Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible

Habitation of God Dwells in light. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can ap​proach unto. 1 Timothy 6:16 Dwells in darkness. Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick dark​ness. 1 Kings 8:12 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. Psalm 18:11 Clouds and darkness are round about him. Psalm 97:2 The meaning may be that that in which God dwells is “light” to him, but “darkness” to us. The morning sun, which is light to the eagle, is darkness and blindness to nocturnal animals. A better explanation, perhaps, is the following: Imagery of various and widely diverse kinds is

employed in the scriptures to set forth the attributes of God and his immeasurable remove from finite conditions and creatures. Where two or more figures are employed to illustrate the same idea, we should look for the common features of resemblance or common point of comparison. In the case before us, both of the figurative expressions—“unapproachable light” and “thick darkness”—set forth vividly and equally well the unsearchableness of God in relation to his creatures. This is the point which, in the present instance, the sacred writers intended to illustrate and beyond this their language should not be pressed. Dwells in chosen Temples. And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice. . . . For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be

there perpetually. 2 Chronicles 7:12, 16 Does not dwell there. Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? Isaiah 66:1 Howbeit, the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. Acts 7:48 Observe, first, that God does not promise to “dwell” in the temple. He says he had chosen it, not as a residence, but as a “house of sacrifice.” So Solomon understood it, for he says: “But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?”87 The promise that the name, heart, and eyes of Jehovah should be there, meant simply that he would regard the

house with peculiar favor, and manifest his power and grace in it. It is to be noted, secondly, that the whole promise was conditional, as is explicitly stated in the following verses: “But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.”88 As the conditions were not complied with, the promise was of course not binding. The quotation from Acts merely affirms that the infinite, omnipresent Spirit is not restricted to any one locality, or confined to any single place of worship. Inhabits eternity. For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy. Isaiah 57:15

Dwells with men. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. Exodus 29:45 I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23 God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2 Corinthians 6:16 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his

people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. Revelation 21:3 An omnipresent Being may do both—dwell in eternity, and with men too. The “omnipresence” of God is his power to develop his activity everywhere at once. Hence, in this view, the passages present no difficulty. Dwells in heaven. Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Psalm 123:1 Dwells in Zion. Sing praises to the Lord, which dwelleth in Zion. Psalm 9:11 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwellingplace in Zion. Psalm 76:2 To a mind capable of comprehending the meaning of the term “omnipresence” these texts are seen to be in perfect harmony. Most simply,

yet sublimely, is the idea expressed by the inspired prophet: “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.”89 Position God assumes One Position. There will I sit to judge all the heathen round about. Joel 3:12 A different one. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. Isaiah 3:13 This is a fair specimen of the trivial, verbal discrepancies which certain infidel writers palm off upon their careless or ignorant readers as cases of real contradiction. Of course, no person of candor and common sense would think of interpreting the language literally. The figure “sit” brings graphically to view the deliberateness and impartiality with which God judges men; the term “standeth” represents him as in the act of

executing his judgments. Law of God A law of liberty. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James 2:12 Tends to bondage. These are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage. Galatians 4:24 The “law” of the first, is not identical with the “covenant” of the second passage. The former refers to the norm or rule of life contained in the gospel. It is Christ’s law of love, purity, and liberty, as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount. Alford: “It is the law of our liberty, not as in contrast with a former law of bondage, but as viewed on the side of its being the law of the new life and birth, with all its spontaneous and free development of obedience.” On the contrary, the “covenant” is the Mosaic

law, with its complicated and burdensome ritual. This gendered to bondage. Ellicott comments thus: “‘Bearing children unto bondage’ i.e. to pass under and to inherit the lot of bondage.” Peter terms it a “yoke,” which “neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.”90 As, therefore, the two texts refer to entirely different things, there is no collision. Law is perfect. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty. James 1:25 It perfected nothing. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did. Hebrews 7:19 As in the preceding instance, these texts refer to different things—the former to the Christian, the latter to the Mosaic, law. Besides, were the same law intended in both cases, it would by no means follow that a perfect law necessarily secures perfect obedience.

