Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer]

Preparing the Way (Isa. 40:3-5)

When an Eastern monarch entered upon a journey, it was customary to send harbingers ahead to make certain that the way for the king was prepared. This was especially true when he was to be traveling through barren, little-traveled country, where there would be no path in a condition conducive to traveling. Thus, all obstacles to travel which would hinder the king would be removed, and a path would be prepared for him. This would involve such things as leveling off high places, smoothing over rough places, and filling in low places. Similarly, when the King of kings and Lord of lords began to fulfill His mission among men, there was a need for preparation to be made for Him. As the path of travel needed to be put into proper condition for the earthly king, the hearts of men needed to be put into proper condition for the coming of the heavenly King. John the Baptist was the harbinger who went ahead of Christ to prepare the way for Him.

In serving as the harbinger of Christ, John fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for out God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain” (Isa. 40:3-4). The application of this prophecy to John is repeatedly affirmed in the New Testament (Matt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4-6; John 1:23). John obviously did not literally exalt valleys and make mountains low; the point is, his work of preparing the way for Christ was comparable to the harbingers who prepared a way for the earthly king to travel. Isaiah’s language found a figurative application in John the Baptist, as he prepared the hearts of men for the coming of Christ. It was his task to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk. 1:17).

In fulfilling this vital function, John preached, “Repent yet for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). Because of the prophecies contained in the Old Testament scriptures, the Jews to whom John preached had long anticipated a mighty kingdom, to be established by the Christ (“anointed one”) of prophecy. The Christ for Whom they had waited would soon come and establish that kingdom, and in order to prepare the people for His coming and the establishment of His reign, John announced that the time was at hand (near). He called upon men to repent; otherwise men would not be prepared for the kingdom of Christ. Truly, if men’s hearts are not set on serving God, they are ill prepared for the reception of spiritual truths.

The Elijah-Like Preacher

John’s task of turning corrupt hearts to God could not be fulfilled by one who offered nothing but comforting words and people-pleasing platitudes, or by one who spoke without a dogmatic certainty (e.g., “I think this is right, but everyone has a right to his own opinion, and we cannot really be sure about anything . . .”). It could not be fulfilled by the kind of “preacher” who continually wears a sickly little smile on his face and fills his message with sweet, heartwarming little stories. It could not be fulfilled by one who was fearful of speaking plainly lest someone be offended. To bring about the necessary change in the sinful hearts of men, it was imperative that the message be spoken plainly, forcefully, sternly, and with firm conviction. Men had to be made aware in no uncertain terms of their sinfulness and the importance of turning from their wickedness. Hence, the preacher needed to be one similar to Elijah of old.

John the Baptist was indeed precisely what was needed-another Elijah! God had promised, through the prophet Malachi, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” (Mat. 4:5-6). While this prophecy caused men to expect the return of the literal Elijah, Jesus taught that the reference was to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:14; 17:1013). This does not mean that John was the literal Elijah reincarnated, for he denied being Elijah in person (John 1:21). John, however, was so similar to Elijah that he was figuratively a second Elijah. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharias and promised that he and his wife Elizabeth would have a son (John), he said that John would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk. 1:17). John was of the same nature and character as Elijah, and his preaching was similar to Elijah’s in its bluntness, its incisiveness, its sternness, its forcefulness.

After the similitude of Elijah, John sternly denounced the sins of the people and warned of the judgment that would come upon the impenitent. In his plain, blunt way, he called the Pharisees and Sadducees a “generation of vipers” (very poisonous snakes), demanded that they bring forth fruits of repentance, and minced no words in informing them that they could not depend upon their physical relation to Abraham for salvation from God’s wrath (Matt. 3:7-9). He forthrightly warned of the punishment to be suffered by those who did not produce the fruits of repentance (Matt. 3:10-12). It was with a sense of urgency that he preached, for if men’s corrupt hearts were not changed, they would be unprepared for the King, and rather than participating in the glories of the kingdom, they would be the miserable recipients of God’s wrath.

John’s straightforward, fearless preaching is well illustrated by his statement to Herod regarding Herodias. He said very simply and directly, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). That, good reader, is getting right to the point! One simply did not speak to a king in that fashion-unless he was a preacher like Elijah, who had been equally direct and to the point in his dealings with King Ahab (1 Kings 18:1718; 21:17-24). In thus addressing the king, John knew that he could be imprisoned or executed, but he could not but speak truth. In fact, his rebuke finally did result in his execution (Matt. 14:3-12). If John could, in the face of such danger, inform the king that he had no right to live with the woman with whom he was living, surely preachers today should have the courage to tell men when they are living with someone without the scriptural right to do so; yet, many simply avoid the subject altogether, and others go to great lengths to devise theories designed to justify unscriptural marriages (Rom. 7:1-3; Matt. 19:1-12).

John’s manner of life befitted his message. Similar to Elijah’s, it was a plain, simple life of austerity and self-denial (Matt. 3:1-3). He began his preaching in the wilderness of Judea (Matt. 3:1), after spending his early years in the desert (Lk. 1:80). The word rendered “wilderness” and “desert” in the New Testament denotes an uninhabited area. The wilderness of Judea was rugged, rocky, sparsely populated territory west of the Dead Sea and the lower Jordan River. Laboring in such rough territory, he wore appropriate apparel-the coarse, rough garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle that was made of plain leather rather than the soft linen or silk that was worn by many. He ate the food that was plentifully available to him in the outdoors-locusts and honey. While his eating of locusts may not be appetizing to our tastes, it is not at all incredible. Locusts were specified in the Law as proper for the Jew to eat (Lev. 11:22), and they are still eaten by some. It would be expected that one living in such circumstances would possess a stern, rugged character, and such a personality is reflected in John’s stern preaching. As his manner of life was not soft, neither was his preaching. As his manner of life was plain, so was his preaching plain and straightforward, unembellished with meaningless flowery speech. It was most fitting that John live a life of austerity and self-denial as he denounced the self-indulgence, the greed, and the materialistic attitudes of men and women, calling upon them to deny themselves and devote their lives to God. As John preached repentance to those whose hearts were centered on material luxuries, his own austerity was a living protest against their sinful self-indulgence.

