The Christ : the evidence of His divinity reviewed from the standpoint of a lawyer

Front matter

@2 . & & RS AS ‘s f) Wy aN AS NX AA

ACK \\ » . SS . ~ . AN WN

SS AAR Sy

Preface

In writing this pook I have considered the Bible as a record containing the evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ and have attempted to apply to that record the same rules of interpretation that a lawyer would apply to a record in court.

No effort has been made to walk in beaten paths, and I have consulted no commentary to ascertain the meaning attached to any part of the record by others; but I have simply sought to draw from the testimony and from the facts and circumstances connected with my subject such legitimate inferences and deductions as I thought the record warranted.

The necessity for a work of this kind is apparent to every one who desires to assist in the spread of the Christian religion. Although nearly two thousand years have rolled by since Christ completed his mission on earth, only a very small percentage of the population of the world has as yet accepted the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Many intelligent Christians are unable to defend their faith in Christ against the criticism that is daily hurled against the doctrine of the divinity of the Christ. Learned theologians and college professors have treated the subject with great ability, but much that they have written is beyond the grasp of the ordinary reader. What the world really needs is to have this doctrine presented to the people in such practical and tangible shape that the great masses can comprehend it and use the arguments to repel the assaults of infidelity as well as to strengthen their own faith.

No attempt has been made in this work to treat the subject in a scholarly manner. My desire has been simply to present a lawyer’s brief on the subject and to argue the question in a plain and practical way. This brief is submitted to the public as a court in the hope that it may serve to confirm the faith of Christians and also lead nonbelievers to accept the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Tuomas J. JEROME.

March, 1917.

Contents

CHAPTER IX

CHAPTER X PacEe

The Prophecy or Waiaphasi ie cs as amie le 165

CHAPTER XIII

CHAPTER XIV

Introduction

RELIGION has never made a stronger appeal to the thought of the world than it now makes. Japan has just held, under the inspiration of the government, a parliament of the religions of that country for the purpose of more strongly enforcing the sanctions of morality. The same need that has been officially voiced in Japan is felt in China, and the leaders of New China have not been slow to express their conception of the necessity of founding the new government on an ethical basis that shall find support in religion.

There have been manifested in Europe and America in the past twelve months signs of a marvelous quickening of religious consciousness. Reports from every country in Europe indicate that the chapels, churches, and cathedrals are crowded with worshipers at every service. Our book reviews show that in America during the past two years books dealing directly or indirectly with religious subjects far exceed, both in the number written and in volumes sold, any other line of books on serious subjects except the large sale of books on the subject of the war during the first few months of the year.

On distinctly religious themes there is no subject of more vital interest to-day than the significance of the life of Christ. Perhaps the most s‘gnificant tendency in religious thought just now is the revolt against the rationalism and liberalism that have prevailed more or less for fifty years. This is a healthy sign. While there is apparent a definite revolt and a definite break with rationalism, it is not at all certain that we shall return to the old orthodoxy. We shall perhaps embody its spirit, but not its letter.

Central in all our thinking to-day is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether we shall state our present belief in terms of the old Trinitarian formula remains to be seen, but the most vital article in today’s creed is that Christ is God. We welcome, therefore, any book that can throw any new light on this subject.

The author of “The Christ: His Divinity Reviewed” has written from his own viewpoint, that of alawyer-layman. He does not approach the subject from the theologian’s viewpoint; he does not clothe his thought in the customary garb either of the old orthodox school or of the school of higher criticism. He merely examines the record from a lawyer’s standpoint and tells us what he finds. To the average reader some of his conclusions may

Introduction II seem bizarre, even startling; but all will agree that these conclusions are his own, that his treatment is original. The important thing about the book is that the author finds the Christ to be none other than the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead.

Every pastor and every Sunday school teacher who has met the inquiries of young men as to the divinity of Jesus Christ has felt the need of a convincing book to place in their hands. The author writes for the very purpose of proving from the record that Jesus is the Christ of God. There can be no question as to the need for just such a discussion as is here undertaken. For many years past there have been those in the highest positions of honor and of responsibility that have denied the deity of Jesus Christ.