Observance tends to life. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord. Leviticus 18:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth these things shall live by them. Romans 10:5 Tends to death. Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord. Ezekiel 20:24–26

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. Romans 7:10 If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Galatians 3:21 The first two texts affirm the general principle that obedience secures felicity, but do not say that any human being renders this obedience, in the full and perfect sense. The words, “if a man do,” are merely hypothetical. Ezekiel’s words, taken in their connection, are explained by Kimchi91 in the following manner: As the Israelites did not choose to observe the comparatively mild statutes of God whereby they might have lived happily, he substituted other statutes, so different from the first as to render it impossible to live under them, by subjecting that disobedient people to those enemies who instituted violent and rigorous laws against them.

That is, the “statutes not good” were not the Mosaic statutes, but those of heathen tyrants and oppressors, to whom, from time to time, God delivered the Jews in punishment of their sins.92 The commandment which was fitted and intended to secure life, Saul, through transgression, found to result in death. Our criminal law, which makes hanging the penalty of the crime of murder, is designed for the preservation of life. But the murderer who is tried, convicted, and executed under that law finds it a law “unto death.” The quotation from Galatians may be paraphrased thus: “If there had been a law given which could”—under the circumstances, “which could”—amid the limitations, frailties, and imperfect obedience of humanity, “have given life.” The law requires perfect obedience, in order to life. But it is absolutely certain that man does not, and will not, render this obedience; hence the law cannot give life to him. No law, as such, can

give life to sinners. In brief, we may say that the first series of texts implies that the design and normal tendency of the law is life; the last, that, through man’s imperfection and disobedience, the actual result is death. Hence, there is clearly no discrepancy. 2. CHRIST—His Divinity Christ is God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:1, 14 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Hebrews 1:8 He is man. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God. John 8:40 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that

man whom he hath ordained. Acts 17:31 One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 Christ is here presented in two aspects—in his divine nature, by virtue of which he was God, and in his human nature, in respect of which he was man. On the one hand, he was “God, in substance and essence”;93 on the other, he was man, as having taken upon him human nature. One with the Father. I and my Father are one. John 10:30 Distinct from him. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. John 16:28 The “oneness” of the first text is unity of essence, attributes, and will, but not unity of person. This is

made clear in our Savior’s prayer for his disciples: “That they may be one, even as we are one.”94 Here the petition is, not that the disciples might lose then individual existence and be merged in one corporeal organism, but that, in their great work, they might be “of one heart and of one soul.” Again, we read: “I have planted, Apollos watered; . . . Now, he that planteth and he that watereth are one.”95 Not identity of person, but of purpose, is here intended. The underlying principle which harmonizes the two foregoing texts is therefore the following: Unity of essence and attributes, with distinctions of person. Alford: “Christ and the Father are one—one in essence, primarily, but therefore also one in working and power and in will; . . . not personally one, but essentially.” Equal to the Father. Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Philippians 2:5–6

After Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8–9 Inferior to him. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28 The words “greater than I” do not assert Christ’s inferiority in respect to essence. Barnes: “The object of Jesus here is not to compare his own nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father.” Calvin: “Christ does not here compare the divinity of the Father with his own, neither his own human nature with the divine essence of the Father, but rather his present state with that

celestial glory to which he must shortly be received.” In this interpretation concur Luther, Cocceius, De Wette, Tholuck, Stuart, and Alford, with other critics and commentators.96 This exposition is in perfect keeping with the context. The Son is God. The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18–19 The Father the only God. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God. John 17:3 In respect to the quotation from Acts, there are

different readings. Some critics read “theos,” God; others, “kurios,” Lord. Alford, Wordsworth, Mill, and others adopt the former; Griesbach, Lachmann, Meyer, Davidson, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Green, and Hackett apparently, adopt the latter reading. If we read “the church of the Lord,” the passage will have no direct bearing upon the point under discussion. On the words, “the only true God,” Barnes observes: “The only God in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called ‘the true God and eternal life.’” Alford: “The very juxtaposition of Jesus Christ here with the Father, and the knowledge of both being defined to be eternal life, is a proof by implication of the Godhead of the former. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and the juxtaposition of the two would be incon​ceivable.” Christ, the Son of God.