His Baptism

As John preached repentance, seeking to turn men’s hearts to God so that they would be prepared for the coming of the Christ, he baptized them in the Jordan. It was due to his baptizing that he was called “the Baptist”-that is, the baptizer. The word “baptist” is basically a Greek word, which would be accurately translated by the English word “immerser.” His baptism was for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:3). Of course, sin cannot be remitted apart from the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22-10:4; Matt. 26:28), and Christ had not yet shed His blood when John baptized. Nevertheless, God knew that Christ would shed His blood, and knowing that the price would be paid for their sins, God could for all practical purposes consider their sins forgiven when they submitted to John’s baptism. The blood of Christ would cover their sins, as it did the sins of their forefathers who had manifested faith (Heb. 9:15).

John’s baptism must be viewed in the context of his overall mission-preparing men for the coming of Christ and His kingdom. People repented, turned to God, and were baptized for the remission of their sins because of their faith in John’s teaching that the kingdom was coming soon and because of their desire to be a part of that kingdom. They were determined that when Christ came, they would be loyal to His rule and share in the joys of His kingdom. After Christ had come and set up His kingdom (Col. 1:13), the baptism of John, since it had been in anticipation of His coming, was no longer valid. Therefore, we read that the group in Ephesus who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism,” needed to be baptized “in the name of Christ” (Acts 19:1-5). They had been baptized because of their faith in John’s teaching that the Christ was coming to establish His kingdom, but they needed to be baptized because of their faith that Christ had already come, died for their sins, and established His reign. These are essential facts of the gospel to be believed prior to New Testament baptism (Mk. 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:33-38).

His Exaltation of Christ, Not Self

John had no illusions regarding his own position. He recognized that he was but a forerunner of the Christ. He was fully aware that the Christ, not His harbinger, was the One of supreme importance. His aim was not to attract people to himself, but to point them to the Christ. He always denied that he was the Christ, affirming that he was merely the harbinger to prepare the way for the Christ; and he ever proclaimed the vast superiority of Christ over himself, saying that he was not even worthy to perform the most menial act of service for the Christ, such as loosing and carrying His shoes (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7; Lk. 3:15-16; John 1:19-23; 3:28). After the temptation of Jesus, John saw Him coming and pointed Him out to his own disciples as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world”; as a result, some of John’s disciples began to put their faith in Jesus as the Christ (John 1:29-42). John’s attitude is well summed up in his humble words to his disciples in reference to the Christ: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

Christ’s Approval of John

While John was in prison as a result of his rebuke of Herod, he sent his disciples to inquire of Jesus whether He was truly the Christ (Matt. 11:2). Why He sent them is a matter of speculation, since John had previously affirmed without doubt that Jesus was the Christ. Some say he sent them for their own strengthening, and not because of his personal need. Perhaps it was because his imprisonment had caused him to be discouraged so that he needed reassurance. Whatever the reason for John’s query, Jesus replied by pointing to His works; they spoke for themselves (Matt. 11:4-5). After the disciples of John had departed, Jesus addressed the multitudes regarding John the Immerser (Matt. 11:7-14).

He first asked them what kind of man had attracted them out to the wilderness. Had the one in the wilderness whom they had gone to see been a “reed shaken with the wind?” The answer obviously was, no. Jesus thus drew attention to the fact that John was not weak, wavering, and vacillating. He was not one who was like the tall, slender reed by the Jordan which would passively bend with the wind. Rather, he was strong, stedfast, as a mighty oak. He stood for right and no force could sway him. Jesus then asked the multitudes if the one who had attracted them to the wilderness had been a man clothed in soft raiment, such as is found in king’s palaces. Jesus thus drew attention to the fact that John was a man who lived a life of selfdenial, not indulging himself in material luxuries. He did not seek the soft, easy life, which would demand compromise of convictions. Had he done so, perhaps he could have been in the king’s palace-rather than the king’s prison. Through these questions Jesus paid tribute to the firm, strong character of John.

Jesus proceeded to affirm that John was not merely a prophet, but more than a prophet. He was in fact the subject of prophecy. He held the unique distinction of being the harbinger of the King of kings. Jesus asserted that of all who had been born of women, none had been greater than John the Immerser. What a remarkable statement! Jesus could not have paid John a higher tribute. There could have been no greater. mission for a mere human to perform than that of being the forerunner of the Christ, and there could have been no more eminently qualified human to perform that mission than John the Immerser. Yet, in spite of his greatness, Jesus averred that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John (Matt. 3:11)! Surely, the least in the kingdom is not greater from the standpoint of character, strength, and dedication to God. The least in the kingdom is greater only in the sense that he enjoys an honor and a privilege that John never enjoyed. John, the harbinger of the Christ and His kingdom, died before that kingdom was established; hence, he was not permitted the privilege of being a part of the kingdom of which he preached..