And we believe that the idea of deity is a necessity to the enforcement of any scheme of morality or ethics. Without a Christ who is God, Christianity becomes a mouthful of pious platitudes and the New Testament a beautiful bundle of good advice.

We need more lawyers to advocate the cause of Christ and more to plead his right to command the hearts and consciences of men. JouHN F. Kirk.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew xvi. 16.)

The Christ: The Evidence of His Divinity Reviewed from the Standpoint of a Lawyer

CHARTER WE MIRACLES

1. Jesus Christ laid down his own rule of evidence by which the question of lus divimty was to be settled.

According to the record, the direct question as to the divinity of Jesus Christ was asked of him by John the Baptist, and he laid down his own rule of evidence by which the controversy might be settled. He appealed to his miracles, and upon this claim he rested his whole case.

“Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” (Matt. xi. 2-5.)

At another time the Jews came to Jesus in the temple and asked practically the same question that John the Baptist had propounded frora the prison, and they received the same answer.

“Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.” (John x. 24, 25.)

Jesus, therefore, laid down the rule as to the kind and quantum of evidence necessary to settle the whole question of his divinity. An appeai to the miracles he was daily performing, if we are to believe the record as to these things, furnished the only really conclusive evidence that could have been produced to convince the people of the divinity of Jesus.

2. The rule of evidence prescribed by Jesus was effective and produced the desired result with many people.

The rule of evidence laid down by Jesus as the test of his claim to divinity appealed to the people of © all classes; and, according to the record, many thousands were convinced by the performance of miracles that he was the Christ, the Son of God.

The five thousand people who followed Jesus and who were miraculously fed on the five barley loaves and two small fishes were persuaded by this miracle to believe that he was the Messiah.

“Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.” (John vi. 14.)

The restoration of Lazarus to life convinced many of the Jews.

“Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.” (John xi. 45.)

The simple assertion on the part of Jesus that he was divine would have been answered with scorn by all classes of people. It was necessary that something should be done by Jesus that man could not do in order to convince them of his divinity, and the power to work miracles furnished a convincing argument.

3. Jesus Christ wrought miracles of his own power and not by direct authority from God, like the prophets.

In discussing the value of miracles as proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ we are confronted at the very threshold of the argument by two very important questions:

(1) Did Jesus actually perform the miracles attributed to him?

(2) Even if it should be proved or admitted that he did, how does that show that he was any more divine than the prophets of old who are represented as having wrought miracles also?

Possibly it would be better to dispose of the second proposition first, since, even if it should be proved or admitted that Jesus performed miracles, if he thereby did nothing more than inspired men could do, the fact of the performance of the miracles would accomplish little toward establishing the doctrine of his divinity. |

It is true that the Bible represents man as having worked miracles, and we are told that Elijah and Elisha even raised the dead. Critics contend, therefore, that at most the performance of miracles by Jesus Christ, if it be admitted that he wrought such miracles, simply proves that he was merely a man whose works were approved of God and that God gave him the power to do these things just as the same power was given to other great and holy men.

There are four answers to this criticism:

(a) The miracles wrought by the prophets were performed in special and peculiar cases, generally brought about by divine guidance, and the power to do the miracles is always attributed to God.

In the case of the raising of the widow’s son from the dead by Elijah, the record expressly states that Elijah was specially sent to the widow and that he prayed directly to God for power to restore the dead child to life. (1 Kings xvii.)

In the case of the Shunamite’s son, restored to life by Elisha, the record shows that Elisha first sent his servant with his staff, with instructions to place the staff on the dead child ; but the dead was not thus awakened. Elisha then went to the home of the Shunamite woman; and after going into the room with the child he shut the door and “prayed unto the Lord,” and the child was restored to life. (2 Kings iv. 33.)

