dignity to womanhood (cf.
Proverbs 31:10ff.), the Hebrews, over the years, had imbibed some of the
attitudes of paganism. Many a Jewish man started his day with prayer to
God, expressing thanks that he was neither a Gentile, a slave, or a
woman! Hebrew men did not talk with women “in the street”—not even with a
mother, sister, daughter, or wife (Lightfoot, 3:286-287). According to
the most liberal view of Deuteronomy 24:1, a Hebrew husband could
divorce his wife if she was found “familiarly talking with men”
(Edersheim, p. 157). William Barclay tells of a segment of the Jews
known as the “bleeding and bruised” Pharisees; when they saw a woman
approaching, they would close their eyes; hence, were running into
things constantly (1956, 1:142-143). Jesus broke this mold.
Second, the tarnished reputation of the dear soul would intensify an
already smoldering atmosphere. This episode, therefore, is hardly one
that would have enhanced the gospel record with the Jews of the first
century. It is an unlikely event to be incorporated into the biblical
narrative by an imposter.
A Medical Problem
One of the dreaded diseases of the first century was leprosy. (NOTE: The Greek term
lepra
is generic, embracing a number of scaly skin diseases, e.g., psoriasis,
lupus, ringworm, etc., and possibly including the modern malady known
as Hansen’s disease.)
There are several instances recorded in the gospel accounts wherein
Jesus had contact with lepers. For instance, following the sermon on the
mount, a man “full of leprosy” encountered Christ, and fell at the
Lord’s feet, worshipping Him (cf. Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-44; Luke
5:12-14). Jesus had compassion on the man (Mark 1:41). All three writers
agree that Christ “touched” the poor soul. Contrast this with the
general rabbinic custom. A rabbi would not eat an egg that was purchased
on the same street where a leper lived. Occasionally rabbis would throw
rocks at lepers to insure that these unfortunate souls kept their
distance (Elwell, 2:1124-1125).
If a leper approached the average Jew in biblical times, the Hebrew,
being fearful of becoming “unclean,” or even of being seen in proximity
with the afflicted victim, would flee the area (Hendricksen, p. 391).
How very unlikely, then, would it have been that a sympathetic
biographer would write that Christ was on familiar terms with such
wretched folks. It is not an association that would endear the Lord to
the Jews.
Racism
A similar example is seen in Jesus’ attitude toward the Samaritans. In
his gospel account, John makes the simple remark that “Jews have no
dealings with Samaritans” (4:9). The Hebrews did not even regard Samaria
as a part of the Holy Land; rather it was merely a strip of foreign
territory separating Galilee from Judaea (Edersheim, p. 12). Quite
frequently, Jews would not even go through Samaria—when traveling from
one end of the country to the other. The common route was to cross the
Jordan and avoid the dreaded territory altogether.
While there was some casual mingling between Jews and Samaritans (see
John 4:8), the hostility between the groups was often quite bitter. One
rabbi (Eliezer) said that “he who eats the bread of the Samaritans is
like to one who eats the flesh of swine.” Another saying suggested that
the daughters of the Samaritans were “unclean” from the cradle (Morris,
p. 229). And one cannot but recall that on one occasion even James and
John asked the Lord if he would like for them to call fire from heaven
to consume some inhospitable Samaritans (Luke 9:51-56).
In spite of the gulf that existed between Jews and Samaritans, it is
incredible that the New Testament elevates some of these people to a
very noble status. In a well-known parable, it is a Samaritan who
becomes the compassionate and generous hero, while a Jewish priest and a
Levite are represented as uncaring villains (Luke 10:25ff.). And when
Jesus miraculously “cleansed” ten men who were afflicted with leprosy,
only one was grateful enough to turn back and, glorifying God, give
thanks to the Lord (Luke 17:11ff.). It was a Samaritan who was commended
for his faith (vss. 16,19).