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 10-12
May 13, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

Notice carefully that we ask whether Jesus the Messiah really lived, not whether one of any number of Jewish peasants, politicians, priests, prophets, or teachers might have lived and worn the name “Jesus.” We do not ask whether some Jesus who claimed to be some kind of “savior”-national, social, political, religious, or other-lived, but whether the Jesus Christ of the Bible really lived. People sometimes say the Jesus Christ of the Bible is an inspiring “myth,” “a pious fraud,” or a “noble ideal;” one fellow even said Christ was not a person but was a “process.” It is not our purpose here to dabble in “possibilities” and theories about myths, frauds, ideals, or processes, but to face one specific question: Did the Jesus Christ of the Bible really live?

The question can be raised for any number of reasons. Honest inquirers have a right to the facts, to the truth about the matter. It has been preached for centuries that he did live and is the only God-sent Savior of men. If that be so, he lays direct claim to the lives of all of us. He “either did or either didn’t” live, he “either is or either ain’t” such a Savior, and we have a right to know! Surprisingly, the question has been raised and answered with doubt or in the negative by many of those who claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Materialists and evolutionists have absolutely denied that the Jesus Christ of the Bible lived, because his claims and teachings contradict their pet theories. Such men have confused or converted many professed “Christians” who have tried to revamp the old faith without acknowledging rejection of the Christ and the faith. A large part of so-called Christendom reels and staggers before the question, “Did the Jesus Christ of the Bible really live?”

How We Answer Matters Very Much

Some folks have taken refuge in the fantastic solution which says that it does not matter which way we answer the question or whether we can answer it at all. Nineteen hundred years ago, the apostle Paul’s clear statement of the case precluded such sidestepping of the issue. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor. 15:17ff). He “either did or either didn’t” and “either is or either ain’t.” All middle ground is sinking sand! If the truth is impossible to obtain, then for all the good he can do us Jesus Christ had just as well have been legendary or fictional anyway. The practical consequences of doubt are precisely the same as those of denial: our faith is unfounded, forgiveness of sins unsure, beloved saints perished forever so far as we know, and our misery the only certainty!

Just about every theory put forth in answer to our question-everything from the theories of university professors to those of dime store philosophers can be found in the modern play “Jesus Christ Superstar.” The popularity of the play has helped to spread such theories far and wide, and to reinforce them, along with other similar plays. The college student will hear the same concepts, dressed up a bit, in class. Judas says the crowds will “find they’re wrong” about Jesus’ being the true “Messiah.” “It’s all gone sour,” he explains, for Jesus is actually a deluded, ambitious fanatic. Mary is made to say, “He’s a man, just a man . . . .” She says she has had many men (which raises the question of how prostitutes “have” their men, and how this Mary “had” Jesus since she is presented as a prostitute)-“. . . in very many ways, he’s just one more.” “I want him so. I love him so.” The Apostles think they are the ones who ought to be remembered, so they discuss at the Last Supper their intention to retire to write the gospels so that they can be talked about for all time. The Jerusalem crowds proclaim Jesus as “Superstar” in their view of him as a political ruler who will lead against Rome. Annas and Caiaphas consider Jesus a troublesome fanatic, a danger to the Jews. The Temple crowds think Jesus can heal, but he cries out emphatically, “Heal yourselves!” Pilate regards him a “misguided martyr.” Peter is told by Jesus, “It was nice, but now it’s gone,” and in the next scene Peter denies Christ. Jesus, in this play, at times doubts himself, at times denies himself. “I’m not as sure as when we started. Then I was inspired. Now I’m sad and tired.” “Put away your sword,” he says, “Don’t you know that it’s all over? It was nice, but now it’s gone.” He repeats, “I’m through, through, through.” A song near the end raises questions about the identity of Jesus in an agnostic spirit, highlighting expressions of doubt but affirming nothing as certain. Is he like Buddah? Or, Mohammed? It only seems certain that he chose the wrong time to come. The grave is the very last thing referred to in the play, which itself leaves the clear implication that his dust lies a’smoldering in the grave.

What is the practical conclusion to all those theories (and their more complicated counterparts put out by “professors of religion” in highly technical language)? The Messiah himself and everyone else doubted and denied him. If we follow him, we too must doubt or deny him! On the other hand, we can decide not to follow him. (It’s amazing that in the views presented throughout this play, if we were to affirm his Deity, we would not be following him in that case.) Maybe not for the prof’ with his head in the clouds, but for the practical man with his feet on the ground we are left with only two choices: twiddle-dee (follow Jesus in doubt and denial about his mission, so that his word would have no more claim in our lives than that of anyone else), or twiddle-doe (simply make no pretension of following him at all in any sense). Let us stress that all of this is based on mere theories! There is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus doubted or denied himself ever!

Well, what evidence do we have to go on? If there is any historical evidence bearing on the question, “Did the Jesus Christ of the Bible Really Live?”, then certainly justice and fairness demand that that evidence be heard.

First Line of Evidence

I. Historical Evidence From Friends. We have the testimony of the New Testament, real historical documents, that Jesus Christ really lived. Christianity “appeals to certain definite historical facts, . . and stakes all upon their actual occurrence” (S. H. Kellogg, The Light of Asia and the Light of the World, p. 369; cf. 1 Cor. 15:14-18). But can we be sure we have the original New Testament documents? Yes, because (1) there are about 4,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, the oldest part dating back to about A.D. 140 (or, about forty years after the death of the last author). (2) In addition, there are many early translations of the New Testament, dating from about A.D. 150 and following. (3) Numerous quotations from the New Testament, in other works dating as early as Apostolic times. In other words, the refined science of Biblical criticism has presented us an accurate text of the New Testament. Many years of painful research have identified no more than 150,000 variations in the text (counting the most insignificant); but,

Only about 400 of the . . . variations materially affect the sense. Of these, again, not more than about fifty are really important for some reason or other; and even of these fifty not one affects an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching. (Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, p. 1771).

