The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical / Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine Revelation

by C. A. Row

Thirdly: Although these letters were written within so brief an interval after the Crucifixion as from twenty-five to thirty years, yet they afford evidence which carries us up to a much earlier period. St. Paul's conversion dates at least eighteen years earlier than the earliest of them. His testimony therefore is good as to the general nature of the beliefs of the Christian Church during the whole period of his ministry. It proves, among many other things, this all-important point, that the Resurrection of Christ was believed by the whole Christian community, and formed the groundwork of the existence of the Church, within less than ten years after the crucifixion. But the Apostle's hostile connection with the Christian sect dates still earlier. As a persecutor he must have ascertained what were the leading subjects of the Christian belief, and must have subjected the whole matter to a rigid investigation. Above all, he could not have failed to know whether [pg 401] the belief in the Resurrection of Christ was or was not from its commencement the ground of the renewed life of the Christian Church.

Every consideration must have induced him when a persecutor to make this entire question the subject of a most careful investigation. Nothing was more important than that he should ascertain whether any considerable interval had elapsed between the Crucifixion of Christ and the propagation of the report of His Resurrection; and his means of ascertaining the truth about it must have been complete. To determine this for certain would have been most important in his work of convicting the founders of the new sect of imposture; for if any considerable time had elapsed between the death and reported resurrection, it would have afforded that of which all the theories of unbelief stand in need, a sufficient interval for the delusion to grow and propagate itself; or, if the belief was the result of fraud, for the imposition to be concocted and spread. St. Paul's testimony therefore affords the most conclusive proof that the belief in the Resurrection as a fact was contemporaneous with the foundation of the Church; that it was the cause of its renewed vitality; that no interval could have elapsed between the death of Jesus and His reported resurrection, sufficient for the growth of myth or legend, the fabrication of an imposture, or the gradual spreading of the hallucinations of a single individual among a multitude of persons. In one word, if the belief in the Resurrection originated in the conversion of some subjective delusion into an objective fact, it must have been one which spread with incomprehensible rapidity.

These letters also form the most convincing proof, not only that the Resurrection was universally believed as a fact by the communities to which they were [pg 402] addressed, but that it was accepted by the individual members of these Churches from the first commencement of their Christianity. Although two of these Churches had been planted by St. Paul, that of the Romans was not planted by him, and was of considerable standing when he wrote the letter. Its fame had spread throughout the whole Christian world. Everything in the Epistle denotes that its Christianity was of no recent growth. Many of these Churches, especially the Jewish portions of them, could carry their recollections up to a much earlier time. It should be carefully observed that the interval of twenty-eight years from the foundation of a sect is a period wholly insufficient for the growth of an hereditary and otiose faith. The majority of the members of these Churches were beyond all doubt actual converts, who had once been either Jews or Pagans. However credulous we may suppose them to have been, their conversion must have been due to an inquiry of some kind. The short period which had elapsed since the foundation of the Church and the supreme interest which the whole of the events and circumstances must have excited in the converts, were precisely what was requisite for preserving traditionary recollections with the utmost soundness. There could have been no doubt in any of their minds whether or not the belief in the Resurrection was the groundwork of their Christianity. They must have known therefore whether it was a story which had gradually spread, or had existed from the beginning; or whether the peculiar form of it was an invention of St. Paul; or whether it was the foundation of the convictions of those by whom they had been converted. The manner in which the fact of the Resurrection is referred to in these Epistles proves that the belief was of no recent growth, but had [pg 403] existed from the beginning. The Epistle to the Romans opens with these words:—“Concerning His Son Jesus Christ ... who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” It is impossible that a writer could have made such a reference as this at the opening of his letter, unless he had been certain that the belief in the Resurrection had been accepted as a fact by those whom he addressed, and by the whole Christian community with whom they were acquainted.

But further: it is utterly incredible that if the converts accepted the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of their Christianity, they should have contentedly remained ignorant of the facts of His previous history, at a period when there must have been abundant means of obtaining an acquaintance with it.

Fourthly: the value of these letters as historical documents is greatly increased by the fact that a strong spirit of party existed in the Churches. None are more ready to accept the fact that the Church was divided into a number of parties than the opponents of Christianity. Not only have they admitted it, but for their own purposes they have greatly exaggerated it. But it is a weapon which can be used in defence of Christianity more efficaciously than in opposition to it. It is clear on the face of these letters not only that the Churches were divided into parties, but that party-spirit existed in them with considerable violence. It is needless for the purpose of the present argument to ascertain the number of the parties into which some of the Churches were divided; but these letters, confirmed as they are by incidental references in the Acts of the Apostles, leave no doubt that the opposition between St. Paul and those who followed his teaching, and a [pg 404] powerful Judaizing party in the Church, was of a very decided character; that this party had a great dislike to the person of the Apostle; and that he himself denounced them as corrupters of the fundamental principles of the Gospel. They make it quite clear that even in the Churches of which he was the founder, the Apostle was far from having it all his own way. Judaizing teachers had made very considerable progress in alienating the Galatian Churches from him. His letter to these Churches discusses the entire question between him and his opponents, who actually went the length of denying his apostolical authority. In the Church of Corinth also there was a powerful Judaizing party, who affirmed that he was no true Apostle. In this Church there were also other parties who designated themselves by the names of particular leaders in various degrees of opposition to St. Paul. It is evident that these parties must have derived their views of Christianity from a source quite independent of the Apostle. Portions of the first and not less than half of the second Epistle are occupied by St. Paul in setting forth his claims in opposition to these leaders. It is altogether a mistake to suppose that these Churches were disposed to accept his assertions without question, as equivalent to oracles from Heaven. On the contrary, Judaizing teachers habitually followed his steps, and to some extent succeeded in subverting the faith even of his own converts.