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:36 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Acts 8:3797 Son of man. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Matthew 16:13 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10 The term “Son of God,” is to be regarded as descriptive of Jesus, in his divine nature; “Son of man,” in his human nature. The latter term, says Alford, is “the name by which the Lord ordinarily in one pregnant word, designates himself as the

Messiah—the Son of God manifested in the flesh of man—the second Adam. And to it belong all those conditions of humiliation, suffering, and exaltation, which it behooves the Son of man to go through.” From the following passage, “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God?”98 it would appear that the Jews took the two expressions, “Son of God” and “Son of man,” as nearly or quite synonymous, both denoting the long-expected Messiah. The only Son of God. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de​clared him. John 1:18 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9 Men also sons of God. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they

are the sons of God. Romans 8:14 Beloved, now are we the sons of God. 1 John 3:2 Observe that the first two texts do not assert that Jesus is the “only,” but the “only begotten,” Son of God; that is, he is the only being who sustains that peculiar relation to the Father, which is implied in the term “begotten.” One class of theologians hold that, while men may become sons of God by adoption,99 Jesus is son by generation, and consequent participation in the divine essence and attributes. Such was the view of the Nicene trinitarians.100 By analogical reasoning, they maintained that, as the human son participates in the nature and attributes of the human father, the same holds true of the Divine Son in relation to the Divine Father. According to this view, held by many theologians at the present day, Christ is distinctively “the Son of God”—or, in the language of Dr. Hodge,101 “the only person

in the universe to whom the word can be applied in its full sense, as expressing sameness of essence.” There is another explanation of the term, “Son of God,” which is given by Dr. Watts,102 Prof. Stuart,103 Prof. Park, and others. They hold that Christ bears this appellation because, in respect to his human nature, he is derived from God; also because of the elevated dignity which was conferred on him as the Messiah—his resurrection from the dead being the commencement of his elevation to supreme dignity, and being, moreover, the beginning of a new life; that is, something analogous to birth or generation. The last-named theologian104 adduces the additional reason that Christ was greatly beloved of the Father. On either of the above hypotheses, the fact that men are occasionally styled “sons of God,” while Jesus is denominated “the only-begotten Son of God,” occasions no difficulty, since the two appellations are respectively used with very

different significations. Omnipotence Had all power. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. John 3:35 Was not almighty. To sit on my right hand, and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. Matthew 20:23 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hand upon a few sick folk, and healed them. Mark 6:5 Matthew 20:23 is rendered by Grotius, Chrysostom, Clarke, Barnes, and others thus: “is

not mine to give, except to those for whom,” etc. With this the Syriac Peshito precisely agrees. The italics in the common version of this text pervert the meaning. The real sense is: “It is not fitting that I should bestow it upon others.” The question is not one of power at all, but of fitness. Mark 6:5 implies not physical but moral impossibility. It was not lack of power which prevented his working miracles at Nazareth; but, as the next verse shows, the “unbelief” of the people was the reason why it was inconsistent for him, or why he “could not” thus work. So one often says of a thing which he deemed improper, or incompatible with his purposes, “I could not do it.” Alford: “The want of ability is not absolute, but relative. The same voice which could still the tempest, could anywhere and under any circumstances have commanded diseases to obey; but in most cases of human infirmity, it was our Lord’s practice to require faith in the recipient of

aid, and that being wanting, the help could not be given.” Omniscience Knew all things. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. John 2:24–25 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee. John 16:30 And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. John 21:17 Christ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Colossians 2:2–3 Ignorant of some things. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon:

and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. Mark 11:13 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. John 11:34 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren. Hebrews 2:17 Obviously, some passages represent Christ in the aspect of his Godhead, while others speak of him simply in his human nature—as a man. When he is spoken of as “increasing in wisdom and stature,”105 the humanity is placed in the foreground; when he claims to have existed “before Abraham was,”106 he speaks in his inherent divinity. As another has remarked: “His

