A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 10): The Bible (4)
The Prophets
Having already discussed Thomas Paine’s main problem with Isaiah (the virgin birth prophecy), we come to his chief objection to the book of Jeremiah. After noting that God would change His plans for a nation’s future if they repented (as in the case of Nineveh), he calls such tolerance “absurd subterfuge” (168). Most Bible readers, however, have little problem understanding that God can be merciful to the humble and penitent—something that many an arrogant atheist, humanist, or skeptic will never need to concern themselves with.
Paine’s chief objection to the book of Jeremiah, however, is that he believes some of the accounts contradict each other. In Jeremiah 37, Jerusalem was under attack by the Chaldeans (which had also happened previously as well). On this occasion, they withdrew because Egyptian troops were coming up from the south (v. 5). Jeremiah prophesied that the Chaldeans would return, fight against the city, take it, and burn it (v. 8). After the Chaldeans left, Jeremiah went out of Jerusalem toward Benjamin “to claim his property there among the people” (v. 12). The King James says Jeremiah left “to separate himself thence in the midst of the people,” which is not the best translation.
The point, however, is that Irijah accused him of defecting to the Chaldeans, which Jeremiah vehemently denied (vv. 13-14). Irijah brought Jeremiah to the princes, who were angry with him, struck him, and put him in prison (v. 15). King Zedekiah sent for him and, after their conversation, allowed Jeremiah to be kept in the court of the prison rather than the prison itself (v. 21). Paine alleges that Jeremiah 38 should follow 21:10, but he provides little proof except that some of the same people are mentioned in both places (170-71). That the king’s princes remained the same over a short period of time is scarcely significant.
Chapter 38 does follow 37. The scarcity of bread is mentioned in 37:21 and 38:9. In this instance, Jeremiah was imprisoned because he had prophesied that Babylon would conquer Jerusalem. On two separate occasions, therefore, Jeremiah was imprisoned in two different places for two different offenses. Paine has no case. Even if it were one instance and two reasons had been assigned for his imprisonment, it would still not be a contradiction, since many actions are taken for more than one reason. The fact that one reason might be cited on one occasion and a different reason on another does not establish a contradiction—both are true. This is the case with the name Akel Dama. It was called the Field of Blood because Judas died there in a gruesome manner (Acts 1:18-19) and also because the field was purchased with “blood money,” the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received for betraying Christ (Matt. 27:3-8).
Paine says that Jeremiah 34 contradicts Jeremiah 52, for in the former he promised Zedekiah a death of peace, but in the latter the king dies in prison (175-76). Apparently, Paine did not read verse 8, which makes the prophecy in Jeremiah 34 conditional. The prophecy of Zedekiah’s benign captivity was based on the agreement to free all of the Israelite servants (v. 9). After Israel made that covenant (v. 10), however, they changed their minds and made their servants return (v. 11). Then Jeremiah was instructed to prophesy a new message with a much harsher future (vv. 12-22). Before the events of Jeremiah 52 occur, there is yet another consultation between Jeremiah and Zedekiah. The prophet told the king that if he surrendered to Babylon, he and his house would live. If he did not surrender, the future of him and his family would be very bleak. Paine knew of chapter 38 because he accuses Jeremiah of lying in complying with the king’s request (Jer. 38:24-27) (174-75). Both things could be true, but if Jeremiah did use deceit on this occasion, it would only show that even a man of God could sin.
The last of the prophets to receive any significant attention is Ezekiel; Paine cites 29:11, a prophecy concerning Egypt—that her cities were laid waste (v. 10) and no one would inhabit her for 40 years. With great confidence, the skeptic writes: “This is what never came to pass, and consequently it is false…” (186). The problem is that Paine is only assuming that it never came to pass; he does not know that. He is in the same position that historians were regarding the Hittites. Because they found no corroboration in secular history of the nation’s existence, they assumed that the Bible writers made up these enemies. Then, an archaeologist unearthed the capitol city, and the historians did some fast backtracking. The point is simply this—just because we do not at some point in time have corroboration for what the Bible says does not mean the Word of God is inaccurate.