Jesus’ attitude toward the Gentiles was similarly unusual. In the early
days of His ministry, when He returned to His hometown of Nazareth, He
read from the book of Isaiah in the local synagogue. The text was from
Isaiah 61:1ff., which proclaimed a host of spiritual blessings in the
distant future. Christ declared that those promises were in the process
of being fulfilled as He spoke. The Lord then suggested that, generally
speaking, these folks would be unlikely to receive His teaching—due to
their familiarity with Him. “No prophet is acceptable in his own
country” (Luke 4:24). Jesus then shocked His people by citing two
examples of faith in the days of Elijah and Elisha—Naaman and the widow
of Zarephath—both of whom were
Gentiles. Clearly there is an
implication regarding the character of the Jews at that time. The
allusion so infuriated the citizens of Nazareth that they attempted to
murder the Son of God (vs. 29). This act of Christ, in complimenting
Gentiles, combined with the frank description of the rejection He would
receive from His hometown folks, is hardly the sort of information that
would be included in a record designed to woo the favor of the
first-century Israelite people.
Controversial Teaching
Anyone familiar with the tactics of politicians is painfully aware of
how they generally tailor their programs to what their constituents
desire, rather than what is in harmony with the will of the sovereign
Creator. Such was not the case with Jesus Christ—He “cut across the
grain,” teaching what was
right, not what was popular.
Jesus declared that families would be divided over loyalty to Him; He
insisted that to be faithful to Him one must be willing to sacrifice
everything if necessary, bearing His “cross” (a term of great reproach)
daily (Matthew 10:34ff.; cf. Luke 9:23). Christ laid down a rigorous law
enforcing the stability of marriage. Only an innocent victim of marital
infidelity would be able to divorce and subsequently remarry (Matthew
5:32; 19:9). He demanded that His followers subordinate material
possessions to spiritual interests (Matthew 19:16ff.; Luke 12:13-21). He
peeled back the hypocrisy of religious charlatans whose hearts were
light-years away from God (Matthew 6:1ff.; 23:13ff.).
Who would have expected any success in his mission by making demands
like these? This is not the level of dedication that appeals to most
people; it is not a philosophy that man would craft. Of the Christian
system it aptly has been said: “Man
could not have invented it if he would; he
would not have fashioned it if he could.”
Then there is that matter of the conciliatory ideology of the “Prince
of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6) with reference to His enemies. When men look for
heroes, they generally want rugged men—those who will not stand by and
take abuse from evil adversaries. The exploits of military leaders
dominate the literary historical terrain.
In 63 B.C. the renowned Roman general Pompey
swept through Palestine and the Hebrew people came under the dominating
heel of the imperial throne. Fuelled by the Zealots, the Jews developed
an intense hatred for the Romans. The oppressors must be overthrown!
Following the miraculous feeding of a great multitude, many of the Jews
felt that Jesus just might be the leader to accomplish this ambition.
They were on the verge of forcing Him to be their king, but He would
have none of it (John 6:15). A poet has well described the situation.
“They were looking for a king to slay their foes and lift them high.
Thou camest a little baby thing—that made a woman cry.”
Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be oppressed and
afflicted, and yet He would humbly submit to His enemies (cf. 50:6;
53:7,9). In the course of His trial, Jesus amply demonstrated the
accuracy of those predictions. He taught His disciples not to resist
their persecutors with violence; rather they were to love (
agape—act
in the benevolent interest of) their foes (Matthew 5:38ff.; cf. Romans
12:17ff.). The difficulty of this challenge is highlighted by the fact
that, even today, some Christians resort to fanciful modes of textual
manipulation in order to escape the force of the instruction.
Our continuing argument, then, is this. Christ’s example, and His
demanding admonition to His followers regarding their enemies, would
never have been the basis of a doctrinal platform conceived by men with
the design of attracting great throngs to the Christian Way. The rigors
of the requirements provide evidence of divine origin.
CONCLUSION
The authenticity of Christianity, as set forth in the New Testament, is
supported by many lines of converging evidence—from the most obvious to
the brilliantly subtle. Only those who have not carefully studied the
matter, or who are steadfast in their willfull resistance of the
evidence, can remain unconvinced of the genuine nature of the religion
of Jesus Christ. Those who have probed the theme in depth are
increasingly awed by the sanctity of the Scriptures.
REFERENCES
Barclay, William (1956),
The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster).
Barclay, William (1959),
The Master’s Men (New York: Abingdon).
Edersheim, Alfred (1957),
Sketches of Jewish Social Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Elwell, Walter (1988),
Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker).
Green, Joel, Scott McKnight, Howard Marshall (1992),
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity).
Hendricksen, William (1973),
Exposition of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker).
Lightfoot, John (1979),
Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and the Hebraica (Grand Rapids: Baker).
Morris, Leon (1995),
The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