infancy and childhood were no mere pretence, but the divine personality was in him carried through these states of weakness and inexperience, and gathered round itself the ordinary accessions and experiences of the sons of men.” In the person of Christ, the Divinity voluntarily entered into, and took upon itself, the conditions and limitations of humanity. Ewald107 observes: “Even the highest divine power, when it veils itself in mortal body, and appears in definite time, finds, in this body and this time, its limits.” To nearly the same purport, Colenso108 says: “It is perfectly consistent with the most entire and sincere belief in our Lord’s divinity, to hold, as many do, that when he vouchsafed to become a ‘Son of man,’ he took our nature fully, and voluntarily entered into all the conditions of humanity, and among others, into that which makes our growth in all ordinary knowledge gradual and limited.” The divinity and humanity were, as we believe,

so united that they exerted a reciprocal influence, each modifying the action of the other. If it be said that such a union is improbable, we reply that there is an equal, antecedent improbability that a spirit, being immaterial, would be united with a body composed of matter, so as to form one personality, one ego; yet we know that this actually occurs in the case of man. In consequence of the union above mentioned, our Savior could say “I” of either component of his nature—the divine or the human. Sometimes he spoke in one relation, sometimes in the other, according as circumstances or the exigencies of discourse required.109 In a somewhat analogous way, a man says, “I rejoice at it,” and, at another time, “I weigh so much.” In the first instance, the “I” refers exclusively to the soul; in the second, to the body. The soul rejoices, the body weighs. Yet the pronoun “I” is applied indifferently to either. We cannot but think that the principle underlying this mode of conception and speech, indicates a

simple and correct interpretation of the second series of texts quoted above. They bring Christ before our minds in his lower and subordinate relations, in the humiliation, the “emptying” himself of his Godlike majesty and visible glories, which he voluntarily undertook and endured.110 As to the case of the fig tree, Jesus wished to teach his disciples an important lesson. This was enforced upon their minds by his suddenly blighting the tree. The foliage of the tree was in such a state that it was antecedently probable that there was fruit also. Jesus acted “according to the appearance of things; being a man as well as divine he acted, of course, as men do act in such circumstances.” As to Mark 13:32, Augustine says, “He did not know so that he might at that time disclose to the disciples.” He adds elsewhere, “Though as God he could not be ignorant of any thing, yet his human understanding did not know it.” Lightfoot, on the passage: “It is not revealed to

him from the Father to reveal to the church.” Wordsworth, on the same text: “It is true that the Son, as Son, knoweth not the day of judgment, because the Father ‘hath put the times and seasons in his own power,’ and the Father will reveal them when he thinks meet; and therefore it is no part of the office of the Son to know, that is, to deter​mine and declare the day of judgment.” Some of the Lutheran commentators say that our Lord knew “in respect to possession, but not in respect to use.” That is, he might possess but not use this knowledge. Waterland:111 “He denies the knowledge of the day of judgment, but in respect of his human nature; in which respect also he is said to have increased in wisdom, Luke 2:52; the divine Logos having, with the human nature, assumed the ignorance and other infirmities proper to it.” Schaff, in Lange, on Matthew 24:36: “Christ could, of course, not lay aside, in the incarnation, the metaphysical attributes of his divine nature,

such as eternity; but he could, by an act of his will, limit his attributes of power and his knowledge, and refrain from their use as far as it was necessary for his humiliation.” Alford: “In the course of humiliation undertaken by the Son, in which he increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52), learned obedience (Hebrews 5:8), uttered desires in prayer (Luke 6:12, etc.)—this matter was hidden from him.” Omnipresence Everywhere present. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Matthew 28:20 Not omnipresent. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Matthew 26:11

Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. Luke 24:15 Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. John 5:13 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless, let us go unto him. John 11:15 The first texts refer to his spiritual presence with his people; the second series relates to his visible presence, in the body. Paul, in Colossians 2:5, employs language of a quite similar import. Holiness He is holy. He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isaiah 53:9 In all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. Hebrews 7:26 Is sin. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 The word “sin,” in the latter text, doubtless means “sin-offering.”112 In this view concur Augustine, Ambrose, Erasmus, Lightfoot, Macknight, Stuart, Whitby, and many other com​mentators. Chrysostom says, “Him who knew no sin, who was righteousness itself, he hath made sin; that is, hath suffered to be condemned as a sinner, to die as a person accursed.” De Wette and Alford give the passage a somewhat different turn, thus: Sin, i.e. Christ on the cross was the representative of sin—of the sin of the world. With a singular obliquity of mind and heart, F.