With this prophecy, however, we do have evidence of the conquering of Egypt. The historian Josephus wrote of such a time more than 1700 years before Paine challenged the passage. From The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, Chapter 11, Section 1, come the following words:
Now Berosus makes mention of his [Nebuchadnezzar’s, gws] actions in the third book of his Chaldaic History, he says thus:--(220) “When his father Nebuchodnosor [Nabopollassar] heard that the governor he had set over Egypt, and the places about Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, while he himself was not able any longer to undergo the hardships [of war], he committed to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was still but a youth, some parts of his army, and sent them against him. (221) So when Nebuchadnezzar had given battle, and fought with the rebel, he beat him…and having settled the affairs of Egypt, and the other countries…and having committed the conveyance of them to Babylon to certain of his friends…he went himself hastily …over the desert, and came to Babylon” (281, translated by William Whiston, 1987 edition).
In a part of the text not quoted, it is stated that Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years. At the outset of his reign, his father dying, he conquered those who had rebelled against them in Egypt and a few other countries. He conquered them and took them to Babylon. Thus, Egypt was removed from their land for 40 years, as attested by Berosus, who is quoted by Josephus. Paine’s assumptions, then, are unwarranted, as are all his attacks upon the Scriptures.
The New Testament
The first attacks that Paine makes upon the New Testament (the virgin birth, the genealogies of Joseph and Mary) have already been examined. His other objections to the New Testament are ludicrous. He protests that some details mentioned in one book are not mentioned in the others (199). Suppose that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all recorded the same events that the others did; what would be the purpose of having four biographies? If they were all identical, we would only need one! Paine fails to take into account that each one was written for a different audience. Most commentaries have pointed out this fact for centuries. Certainly, Paine had access to this knowledge—if he had bothered to look for it.
Matthew was written for the Jews and stresses many of the fulfilled prophecies. Mark was written for the Roman mind, which liked action. The book contains few parables but does concentrate on the astounding deeds of Jesus. The book leaps into the life of the preaching of John and then Jesus—in the first few verses. No background and no genealogies are mentioned. The reader is presented almost immediately the miracles of Jesus. Luke was written by a Gentile and is mainly for the Greek mind, which is the reason he writes so many parables and illustrations. They liked such reasoning. John writes the universal gospel, and clearly his account of Jesus’ life is apologetic in nature (John 20:30-31). Paine gives no indication of grasping this information and merely criticizes each one for omitting what others include.
An allegation frequently made by critics (and Paine is no exception) is that the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life disagree with one another. In general, it may be stated that no disagreements can be said to exist if one writer includes details that others omit. For example, Paine says that Matthew says that an angel appeared to Joseph while Luke writes of an angel appearing to Mary. Ooh, the skeptic’s careful reading got us on that one. What a contradiction! Not. Apparently, it never occurred to him that an angel could appear to both of them at different times—and with different messages. Only those extremely biased against the Scriptures would deign to call these events a contradiction.
Another frivolous criticism is that John the Baptizer remained in the land and fared as well as Jesus, Whose family fled to Egypt (201). Even a cursory reading of Matthew and Luke shows why these two facts are in no way in conflict. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is what the chief priests and scribes told Herod (Matt. 2:4-6). Therefore, when the wise men did not return, Herod “put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under…” (Matt. 2:16). John, on the other hand, was born in “a city of Judah” (Luke 1:39). Mary traveled to the house of Zacharias and Elizabeth (v. 40). It must have been very near Jerusalem, since Zacharias was, as a priest, burning incense in the temple in Jerusalem (Luke 1:5, 8-9). Whatever city they lived in, it was not Bethlehem. Therefore, John was in no danger of being put to death and could thus remain in the land. One might think that Jesus could simply have been moved to another city in the land, but two considerations may have prevented that. Herod might have heard about the move (although it seems unlikely), and the departure of Joseph and Mary to Egypt fulfilled a prophecy when they returned (Matt. 2:15).
Mark and John are supposed to be at odds because one says that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 A.M. and the other at noon (201). Mark does indeed say that Jesus was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25), which would be 9:00 A.M. by Jewish time. John, however, consistently uses Roman time, which begins, as ours does, at midnight. Thus, the sixth hour would be at 6:00 A.M., at dawn. John said that it was about the sixth hour, which could easily have meant 6:15 up to 6:30. It would take some time to lead Jesus out and then begin the process of crucifixion itself, which occurred at 9:00. Thus, no genuine contradiction exists.