So, the New Testament is “by far the best-preserved ancient document in the world” (Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 3rd. Rev. Ed. By William A. Irvin and Allen P. Wikgren, p. 161).

But can we be sure Apostolic men wrote the Bible? Might the New Testament be a forgery? As one writer points out, “There is . . . far better evidence of authorship (of New Testament books) than exists with respect to the works of almost any classical writers” (George Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, p. 159). It is correctly pointed out that the New Testament books are “productions of contemporaries and eye-witnesses.” Archibald Alexander points out, “The genuineness of the books of the New Testament having been admitted by friends and enemies . . . , in those ages when the fact could be ascertained easily, it is too late in the day now for infidels to call this matter in question” (The Canon, p. 248). In summary, the testimony of the friends of Jesus “can be traced up into the very generation in which the events narrated are said to have occurred” (Kellogg, op. cit., p. 32). Every archaeological and historical fact discovered, having any relation to the Bible record, illuminates or verifies the historical references in the Bible. The New Testament documents are primary evidence, rooted in history, proving that Jesus Christ really lived.

An example of the testimony given by contemporaries of Jesus is found in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:22-36. Four lines of evidence are given. (1) Jesus did miracles; the audience, as well as the speaker, was called upon to verify the fact (vv. 22f). (2) Also, Jesus fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament; the historical documents of the Old Testament still existed, and the audience could verify the fulfillment in their presence along with the speaker (vv. 23ff). (3) The resurrection of Jesus, “whereof we are all witnesses,” said Peter of the Apostles. (4) The miracles done by the reigning Christ through the Apostles, which were witnessed by the audience (vv. 33ff). The necessary conclusion, then and now, must be: “God has made Him both Lord and Christ!”

Second Line of Evidence

II. Historical Evidence from Enemies. Not only does Luke challenge “the scrutiny of the whole world” as to the historical accuracy and reality of his report (Lk. 2:13; 3:1-2), but also secular historians, all of whom wrote within less than 100 years after Christ’s time, present testimony which begs for examination. These historians were neither preachers nor friends of Jesus; in fact, the testimony they provide comes from the adversaries of Jesus Christ. Let the adversaries-“hostile witnesses”-tell us whether Jesus Christ really lived.

(1) Tacitus (d. A.D. 117) tells how some Romans complained that Nero, their own Emperor from A.D. 5468, set Rome afire.

To suppress, therefore, this common rumor, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name Christians. They had their denomination from Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Alexander Campbell, The Christian Preacher’s Companion (Reprint Ed. by College Press, Joplin, Mo., 31).

(2) Suetonius (ca. A.D. 70-ca. 160) wrote a life of Emperor Claudius, who reigned from A.D. 41-54. Of the Emperor, Suetonius says, “He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader” (ibid., p. 41).

(3) In his life of Nero, he explains, “The Christians were punished; a sort of men of a new and magical (or, pernicious) superstition” (ibid., p. 42).

(4) In his life of Emperor Vespasian, the emperor who persecuted Christians as being a sect of the Jews, Suetonius gives the background to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Commenting on the hope which the Jews had nourished and carried everywhere they lived, he states, “There had been for a long time all over the East a prevailing opinion that it was in the fates (in the decrees or books of the fates) that at that time some one from Judea should obtain the empire of the world” (ibid., p. 43). If the statement seems vague in relation to the question, did the Jesus Christ of the Bible really live, remember that the writer is a Roman historian, not a Jewish priest, a supporter of Rome and her emperors, not of Jesus Christ. Then compare the statement with such prophecies as Ps. 2; Isa. 9:6; 11:1-15; and Dan. 2:44. Then study the fear of Herod (Matt. 2:1-18), the angel’s promise to Mary recorded by Luke (1:32-33), the intense desire of the crowd who came “to take him by force, to make him a king” (Jn. 6:15), and the probing question of Pilate, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king.’ To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth,” although he explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 19:33-38).

(5) Pliny the Younger was sent from Rome in A.D. 106 and arrived in Bithynia on September 18th to serve as Governor. After about a year he wrote Emperor Trajan (ruled A.D. 98-117) for advice on what to do with the Christians. Pliny explains, “For many of all ages, and every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will be accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also, and the open country.” He says he has examined many such people already, “I have put the question to them, whether they were Christians.” He punished those who refused to deny Christ, but released those who “reviled the name of Christ.” He had learned it was their regular practice “to meet together on a stated day before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ, as a god. . . .” The Christians, Pliny added, repudiated “theft,” “robbery,” “adultery,” and all other forms of “wickedness”. He used the word “Christ” at least three times and “Christian” eight times (ibid., pp. 59-61).

(6) Trajan, the Emperor, responded that Pliny was handling well “your proceedings with those who have been brought before you as Christians” (ibid., pp. 61-62).