W. Newman113 says of our Savior, as represented in the Gospels, “I almost doubt whether, if one wished to draw the character of a vain and vacillating pretender, it would be possible to draw anything more to the purpose than this,” and expresses his “conviction,” that “in consistency of goodness Jesus fell far below vast numbers of his unhonored disciples.” What must be our estimate of a man who can thus coolly ignore the verdict of the ages, and wantonly revolt the moral sense of Christendom, by suffering his pen to trace such atrocious sentiments as these? Blessed. God hath blessed thee for ever. Psalm 45:2 A curse. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for All nations shall call him blessed. Psalm 72:17

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Revelation 5:12 us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. Galatians 3:13 Luther and some other commentators, taking the language in Galatians too literally, have supposed that by some mysterious transference of human guilt to Christ, he actually became a sinner. This interpretation is, however, uncalled for, and re​pugnant to our feelings. Conybeare renders: “He became accursed for our sakes.” Ellicott and Meyer think that the abstract word “katara,” curse, is chosen instead of the concrete, to “express with more force the completeness of the satisfaction which Christ made to the law.” Barnes: “Jesus was subjected to what was regarded as an accursed death. He was treated in

his death as if he had been a criminal.” As Christ suffered in the stead of those upon whom the curse properly devolved, he might be styled “accursed,” or, in the sense just explained, a “curse” for us. Mercy He is merciful. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them. Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10 Unmerciful Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. Revelation 6:16 Called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Revelation 19:11

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Revelation 19:13 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Revelation 19:15 De Wette114 says that these latter passages “glow with the spirit of Messianic revenge.” The apparent difficulty is easily obviated. Just in proportion as any being loves holiness, in that proportion will he hate sin. Christ, being perfectly holy, being also a wise and benevolent sovereign, cannot but be most powerfully impelled to reward virtue, and to punish and exterminate vice. The texts to which exception is taken, are vivid, figurative expressions of the infinitely wise, just, and righteous principles which Christ displays in the administration of his kingdom.

Spares bruised reed. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench. Isaiah 42:3 Wields iron sceptre. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Psalm 2:9 These passages present the Messiah in a twofold attitude; toward the penitent and humble, and toward the proud and rebellious. The “rod of iron” indicates the strength and crushing force with which he would chastise the revolters; the first text brings to view the tender compassion which he would exercise toward the dejected and helpless. The same mouth which breathed the tender words, “Come unto, me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,”115 could, without any incongruity, thunder at those scoffing hypocrites, the scribes and Pharisees, the terrible denunciation, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye

escape the damnation of hell?”116 Courage and Fortitude Shrunk at death. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. John 12:27 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. Hebrews 5:7 Met it composedly. He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 Theophylact, Grotius, Tholuck, Barnes, and others, take the Savior’s words interrogatively, thus: “Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour?” This interpretation makes good sense, and accords well with the context.

Hebrews 5:7 may be rendered: “He was heard on account of, his pious resignation”—or, “because of his reverence.” So, in substance, Alford, Barnes, Bleek, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Luther, Robinson, Tyndale, and all the Greek commentators. Prof. Stuart, following in substance the common version, maintains that it was not death which Christ “feared”; he dreaded lest he should sink under the agony of being deserted by his Father. In this respect he was “heard,” and received divine aid.117 Either interpretation dispels the difficulty. Veracity His witness true. Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came and whither I go. John 8:14 Not true. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 5:31

Grotius takes the first passage as a mere hypothesis, “even though I should bear witness of myself,” etc. Bishop Pearce, Wakefield, and others render the second text thus: “If I bear witness of myself, is not my witness true?” Should the common version be retained, the meaning is, “If I alone bear witness of myself.” The Mosaic law required at least two witnesses.118 Jesus therefore admits that his own testimony alone would not be “true”; that is, would not be regarded as legal proof ; hence he proceeds to adduce the corroborative testimony of another. Andrew Fuller:119 “The first passage sets forth his testimony as it was in itself; the second as it was in the account of men. . . . Admitting their laws or rules of evidence, his testimony would not have been credible; and therefore in the verses following he appeals to that of John the Baptist, and the works which he had wrought in his Father’s name, which amounted to a testimony from the Father.”