The different inscriptions above Jesus’s head on the cross have intrigued many Bible students. Below is a chart of the statements:
“This is Jesus the king of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37)
“The king of the Jews” (Mark 15:26)
“This is the king of the Jews” (Luke 23:38)
“Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” (John 19:19)
Some have realized why the differences exist. Others, like Paine, have jumped to faulty conclusions. He writes rather pompously:
We may infer from these circumstance, trivial as they are, that those writers, whoever they were, and in whatever time they lived, were not present at the scene. The only one of the men called apostles who appears to have been near the spot was Peter… (201-202).
Paine is so careless that he failed to discern between Jesus’ appearance before the high priests, where Peter was (Matt. 26:65-75) and the crucifixion site. Had he been just a little more informed, he would have noticed that Jesus, from the cross, spoke to John, “the disciple whom He loved” (John 19:26-27). Both Matthew and John were present for the crucifixion, but Mark and Luke were not; all spoke through inspiration. As it regards the inscription, they all record it accurately, even though the wording is different. How is that possible? John explains (Paine apparently missed it) that the words were written “in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin” (John 19:20). In one of those languages (perhaps Hebrew) Jesus of Nazareth was written. All four of them have “the king of the Jews.” Paine did not find a contradiction; he was simply careless.
The author of The Age of Reason erroneously calls Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John apostles (twice) (203) when, in fact, only Matthew and John actually were. After complaining further that each writer did not record each event (203-207), Paine supposes that the disciples could not have gone into Galilee (210), as Matthew records (28:16), since John says they were still in Jerusalem that evening (John 20:19). The disciples did go into Galilee—just not on that day. Matthew did not say they went immediately. A journey of more than 40 miles could not be accomplished in so short a period of time. Paine is just trying to find discrepancies.
The author again asserts that, were he God, he could have done things better. He would have made Jesus’ ascension into heaven “as public as the crucifixion” (214). He whines that Matthew and John did not describe the ascension, and then alleges that Mark and Luke disagree with each other (214). In reality, they do not. Luke names Bethany as the place from which Jesus ascended (Luke 24:50-51); Mark merely makes a summary statement that He did ascend but does not specify the location (Mark 16:19-20).
After commenting on the ascension, Paine errs again by asserting that the “time from the crucifixion to what is called the ascension is but a few days, apparently not more than three or four…” (215). How can a man be trusted with his claims of errors in the Bible when he has demonstrated time and again that he does not understand the simplest of concepts? He speaks about the Bible’s absurdities but is blind to his own. Acts 1:1-3 shows that Jesus “presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen of them during forty days….” That’s 40, Tom, not 3 or 4.
After a lengthy desultory philippic against the Scriptures, Paine mostly challenges the concept of eternal life as taught by Paul. He also tries to minimize his conversion as nothing more than a heatstroke. He concludes by saying that, although God could have communicated with His creation, He never has (240). Would not Paine need to be omniscient in order to know that? If God created us (which Paine defends), but never spoke to us, then why did He create us? If everyone adopted Paine’s approach to the Scriptures, no one would have any answers to life’s important questions.
The author’s hatred of Christianity is seen in statements such as this one: “Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the sword…” (241). Has he forgotten that Christians were put to death by Rome and that they did no fighting at all? Waves of persecution continued until the Edict of Toleration in A.D. 313. Christians did not then arm themselves and begin waging war. Paine allows that they could not begin with the sword, but “no sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to employ the sword, than they did so…” (241). Paine is horribly confused and utterly mistaken. Christianity is only to be militant in the spreading of the gospel through preaching and teaching (Matt. 28:18-20).
Ironically, Paine refers to Peter’s cutting off the ear of the high priest (241), but he totally neglects to mention what Jesus said to him: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52). For this reason, Christians never took up arms to fight against Rome. They rather chose to be put to death by Rome, which eventually led to them being victorious—without ever engaging in battle. God gave the victory to them, and they shall be rewarded for giving their lives for Jesus, Who died for their sins and made them truly free. Thomas Paine does not sound like a happy individual in this life, and certainly he can expect no reward hereafter for his slander of God’s Word.