(7) Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-sometime after 100) left the ruins of Jerusalem behind when it fell in A.D. 70, accepting the hospitality of the Romans and serving as their historian of Jewish affairs. In Antiquities of the Jews (XVIII, iii, 3), he is discussing at one point the riots which resulted from false Messiahs. He says a wise man named Jesus won followers from among both Jews and Greeks, during the time of Pilate. “He was the Christ (Messiah),” explains Josephus, not speaking as a believer himself for he was a Pharisee, but probably helping readers distinguish this Jesus from the many others mentioned in Antiquities. “Principle men condemned him” but he appeared, to his followers, “alive after the third day” (some texts add “his followers reported” which is undoubtedly Josephus’ meaning at least). The tribe of Christians “are not extinct at this day” (ca. A.D. 92-93), he explains.

A Verdict Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Few scholars today deny that Jesus lived, though many of them talk about the “quest for the Jesus of history” – meaning some theory about Jesus other than the Bible account. One thing is certain: No informed historian can deny that Jesus lived, lived in the period reported in the New Testament, lived in Palestine, and was proclaimed as Savior by Jews and Gentiles in the first century-many of whom were not only contemporaries but also eye-witnesses of His life. Even the adversaries contemporary with and immediately following the lifetime of Jesus provide sufficient testimony to establish that much. This line of evidence might be a good starting place for someone who claims Jesus is nothing more than a misty myth or foggy fable; the fact of the life of Jesus can be established beyond all reasonable doubt from secular, unbelieving historians and ancient records. Nothing in this evidence gives the least credance to the theories of so-called scholars or of more popular writers who produce such material as “Jesus Christ Superstar.”

In the final analysis, only the Bible provides sufficient evidence to prove the character of that life. Here are the reports of contemporaries and eye-witnesses closest to Jesus Christ-and the documents are rooted firmly in history, more firmly than any other documents of antiquity! Here stands testimony “written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:31). These witnesses testify that Jesus Christ, after rising from the dead, sent them out with this authoritative command: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). So say the witnesses. What do you say, dear reader? The witnesses are unafraid of honest investigation; they invite it “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things” (Lk. 1:1-4). “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). If you cannot accept this testimony, you cannot accept the testimony of anyone about anything, not ever. Yes, he lived. And lives! “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (Jn. 20:29).

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 7-10
May 13, 1976

By L.A. Stauffer

The conception of human offspring, according to natural law, occurs only when the sperm of a man unites with the egg of a woman. In the case of Jesus, though, writers of the first century report that he was born of a virgin. The writers agree that a power outside of nature made the conception possible. It was a miracle, a supernatural event-a verifiable occurrence in nature caused by a power from beyond nature.

“Impossible,” “incredible,” “superstition” are a few of the reactions modern men display toward these Biblical accounts. Assessing the modern mind, Harry Emerson Fosdick, a rank modernist, concluded: “To them miracles are antecedently improbable, stories of them seem in general unreliable, reliance on them seems practically undesirable, and so in the end the whole matter becomes pretty much unbelievable” (Modern Use of the Bible, p. 155). As for himself Fosdick said, “I find some of the miracle-narratives of Scripture historically incredible” (Ibid., p. 164).

History

As incredible as it may seem to many folks, the virgin birth of Jesus is nonetheless a matter of historical record. Reporting from the viewpoint of Mary the mother of Jesus, Luke, a first-century historian known for his accuracy, says she was “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph” (1:27). He also recorded the response of Mary when the angel announced that she was to have a child. “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (1:34). Mary knew as well as anyone in today’s so-called scientific and enlightened age that virgins do not naturally have babies. The angel then explained, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God” (1:35). The conception of Jesus was therefore miraculous, demanding the injection of power from outside nature.

Matthew, one of Jesus’ apostles, reported essentially the same facts. His account related the appearance of an angel to Joseph, Mary’s betrothed husband, to assure him that Mary’s pregnancy was not of another man but of the Holy Spirit. “Joseph thou son of David,” the angel said, “fear not to take unto thee Mary they wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (1:20) Matthew then noted that this event fulfilled a prophecy announced several hundred years before. The prophet Isaiah, he records, had said: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23).

Possible

As already noted, a common reaction among modern men to this kind of a report is-“impossible.” The word “impossible,” though, is a rather strong term. Unbelievers should consider what this objection to the virgin birth of Jesus requires. It demands proof that no power exists outside nature. One must demonstrate, as C. S. Lewis describes naturalism, that “nature is the whole show.” An unbeliever cannot admit the possibility that power exists outside nature without conceding the possibility that the power may have injected itself into nature to cause the virgin birth of Jesus.

Furthermore, folks who consider nature the whole show must honestly reflect upon facts which nature of itself cannot explain. Nature, for example, offers no explanation of the origin of matter, of life and of the intricate designs in nature. Any interpretation of these facts calls for power unknown or unobserved in nature. The word “impossible” must exit through the same hole in nature which any outside power enters. The same power, therefore, which can create matter or life can also effect conception in the womb of a virgin. Infidels must, in other words, disprove the existence of God to prove the impossibility of a virgin birth, for “with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26). God Himself said, “Is anything too hard for Jehovah?” (Gen. 18:14).

Credible

The real issue, then, is not whether the virgin birth is possible, but whether it is believable. Here several factors must be considered. Its believability, to begin with, is related to the identity of the child who is born of the virgin. A report that Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar or Hirohito was born of a virgin would not be credible because none of them has shown any signs of deity otherwise. If such an account were found, it would be meaningless anyway. What has any one of them promised which demands divine power and which ignites any interest in whether they were born of a virgin?

Jesus, however, declared that He was the Son of God and promised He could and would provide an eternal life of bliss to all obedient believers. Claiming to be God’s Son, He has likewise consigned the unbelieving and disobedient to eternal punishment in hell. If any evidence of this claim exists, then the virgin birth is believable and worthy of investigation. The credibility of the virgin birth of Jesus rests, for example, on the evidence for His incarnation, transfiguration, miracles and resurrection. And these summon an abundance of witnesses to the deity of Christ and, as a result, to the credibility of His birth of a virgin.