(b) According to the record, Jesus Christ possessed the power of himself to raise the dead, a power that no man ever possessed or attempted to exercise. He says of himself:

“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” (John v. 21.) (c) Jesus not only had the power of himself to raise the dead and work other miracles, but, accordii ing to the record, he possessed the power to commission others to do so.

“And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. . . . Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils.) iMathixt a 38)

(d) The disciples, being empowered by Christ Jesus to work miracles, afterwards performed miracles in his name. The lame man who was laid at the gate of the temple to ask alms of those who entered the temple to worship was healed by Peter in Christ’s name.

“Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” (Acts iii. 6.)

This was the first miracle performed by any of the apostles after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, and in consequence of it the great persecution of the Christians that started at Jerusalem was begun. |

Peter and John were imprisoned for healing the lame man; and having been brought out of prison the next day and being questioned as to the authority by which they had healed him, Peter declared expressly that it had been done in the name of Jesus Christ.

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole.” (Acts iv. 5-10.)

God never delegated to any human being the authority to confer on others the power to perform miracles, and no mere man ever possessed the power to work miracles of himself. Hence the very facts, if we are to believe the record, that Jesus Christ possessed the power to work miracles of himself and that he had the authority to delegate miraculous power to others, show beyond all controversy that he was divine, that he was God.

4. The biographers of Jesus who testify as to the miracles measure up to the standard of credible wiinesses, and they are corroborated by the facts and circumstances.

I return now to the first proposition and take up for examination the question as to whether Christ actually performed the miracles attributed to him.

It is unnecessary here to enter into a discussion of the question as to how miracles are performed, whether by a violation or suspension of the order of nature or by the expression of a supernatural will in accordance with the laws of nature; but it is sufficient to say that all thoughtful men recognize the fact that a miracle can be produced only by divine power.

I lay down this simple proposition for discussion in this chapter:

Nothing can perform a miracle except divinity.

Jesus Christ performed miracles.

Therefore Jesus Christ is divine.

I do not think the first premise in the foregoing syllogism will be seriously disputed; and I apprehend that the conclusion will be as readily accepted, provided the minor premise is established. I recognize the fact, however, that a real and serious controversy hinges about the minor premise.

Those who originally wrote the life of Jesus Christ as contained in the four Gospels present to us the picture of one going from place to place working miracles almost daily; and we must either believe this picture to be a pure fabrication, or we must confess the divinity of the one who wrought the miracles.

In ordinary controversies the genuineness of the record is admitted, but in attempting to maintain the affirmative of the issue as to whether Jesus Christ actually performed the miracles attributed to him by his biographers we are confronted with the fact that the genuineness of the record is challenged. However, the existence at present of the books composing the New Testament cannot be denied; and I propose to take up here the question of the credibility of the witnesses, leaving for discussion in subsequent chapters the question whether the books were written at the times claimed by the friends of Jesus or by the authors named.

These books name certain persons who, it is alleged, were the disciples of Jesus and witnesses of the miracles described therein.

Now, the testimony of a witness is strengthened or weakened according to the opportunities the witness has had for knowing the facts about which he testifies, the influences that might becloud his reason or warp his judgment, his prejudices, bias, disposition, temperament, character, motive, or interest.

I propose now to examine the testimony from these standpoints and to marshal the evidence in favor of the genuineness of the record in which the story of the miracles of Christ is recorded.

(1) Two of the biographers, Matthew and John, claim to have been eyewitnesses of the miracles. Thus they had the very finest opportunity for knowing the truth of the facts about which they testify.

“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem.” (Acts x. 39.)

The testimony of an eyewitness is the highest type of evidence as to the happening of an event known to jurisprudence. A document is the best evidence of a contract, but no other kind of evidence is equal in probative force to the testimony of one who says that he actually witnessed an event described by him. Such evidence is not hearsay nor merely corrobative or supporting, but it is positive in character and of the most convincing nature.

To those who trustingly believe in the miracles of Jesus it may or may not be unfortunate that no miracle ever wrought a permanent, visible effect.

Miracles Pa

The dead were restored to life, but not to immortal life; and none of those who were miraculously rescued from the grave are here as living witnesses.