Alford: The assertion in chapter 5 was, that his o w n unsupported witnes s (supposing that possible) would not be trustworthy, but that his testimony was supported by, and in fact coincident with, that of the Father. The very same argument is used in chapter 8, but the other side of it presented to us. He does witness of himself, because his testimony is the testimony of the Father who witnesseth in him. Received human testimony. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. John 15:27 Did not receive it. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 “I receive not,” etc.; that is, the “testimony” of which I have spoken is not derived from human sources. It is infinitely more authoritative and conclusive than man’s witness would be. I need

not human testimony for myself; I merely adduce it for your sakes, that “ye might be saved.” Mission Peace. The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end. Isaiah 9:6–7 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. John 14:27 War. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:34–36 That is, the object of his mission was peace, but a result of it would, in many cases, be strife and war. Often, in securing a valuable end, we cannot avoid certain incidental evils. The object of the

surgeon in amputating a diseased limb is the preservation of life, yet pain, as an incidental evil, follows the stroke of his scalpel. A religion of inherent, radical purity could not be promulgated in the world without awakening the fierce antagonism of everything impure and evil. Hence would arise strife and division, bitter conflicts—as incidental evils, the grand, ultimate, unvarying object being, nevertheless, holiness and peace. Extended to all men. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Isaiah 49:6 Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all. 1 Timothy 2:5–6 To Israelites alone. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:5–6 I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 He made atonement, “tasted death,” for every man, and the benefits of his mediation are, to a certain extent, enjoyed by all, but his personal mission was chiefly to the “house of Israel.” And the first, but not the later, mission of the apostles was similarly restricted. To the Samaritans. And sent messengers before his face; and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. Luke 9:52 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. Luke 17:11 He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs go through Samaria. John 4:3–4

So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. And many more be​lieved because of his own word. John 4:40–41 To Jews only. He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea, beyond Jor​dan. Matthew 19:1 The woman was a Greek, a Syro-phenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. Mark 7:26–27 “It is impossible,” says Zeller,120 “to reconcile these different accounts.” Now the truth is that the infrequent exceptions alluded to in the first series of texts only prove the general rule, that Christ’s personal mission was to the Jews. The mere fact

that, in journeying from Judea to Galilee, he passed through Samaria, which lay between the two, or that he wrought a miracle upon one Samaritan, and virtually commended another,121 or that he actually tarried two whole days in Sychar, does not, in the slightest, militate against the certainty that his personal ministry was among the children of Israel. To fulfil the law. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17 To redeem from its curse. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. Galatians 3:13 He came to carry out the great end of the law, to secure the righteousness of man. He “fulfilled,” perfectly obeyed, the moral law, while in him, as the great Antitype, the types and figures of the

ceremonial law culminated and were fulfilled. At the same time, he came to redeem, by his atonement, penitent sinners from the “curse,” the penalty of the law. To judge the world. For the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: . . . and hath given him authority to execute judgment also. John 5:22, 27 Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. John 9:39 Not to judge. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. John 8:15

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. John 12:47 The Greek word “krino” has the distinct, though associated, meanings, to judge merely, and to condemn. In some of the above passages it seems to be used in one sense, in others a different one is employed. Jesus came, in a sense, to “judge” the world, that is, to determine, by means of the gospel, the moral status, and consequent final destiny of men; yet his primary object was not to condemn men, though, in the process of judgment, the condemnation of some will be a certain, although incidental, result. “I judge no man,” i.e. after your manner, or else, during my present mission. At his second coming he will in the ultimate and highest sense, “judge the world.” Miracles Proof of divine mission. And Israel saw that great work which the Lord

did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses. Exodus 14:31 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. Matthew 11:3–5 Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:2 Not a proof. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents. Exodus 7:11–12