New Testament writers, to put it another way, never appealed to the virgin birth to prove that Jesus is God’s Son or to confirm the truthfulness of Christianity. Paul, for example, appealed to the resurrection of Christ, concluding from it that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power” (Romans 1:4). Peter, who also testified of the resurrection, confirmed the truthfulness of Christianity on the grounds of the transfiguration. On the mount he saw the majesty of His brightness and heard the voice which said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Thus, Peter affirmed, “we did not follow cunningly devised fables” (Matt. 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:16-18). In addition to his testimony to the resurrection, the apostle John devoted his entire gospel to the miracles of Christ, observing finally: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:30,31).

Despite the testimony of many witnesses to the deity of Christ, unbelieving scholars are disturbed by the silence of these same apostles concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Some modernists have even implied that these writers knew nothing about it. At one time it was argued on the basis of this silence that the virgin birth of Jesus was a second-century myth which had been tacked onto the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Reasoning in this way from silence, though, can be rather precarious. May one, for example, infer that John knew nothing about the Lord’s Supper simply because he nowhere mentioned it?

A simple explanation for this silence can be given. All facts, even in a court of law, do not possess the same evidential value. Lawyers customarily present the most obvious and most demonstrable facts. The virgin birth, as James Orr noted, was obviously a fact of “essentially a private nature.” Even a doctor, such as Luke, could not upon examination observe and verify a virgin conception. Since the apostles were ordered to preach the gospel of faith in Christ to every creature, they naturally appealed to facts they themselves had observed and that the enemies of Christ had opportunity to witness. The virgin birth of Jesus is not believable because it is observable, but because it is reported of one who proved in many other ways he was God’s Son.

The credibility of the virgin birth also rests on the agreement of the witnesses and the reports. In this case the testimony of two witnesses is given in two accounts. Matthew’s account, as noted earlier, is based on Joseph’s experience and Luke’s record on Mary’s experience. The two narratives are different, and yet not contradictory. This is evidence of their independence. James Orr wrote, “The independence of the narratives is a guarantee of their worth. It shows that they are not inventions of either of the Evangelists, but are drawn from an outside source-nay, from two sources, which are distinct, yet agree in their testimony to the essential fact” (The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. 36).

The two gospels not only agree on the essential fact that a virgin was empowered by the Holy Spirit to give birth to a child, but also on the incidental and minute details where false witnesses normally contradict one another. Orr has compiled in the following quotation both the essential and incidental agreements of these two narratives.

(1) Jesus was born in the last days of Herod-Matt. 2:1,13; Lk. 1:5. (2) He was conceived by the Holy Ghost-Matt. 1:18,20; Lk. 1:35. (3) His mother was a virgin-Matt. 1:18,20,23; Lk. 1:27,34. (4) She was betrothed to Joseph-Matt. 1:18; Lk. 1:27; 2:5. (5) Joseph was of the house and lineage of David-Matt. 1:16,20; Lk. 1:27; 2:4. (6) Jesus was born at Bethlehem-Matt. 2:1; Lk. 2:4,6. (7) By divine direction He was called Jesus-Matt. 1:21; Lk. 1:31. (8) He was declared to be a Savior-Matt. 1:21; Lk. 2:11. (9) Joseph knew beforehand of Mary’s condition and its cause-Matt. 1:18-20; Lk. 2:5. (10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife, and assumed full paternal responsibilities for her child, was from the first IN LOCO parents to Jesus-Matt. 1:20,24,25; Lk. 2:5ff. (11) The annunciation and birth were attended by revelations and visions-Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:27,28. (12) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth-Matt. 1:23; Lk. 2:39″ (IBID., pp. 36,37).

The credibility of these accounts is founded likewise on the fact that they are contemporary reports of the birth of Christ, a quality of evidence missing in the narratives of so-called paganistic miracles. The story of the birth of Jesus is not a myth which grew over many centuries and was then eventually accepted as true. This gospel story comes from the first century. The facts do not sustain the modernistic view that the narratives of Jesus’ birth originated in the second century and formed no part of the original gospels of Matthew and Luke.

In the first place, no unmutilated copies of the New Testament omit Matthew 1 and 2 or Luke 1 and 2. Some New Testament passages are missing from certain manuscripts, but not these four chapters. This is true also of the many translations of the New Testament: Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, etc. Even the writings of the earliest “church fathers” such as Ignatius (A. D. 110) and the so-called “Apostles Creed” (A. D. 100-120) accept the virgin birth of Jesus at the beginning of the second century.

In the second place, even skeptical literary scholars, men who study the styles of writers, admit that the accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus formed a part of the original gospels. James Moffatt, for example, wrote, “No hypothesis of literary criticism or textual emendation can disentangle the conception of a Virgin Birth from a story which is wrought together and woven on one loom” (The Supernaturalness of Christ, Wilbur Smith, p. 83). Adolph von Harnack, who denied the virgin birth and whom Williston Walker called the “prince of church historians,” conceded after demanding and exacting research that “Luke’s gospel originally included chapters 1 and 2. The testimony of the virgin birth of Jesus was given, then, at the time it occurred when any available evidence to the contrary could be raised to dispute it. And yet no such evidence has been made available.