I submit that the witnesses had ample opportunity for observing and knowing the facts and that they ought to be believed unless they are discredited in some way.

(2) No known influences existed to becloud their reason or warp their judgment and thus to cause them to record such facts if they had never happened. On the contrary, the influences that surrounded them would naturally have caused them to reject the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, even though they were convinced that it was true.

The bitterest persecution immediately followed their announcement that Jesus had performed the miracles and that he had risen from the dead and that he was divine. Their environment was such as to cause them to renounce the truth, if they had been disposed to yield to the temptation, rather than to fabricate a false story of events that never happened.

There is no evidence of any evil influences that would have induced these men to write such facts if they had never happened; but, on the contrary, even the evidence furnished by other historians of their time who were hostile to the Christian religion shows that the natural and temporary interests of these witnesses would have prompted them to leave the miracles unrecorded.

(3) There is not a scintilla of evidence of any prejudice or bias on the part of the witnesses. They were Jews trained to observe the laws of Moses regulating the worship of God, and it is unreasonable to suppose that any Jew of that day would have attempted to construct a false religion that tolerated no other religion and sought to displace the worship of God as prescribed by Moses. They necessarily must have appreciated the fact that such a course would cause persecution and death.

It is perfectly natural that men who had followed one for three years and had become so impressed with his character as to write his biography would be inclined to magnify facts that tended to glorify their hero; but it is neither natural nor reasonable to say that they would manufacture the facts, warp and woof, and construct a fabricated story that could be so easily disproved.

(4) There is nothing in the disposition, fee ment, or character of the witnesses to discredit their testimony. No charge has ever been preferred against them in this respect.

(5) No ulterior motive that could have prompted the biographers of Jesus to credit him with miracles never performed has ever been shown, and men do not manufacture falsehoods in regard to religious matters without a bad motive of some kind.

It is a natural tendency of a biographer to exaggerate the virtues of his hero; and the greater the love of the writer for the object of his eulogy, the greater the temptation to magnify the merits and conceal the demerits of his ideal. But evidently one who yields to this natural frailty would be expected to do so in a natural way. If Christ did not perform the miracles attributed to him by these witnesses, then he was nothing but a man; and if these writers had set about to create a fictitious character, they naturally and inevitably would have made an earthly hero.

According to their own record, if he was simply a man, they foolishly abandoned their own avocations and followed him at his simple bidding, tramping over the country with him for three years without pecuniary reward or earthly glory; and after his death they suffered persecution for teaching and preaching what they knew to be a lie, and that without reward or the hope of reward.

(6) The witnesses were entirely disinterested.

At the time the four Gospels were written the writers had received no reward; but the new religion they were preaching had caused them to suffer persecution, prison, privations, and stripes, and the only prospect before them suggested further suffering. Indeed, they could not have expected anything else; because Jesus, when he first commissioned them to preach, had instructed them to provide neither gold, silver, brass, scrip, shoes, nor staves for their journey and had warned them that they would be hated by all men and brought before councils, governors, and kings, and scourged even in the synagogues for preaching these things. (Matt. x. 9-22.) “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John xvi. 2.)

5. The miracles were not mentioned by contemporary listorians because they did not want to admit them, and to deny them would simply have strengthened the evidence in support of the rie astae of the Christian record.

Critics tell us that Josephus and Tacitus wrote histories almost contemporaneously with the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John concerning the same period of time and writing of the same people among whom these apostles labored, both writing during the first century, and that neither Josephus nor Tacitus mentions any particular miracles as having been performed by Jesus Christ.

I reply to this criticism by saying that Tacitus hated the Christians so bitterly that he actually approved of the cruel persecution of them by Nero, and Josephus loved them but little better.

These miracles, according to the record, did not occur in privacy, like the pretended supernatural visions of Mohammed, but they were performed openly and in the presence of the avowed enemies of Christ.

