Companion to the Bible

by E. P. Barrows

And because this glorious and divine person is a living reality, he possesses from age to age an undying power over the human heart. Love towards him is the mightiest principle on earth, both for doing and for suffering. It makes the soul of which it has taken full possession invincible. When Jesus of Nazareth is enthroned in the castle of the human heart, not all the powers of earth and hell can overcome it. See farther, chap. 12:8.

9. Since, as we have seen, the gospel narratives are an authentic record of facts, it follows that in the person and life of Jesus of Nazareth we have a supernatural revelation from God in the fullest sense of the words. That his origin was both superhuman and supernatural, the gospels teach us in the most explicit terms. He says of himself: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father." John 16:28. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5. That the appearance on earth of One who dwelt with the Father in glory before the world was, and after the fulfilment of his mission returned to the Father again, was supernatural, is self-evident. His person was, as has been shown, divine. He was God manifest in the flesh; and wherever he went, his supernatural power displayed itself. The miraculous element is so interwoven into the very substance of the gospel history, that there is no possibility of setting it aside, except by rejecting the history itself. It is the fashion with a certain class of writers, after denying our Lord's divine nature and explaining away his supernatural works, to be profuse in their eulogies of his character. If they can first rid themselves of the obligation to believe on him and obey him as their divine Lord, they are willing to bestow upon him, as a man like themselves, the highest commendations. But the attempt is hopeless. What will they do with the fact of his resurrection from the dead—the most certain as well as the greatest miracle in his history, and which includes in itself all the rest? Had Jesus not risen from the dead, as he so often affirmed that he should, then he would have been what the Jewish rulers called him—a deceiver, and no Saviour; but since the miracle of his resurrection must be admitted by all who do not reject the whole gospel history as a fable, why deny the lesser miracles connected with his history? The assumption that miracles are impossible can only go with the denial of God's personality; and this, by whatever name it is called, is atheism. If there is a personal God, who is before nature, above nature, and the author of nature in its inmost essence, he can manifest himself within the sphere of nature in a supernatural way, whenever he chooses to do so. If God who made us cares for us, and is indeed our Father in heaven, it is reasonable to suppose that he may reveal himself to us in supernatural forms, when the end is our deliverance from the bondage of sin, and our preparation for an eternity of holiness and happiness. To deny this, would be to make nature the highest end of God—to put the world of God's intelligent creatures under nature, instead of making nature their servant and minister.

10. The objections that have been urged against the gospel history are of two kinds. The first class relates to its doctrines, as, for example, that of demoniacal possessions, that of eternal punishment, etc. To enlarge on this subject would be out of place here. It is sufficient to say that the only reasonable rule is to argue from the certainty of the record to the truth of the doctrines in question. He who first assumes that a certain doctrine cannot be true, and then, on the ground of this assumption, sets aside a history sustained by overwhelming evidence, exalts his own finite understanding to be the supreme rule of faith; and to him an authoritative revelation becomes an impossibility. The second class of objections relates to alleged contradictions and inconsistencies between the different writers. The explanation and reconciliation of these is the work of the harmonist. We need not wait, however, for the result of his labors, that we may rest confidently on the truth of the record. These apparent disagreements do not affect a single doctrine or duty of Christianity. They all relate to incidental matters, such as the time and order of the events recorded, the accompanying circumstances, etc. Had we all the missing links of the evangelical history, we might reconcile all these differences; but without them, it is not in all cases possible. Nor is it necessary; since, where different writers record the same transactions, substantial agreement, with diversity in respect to the details, is everywhere the characteristic of authentic history.

CHAPTER V.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ACKNOWLEDGED EPISTLES.

1. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and credibility of the gospel narratives having been shown to rest on a firm foundation, the principal part of our work is accomplished, so far as the New Testament is concerned. We are prepared beforehand to expect some record of the labors of the apostles, like that contained in the Acts of the Apostles; and also discussions and instructions relating to the doctrines and duties of Christianity, such as we find in the apostolic epistles. Our Saviour established his church only in its fundamental principles and ordinances. The work of publishing his gospel and organizing churches among Jews and Gentiles he committed to his apostles. Before his crucifixion he taught them that the Holy Ghost could not come (that is, in his special and full influences as the administrator of the new covenant) till after his departure to the Father: "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you." John 16:7. "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." John 15:26, 27. Now we have, in the Acts of the Apostles, first an account of the fulfilment by the Saviour of his promise that he would send the Holy Ghost; then a record how the apostles, thus qualified, obeyed the Saviour's command to preach the gospel to Jews and Gentiles—a record not, indeed, complete, but sufficient to show the manner and spirit in which the work was performed. Some truths, moreover, of the highest importance the Saviour gave only in outline, because the time for their full revelation had not yet come. John 16:12, 13. Such were especially the doctrine of his atoning sacrifice on Calvary with the connected doctrine of justification by faith; and the divine purpose to abolish the Mosaic economy, and with it the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. We have, partly in the Acts and partly in the epistles, an account of the unfolding of these great truths by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and of the commotions and contentions that naturally accompanied this work. The practical application of the gospel to the manifold relations of life, domestic, social, and civil, with the solution of various difficult questions arising therefrom, was another work necessarily devolved on the apostles, and performed by them with divine wisdom for the instruction of all coming ages. The book of Acts and the epistles ascribed to the apostles being such a natural sequel to the Redeemer's work, as recorded by the four evangelists, a briefer statement of the evidence for their genuineness and authenticity will be sufficient.

I. The Acts of the Apostles. 2. According to Chrysostom, First Homily on Acts, this book was not so abundantly read by the early Christians as the gospels. The explanation of this comparative neglect is found in the fact that it is occupied with the doings of the apostles, not of the Lord himself. Passing by some uncertain allusions to the work in the writings of the apostolic fathers, the first explicit quotation from it is contained in the letter heretofore noticed, chap. 2:4, from the churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul, written about A.D. 177, in which they say: "Moreover they prayed, after the example of Stephen the perfect martyr, for those who inflicted upon them cruel torments, 'Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.'" Irenæus, in the last part of the second century, Tertullian in the last part of the same century and the beginning of the third, Clement of Alexandria about the end of the second century and onwards—all these bear explicit testimony to the book of Acts, ascribing it to Luke as its author; and from their day onward the notices of the work are abundant. We may add the concurrent testimony of the Muratorian canon and the Syriac version, called the Peshito, which belong to the last quarter of the second century, and the still earlier testimony of the Old Latin version. In a word, the book is placed by Eusebius among those that were universally acknowledged by the churches.

The rejection of the book by certain heretical sects, as the Ebionites, Marcionites, Manichæans, etc., is of no weight, as their objections rested not on historical, but on doctrinal grounds. As to the statement of Photius that "some call Clement of Rome the author, some Barnabas, and some Luke the evangelist," it is to be remarked that he is giving not his own judgment, for he expressly ascribes it to Luke, but the arbitrary opinions of certain persons; and these are contradicted by the obvious fact that the third gospel, which proceeded from the same hand as the Acts of the Apostles, was never ascribed to any other person than Luke.

3. The internal testimony to Luke's authorship is decisive. The writer himself, in dedicating it to the same Theophilus, expressly identifies himself with the author of the third gospel: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." Acts 1:1. Then there is a remarkable agreement in style and diction between the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as any one may learn who peruses them both together in the original Greek. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 8, has collected forty-seven examples of "terms that occur in both, but nowhere else in the New Testament." Luke, moreover, as the travelling companion of Paul, had all needed facilities for composing such a work. With regard to the latter portion of the book, this is denied by none. His use of the first person plural, "we endeavored," "the Lord had called us," "we came," etc.—which first appears, chap. 16:10, and continues, with certain interruptions, through the remainder of the book—admits of but one natural and reasonable explanation, namely, that when he thus joins himself with the apostle he was actually in his company. As it respects the first part of the book, we notice that he visited Cæsarea with Paul's company, and "tarried there many days," chap. 21:8-10; afterwards he went up with him to Jerusalem, chap. 21:15. We find him again with Paul at Cæsarea when he sets out for Rome. Chap. 27:1. Now at such centres as Jerusalem and Cæsarea he must have had abundant opportunities to learn all the facts recorded in the present book which could not be gathered from Paul's own lips.