Nothing can more enhance the value of these letters as historical documents than the existence of this party-spirit in the Churches to which they were addressed. If St. Paul had written them to none but devoted admirers, as is frequently the case with the leaders of religious sects, his assertions might have been open to grave suspicion. It might have been urged that such [pg 405] persons were ready to accept anything and everything which he affirmed. But nothing is more keen-eyed than religious party-spirit in detecting and denouncing the false positions of an opponent, even when it is sufficiently ready to accept everything which makes in its own favour. So strong was the opposition to the Apostle, that in two of these Churches, as we have seen, a powerful party existed who went the extreme length of denying his right to the apostolic office. Yet these letters were not only intended to be read to the whole Church, but portions of them are directly addressed to the opponents in question. What guarantee of the truthfulness of statements can compare with this? The Apostle's letters are openly read in the presence of the opposing party, before the assembled Church, challenging them to impugn his statements. It will perhaps be objected that we have no record of the discussion which followed the reading of his letters, and of the results attending it. The second Epistle to the Corinthians has preserved some of those results, though it is plain that an opposing party still continued. This Epistle is a very strenuous attack on them. The man who had the moral courage to write such letters as the second to the Corinthians and that to the Galatians, to be openly read in the presence of his adversaries, must have been well assured of the goodness of his cause. Common sense alone would have suggested to him not to make in them statements which were sure to receive direct and instant contradiction.

It is clear, therefore, that certain points on which these letters make very definite statements must have been held in common by St. Paul and his opponents. If it had not been so, it is impossible that the letters could have been written in their present form. The [pg 406] Christianity on which the two parties agreed beyond all doubt, concentrated itself around the Messianic character of Jesus. The letters themselves make the points on which they disagreed sufficiently obvious, centering as they did on the necessity of observing the rites of the Mosaic law in the Christian Church. But the Epistles contain a vast number of allusions to other subjects, not a few of which are of a very incidental character. What is the only legitimate inference which can be deduced from this circumstance? Obviously that the Apostle wrote them with the fullest conviction that his statements on these subjects would be accepted by his opponents as part of their joint belief; and not only by them, but by all the members of the Church. It is inconceivable that a man of the mental calibre of St. Paul should have written letters such as those to the Corinthians and Galatians, abounding as they do with references to facts and doctrines, if he had not been fully persuaded that they constituted the common faith of himself and those to whom he wrote.

It is impossible to over-estimate the historical importance of letters like these, when in this incidental manner they contain numerous references to facts and opinions, and to the actual controversies then existing in the Church. The form in which they are made constitute us almost as adequate judges of their value as if we were able to interrogate their author. We have him, in fact, in the witness-box before us, and can narrowly scrutinize his mental character. They can leave no doubt on our minds as to whether the allusions were incidental, or made for a purpose. The value of letters, written by persons who have impressed on them the image of their own inner life and character, and referring at the same time to current events and opinions, is now universally acknowledged as the best means [pg 407] of correcting the mistakes and misrepresentations of formal histories. But when we take into consideration that these letters of St. Paul are outpourings of his inmost mind, intended not only for admiring friends, but for scrutinizing opponents, we have before us historical evidence of the highest order.

Fifthly: The Apostle presents himself to us in these letters in the fullest outbursts of his heart. We have the whole man before us, intellectually, morally, and religiously. Probably no eight letters exist in all literature, from which it is possible to construct in equal fulness the mental portraiture of the writer. Nowhere can we find stronger bursts of feeling. He was a man of deep sensibility, united with the firmest resolve. His sacrifice of self, and complete freedom from all selfish aims, is exceeded by only one character in history. Who can read these letters through, and question the sincerity of the writer? Can any one believe that he was not true to his convictions, or that he was capable of deliberately stating what he knew to be false? If the facts were not as he has stated them, the only possible alternative is that he was the prey of an hallucination. Yet in every detail of business, and in disposing of all practical questions, his judgment was of the soundest character.

There is one remarkable fact which these letters bring out distinctly, which is probably true of no other man that ever lived. The Apostle claimed to decide certain questions authoritatively in virtue of a divine guidance which he possessed. He gave that decision on two points, having the closest bearing on the daily life of the Christians of that day, and which excited deep conscientious scruples. These were: whether the obligation of observing certain days was binding on the [pg 408] Christian conscience, and whether it was unlawful to eat meat which had been offered in sacrifice to a heathen god. On each of these points he gives his own apostolical decision; yet in the very act of doing so, he directly enjoins that the conscientious scruples of those who could not acquiesce in it should be respected. Can this be said of any other man who thought that he possessed a supernatural guidance? Enthusiastic he was; but his was an enthusiasm which did not blind his judgment. He was a man, too, of a highly delicate mind, yet capable of using a refined sarcasm in dealing with his opponents. We have the whole man before us, and his entire character renders him a witness of the highest order.