It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that many persons who had been healed of some infirmity or raised from the dead were alive at the time Josephus and Tacitus wrote and at the time the four Gospels were written. Josephus wrote his “Antiquities of the Jews” within forty-five years after the resurrection, and Tacitus wrote about the same time or possibly a little later. The four Gospels were written between 60 and 90 A.D. So aman twenty years of age when many of the miracles were performed would have been less than sixty-five when these books were written. Four authors mention the miracles; and if their record was untrue, living witnesses could have been produced to refute and discredit the record.

The record of the miracles of Jesus bears internal evidence of its genuineness. The accounts of the miracles in many instances are quite inconsistent with the idea that they are fabrications invented for the purpose of deceiving future generations.

Names are given in some accounts of the miracles, in other instances the miracles are mentioned as having been performed in the presence of a number of people and under circumstances that gave great notoriety to the events, and in a few cases prominent persons are mentioned as having been connected in some way with the miracles.

Take, for instance, the restoration to life of the son of the widow of Nain. The name of neither the son nor his mother is given, but the record expressly states that Jesus had just come over to Nain from Capernaum and that “many of his disciples went with him and much people.” As they reached the gate of the city of Nain “there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with ber) uke vit tt) fer)

The city of Nain (“The Beautiful”) was a well-known place in that day, and it still exists. It is near Mount Tabor and overlooks the Plain of Esdraelon. So in this instance the place of the performance of the miracle is given, and the allegation is that it took place in the presence of “‘much people” and that they were wonderfully impressed.

“And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.” (Luke vil. 16.)

_ The servant of a centurion, a Roman officer of Capernaum, was healed of the palsy. The allegation is that the centurion sent unto Jesus the elders of the Jews and that they besought Jesus to come and heal the servant, giving as a reason for their insistence the fact that the centurion loved the Jewish nation and had built the Jews a synagogue. It is also alleged that when the Jewish elders who had been sent to induce Jesus to heal the sick man returned to the centurion’s house they found the servant healed. (Luke vii. 1-10.)

The story of this miracle was written only about thirty years after the event and before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. Would the biographers of Jesus have dared to make these allegations in writing if the narrative had been false? The very leaders of the Jews are made to take part in this miracle. A high Roman officer, who was undoubtedly well known and much esteemed by these elders of the Jews because he had built them a synagogue, is also a participant; and the startling allegation is made that the miracle was performed without the servant having been seen by Jesus. It is unreasonable to suppose that the apostles, starting out into the world to propagate the religion of Jesus Christ and knowing that all they wrote would be immediately challenged by hostile Jews and unsympathizing Gentiles, would have fabricated such a story if it had been false. Although no names are called in this instance, the persons connected with the story could easily have been found and inquiry as to the truth of the allegations made and the record refuted if such allegations were not true. The master of the servant was the centurion at Capernaum, and the Roman officer who was kind enough to the Jews to build them a synagogue and those sent to find Jesus were the elders of the Jews at Capernaum.

A daughter of Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue and a prominent Jew, was restored to life. (Mark V. 22-42.)

In this instance the name of a well-known person is used, the place is given, and the allegation is that

Miracles oy

Jesus stopped the tumult and put those that wept and wailed out of the room and restored the girl to life in the presence of her father and mother. If the daughter of Jairus had not been restored to life, would Mark have dared to write such a falsehood within the lifetime of the daughter and possibly within the lifetime of her parents?

Peter, at the time Jesus was arrested, cut off the right ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, in the presence of the captain of the band and the officer and soldiers, and Jesus healed up the wound. (John xviii. 10; Luke xxiii. 51.)

If this did not happen as alleged, why would John and Luke have risked recording such a falsehood? The allegation is that this miracle was performed on a very notable occasion, and the truth about the matter could have been ascertained very easily.

The most remarkable miracle attributed to Jesus Christ was the restoration of Lazarus to life after he had been dead four days and after putrefaction of the body had commenced. The allegation is that this event happened in the presence of many people who had come to be with Mary and Martha; that numbers of the Jews, on account of this miracle, were convinced of the divine mission of Jesus; and that, in consequence of this fact, “the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” (John RT LOM te