Not Superstition

Skeptics, nonetheless, hold to lingering doubts, viewing the narratives as paganistic superstitions. In the words of David Hume, the Scottish historian and philosopher, they feel miracles are “observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations.” Considering the word “chiefly” this is a fairly accurate observation. The facts, however, demonstrate that Palestine in the first century is an exception to the rule. A. T. Robertson, who has been especially close to this period through his study of the Greek language, said, one must not “think that it was an ignorant age. What we call the `Dark Ages’ came long afterwards.” It is remarkable, moreover, that David Hume not one time mentions a miracle of Christ in his essay “Of Miracles.” He wrote on miracles and superstition in the “Dark Ages” and among pagans, but does not so indict Christ and Palestine of the first century.

Furthermore the New Testament itself confirms the lack of credulity in first-century Palestine with reference to both the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. Mary, for example, showed a lack of credulity in questioning the virgin birth when it was first announced unto her. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, demanded scientific proof before believing in the resurrection of Christ. After the resurrection he wanted to see and touch the scarred body of his Master. The Athenians likewise showed an unsuperstitious nature when they scoffed at the preaching of Christ’s resurrection by Paul (Lk. 1:34; John 20:24-29; Acts 17:32).

Some skeptics, though, are still under the impression that virgin birth stories were common among ancient people and that the Biblical account is just one of a long list. Wilbur Smith observed two things with reference to these alleged parallel stories. “First, that in pagan mythology, it is not claimed that any hero is born of a virgin” (Op. Cit., p. 96). James Orr also argued that the New Testament contained the only true account of a virgin birth in ancient literature. Smith said, in the second place, that the style of the New Testament narratives is wholly unlike pagan myths. They are, he said, “utterly free from all artificial embellishment, remarkably devoid of unnecessary details, without the slightest tinge of mythological exaggeration, and in every way showing sobriety and restraint in composition” (Op. Cit., p. 85). Neither the society of firstcentury Palestine nor the Biblical accounts fit into the mold of paganism and its myths.

Men and women of the first century simply were not known to believe just any kind of story. Neither did the apostles expect them to. The apostles announced to the world what they saw and heard, confirming their own message by observable signs which followed (Mk. 16:17-20). This scientific evidence became the foundation of belief. It is this kind of evidence that convinced much of the world that Jesus is “the only begotten Son” of God-born of a virgin.

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 4-7
May 13, 1976

By Cecil Willis

No being who has ever existed upon this earth has so influenced every facet of life, and every culture, as has the meek and lowly Jesus of Nazareth. Even the most blatant infidel has to recognize His coming. Every time he dates a letter or a legal document, he tacitly admits to the existence and magnitude of Christ. More books have been written about Him than about any other being who lived upon this earth. Five thousand new books were written regarding Him last year. The berating infidel has some concept of morality. Yet there is no way whatsoever for him to say that one “ought” to do this or that, or that one “ought not” to do this or that, except as this “oughtness” relates to the will of Jesus and His Father, God Almighty. Had Jesus never lived, nor the will of God never been revealed, rationalistically speaking, there could be no standard of morality.

Jesus made exalted claims for Himself. He said that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (Jno. 14:9). He claimed equality with God (Jno. 5:17,18). He claimed to be the promised Messiah, “the Son of the Blessed” (Mk. 14:61-64). The worst charges that could be brought against Him were that He loved sinners, and ate with them (Matt. 9:10-13). But this charge He readily admitted, for His purpose in coming to earth was to “seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Jesus challenged his enemies to convict Him of any sin (Jno. 8:46). He accepted worship from a leper (Matt. 8:2); from a ruler of the synagogue (Matt. 9:18); and from a blind man (Jno. 9:35-38). Yet this same Jesus taught that only Deity was to be worshipped (Jno. 4:23,24). He claimed that the shedding of His blood would bring remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; Matt. 20:28). It was said of him that “Never man so spake” (Jno. 7:46). Many were astonished at His teachings (Mk. 7:37; Lk. 2:47). His works were equally as astonishing (Lk. 5:26).

Is it any wonder that this Divine Being in the flesh, who brought salvation within the grasp of all, who lived sinlessly, who was the world’s greatest teacher both in manner and message, and who wrought such wonders, signs, and mighty works should so influence men and their lives and literature? This author could never put into more eloquent language the influence of Christ than has already been done by far superior writers. Hence, this article will be closed by three classic quotations about the influence of Christ.

Under the heading, “Jesus, the Perfect Man,” C. P. J. Mooney on December 22, 1911, wrote in the Commercial Appeal of Memphis the following impressive lives. A line or two of this piece might be objectionable to you, just as I would have written a few of the statements differently. Though written in 1911, the content of this article is as fresh as the contents of tomorrow’s newspaper.

Jesus, The Perfect Man

“There is no other character in history like that of Jesus.

“As a preacher, as a doer of things, and as a philosopher, no man ever,had the sweep and the vision of Jesus.

“A human analysis of the human actions of life that is amazing in its perfect detail.

“The system of ethics Jesus taught during His earthly sojourn 2000 years ago was true then, has been true in every century since and will be true forever.

“Plato was a great thinker and learned in his age, but his teachings did not stand the test of time. In big things and in little things time and human experience have shown that he erred.

“Marcus Aurelius touched the reflective mind of the world, but he was as cold and austere as brown marble.

“The doctrine of Confucius gave a great nation moral and mental dry rot.

“The teachings of Buddha resulted in mental and moral chaos that makes India derelict.

“Mohammed offered a system of ethics which was adopted by millions of people. Now their children live in deserts where once there were cities, along dry rivers where once there was moisture, and in the shadows of gray, barren hills where once there was greenness.

“Thomas Aquinas was a profound philosopher, but parts of his system have been abandoned.

“Francis of Assissi was Christlike in his saintliness, but in some things he was childish.

“Thomas A. Kempis’ IMITATION OF CHRIST is a thing of rare beauty and sympathy, but it is, as its name indicates, only an imitation.

“Sir Thomas More’s UTOPIA is yet a dream that cannot be realized.

“Lord Bacon writing on chemistry and medicine under the glasses of the man working in a twentieth century laboratory is puerile.

“The world’s most learned doctors until a hundred and fifty years ago gave dragon’s blood and the ground dried tails of lizards and shells of eggs for certain ailments. The great surgeons a hundred years ago bled a man if he were wounded.

“Napoleon had the world at his feet for four years, and when he died the world was going on its way as if he had never lived.

“Jesus taught little as to property because He knew there were things of more importance than property. He measured property and life, the body and soul, at their exact relative value. He taught much as to character, because character is of more importance than dollars.

“Other men taught us to develop systems of government; Jesus taught so as to perfect the minds of men. Jesus looked to the soul while other men dwelled on material things.

“After the experience of 2000 years no man can find a flaw in the government systems outlined by Jesus. Czar and Kaiser, President and Socialist, gave to its complete merit their admiration.

“No man today, no matter whether he follows the doctrine of Mills, Marx or George as to property, can find a false principle in Jesus’ theory of property.

“In the duty of a man to his fellow no sociologist has ever approximated the perfection of the doctrine laid down by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

“Not all the investigation of chemists, not all the discoveries of explorers, not all the experience of rule, not all the historical facts that go to make up the sum of human knowledge on this day in 1912 are in contradiction to one word uttered or one principle laid by Jesus.

“The human experience of 2000 years shows that Jesus never made a mistake. Jesus never uttered a doctrine that was true at that time and then became obsolete.

“Jesus spoke the truth; He lived the truth, and truth is eternal.

“History has no record of any other man leading a perfect life or doing everything in logical order.

“Jesus is the only person whose every action and whose every utterance strike a true note in the heart and mind of every man born of woman. He never said a foolish thing, never did a foolish act and never dissembled.

“No poet, no dreamer, no philosopher loved humanity with the love that Jesus bore toward all men.

“Who, then, was Jesus?

“He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.

“Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be-a divine being-or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave to the world as a heritage.”

The Incomparable Christ

Another great piece of literature regarding the influence of Christ has been passed down through the ages. I wish I knew the author’s name so that I might give him credit for a wonderful composition. But unfortunately, I have only seen it attributed to the prolific writer, Mr. “Selected.”

“He came from the bosom of the Father to the bosom of a woman. He became the Son of man that we might become sons of God. He put on humanity that we might put on divinity. He left the region where the rivers never freeze, winds never blow, frost never bites, flowers never fade; where there are no undertakers, no doctors needed, because no one is ever sick; where graveyards never haunt, death never comes, and where no funerals are never conducted.

“He was born contrary to the laws of nature, was reared in obscurity, and lived in poverty; only once did he ever cross the boundaries of his own small country; he had no wealth or influence, training or education, and his parents knew nothing of the niceties of social traditions.

“In infancy, he startled a king; in boyhood, puzzled the wise; in manhood, ruled the course of nature.

“He healed the multitudes without medicine, and made no charge for his services. He never wrote a book, yet all the libraries of the world could not contain all the books that could be written about him.

“He never wrote a song, and yet he has provided the themes for more songs than all earthly writers combined.

“He never founded a college, yet all the schools of earth have not had the students that sat at his feet.

“He never practiced medicine, yet has healed more broken hearts than the world has ever taken note of.

“He never marshaled an army, never drafted a soldier, or fired a gun, yet no leader has ever had the volunteers, who, under his orders, made rebels stack arms and surrender to his command, never firing a shot.

“He is the Star of astronomy, the Rock of geology, the Lamb and Lion of zoology, the Harmonizer of all discords, and the Healer of all diseases.

“Great men have come and gone; He lives on. Herod could not kill him; Satan could not seduce him; death could not destroy him; and the grave could not hold him.

“He laid aside his purple robe for a peasant’s gown. He was rich but for our sakes became poor, that we might be rich. How poor? Ask Mary? Ask the wise men? He slept in another’s manger; rode another’s ass; he was buried in another’s tomb. All others have failed; he never. The ever perfect one, the chief among ten thousand; altogether lovely.”

One Solitary Life

Yet the most beautiful piece, though much briefer, is attributed by some to Phillips Brooks. It was a favorite piece to Brother Luther Blackmon, and I often have heard him recite it, with great emotion upon himself and upon his hearers. Others have attributed this literary gem to James A. Francis. Perhaps some literary specialist will inform us as to its genuine authorship. But it is a beautiful description of the influence of Jesus, regardless of who wrote it.

“Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He worked in a carpenter shop until he was 30, and then for three years he was an itinerant preacher. He never held an office. He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put his foot inside a big city. He never traveled 200 miles from the place where he was born. He never did one of the things which usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but himself.

“While he was a young man, the tide of public opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. He was turned over to his enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While he was dying, his executioners gambled for the only piece of property he had on earth, and that was his coat. When he was dead, he was laid in a private grave through the pity of a friend.

“Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone, and today he is the central figure of the human race and the leader of the column of progress.

“I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that were ever built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth, as that One Solitary Life.”

Truth Magazine, XX:20, pp. 2-3
May 13, 1976