A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 3): Logic and Deity
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
The more the reader of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason delves into his material, the more obvious the author's conceitedness becomes. He bemoans that man ignores the greatest gift that God gave to humankind—the gift of reason (37)—but which is worse: not reasoning at all or using logic improperly, as Paine does? In addition to other errors in his thinking already cited, consider this one:
Had it been the object of the intention of Jesus Christ to establish a new religion, he would undoubtedly have written a system himself, or procured it to be written in his life-time. But there is no publication extant authenticated with his name. All the books called the New Testament were written after his death (29).
The facts he has correctly, but on what logic does he conclude that Jesus should have done it differently? Has he not considered that the way that it was done worked? Would there have been more Christians in the first century if God had followed Paine's advice? Would there be more believers today if Jesus had written the New Testament as an autobiography? People should always be wary of the critic who presumes to judge God and tell Him how He ought to have done things. God could have replied to Paine: "Did I do a good job on the universe?" Since he has already written concerning how compelling that evidence was, Paine should have enough faith in God to trust that He also knows what He is doing in other matters.
He likewise has no confidence that the books of the Bible actually belong there. He denounces the process by which they were included, saying that they were "decided by vote" (21). He also lamented that we do not know anything of those who made the decision. He makes it sound as though a bunch of people got together and just arbitrarily decided what books belong in the Bible and what do not. Did they cast lots or flip a Roman coin? The Apocryphal books that Paine mentions were not New Testament books; they were all additional stories which occurred in the Old Testament. There were also spurious gospel accounts of Jesus' life, among other books. Any decision that was made only reflected what was already believed by members of the church. The main question is this: "Can the God who made such an awesome universe not make certain that the books which the Holy Spirit inspired be included in the Bible and similarly keep out anything that was not inspired?" Yes, that seems reasonable.
The author of the book believes that whatever he thinks must be the way it actually is, and proof or evidence matter little. Consider comments in just a few adjacent paragraphs. Paine says that it does not appear that Jesus "had any school education, and the probability is, that he could not write, for his parents were extremely poor, as appears from their not being able to pay for a bed when he was born" (30). Really?
Not only is the author conceited, but he also blunders with respect to the facts that he could have known. If Jesus could not write, how did He quote the Scriptures? Jesus was conversant with the Hebrew version and the Greek Septuagint. Could He be so learned as to read only but not be able to write? At any rate, He wrote upon the ground—twice—in the incident with the woman taken in adultery (John 8:6, 8). The Greek word does not mean draw or doodle; it means "write."
Although His parents were not wealthy, nothing indicates that Joseph and Mary could not pay for a bed; there simply wasn't one available. They had to travel to Bethlehem to register (in response to a decree from Augustus Caesar). Everyone else from that city was there at the same time, thus causing overcrowding. There was no room at the inn (Luke 2:7); money was not a factor. Even someone with an elementary Biblical education would know these oft-repeated details.
Incredibly, Paine claims that "Jesus Christ founded no new system" of religion (31). What?! If it was not new, then why is it called the New Testament? Any Bible student is aware of the marked differences between the Law of Moses and the new covenant of Jesus. Galatians and Romans both explore that theme, but the book of Hebrews shows beyond any doubt that the Law of Moses could not save men. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (Heb. 10:4), but the blood of Jesus can (Heb. 9:12; 10:12). If the first covenant had been perfect, then a new covenant would not have been needed (Heb. 8:6-7). The first covenant was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Not only is the new system new; it is the only one that can save mankind from sin. But Paine rambles on:
The manner in which he was apprehended shows that he was not much known at that time; and it shows also, that the meetings he then held with his followers were in secret; and that he had given over or suspended preaching publicly. Judas could not otherwise betray him by giving information where he was, and pointing him out to the officers who went to arrest him; and the reason for employing Judas to do this could arise only from the cause already mentioned, that of his not being much known and living concealed (31).
Seriously? Paine's grasp of the facts and reasoning ability are so poor that today he could work at MSNBC. Jesus was so well known that He and His disciples could not even find time to be alone or to rest (Mark 6:30-56). Has Paine never read about the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem? A "very great multitude spread their garments on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road." Then they cried out, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" (Matt. 21:8-9). Since many still celebrate this event (today called Palm Sunday, though it lacks Biblical authority), how could Paine have missed this fact?
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the rulers had not noticed Jesus since He entered the temple and threw the moneychangers and sellers of animals out (Matt. 21:12). The reason they wanted to take Him in secret was not that He was not well-known; it was that He was too well-known. They could not take Him publicly during the feast, or there would have been an uproar (Matt. 26:3-5). Judas knew where Jesus would be late in the evening—without any crowds to interfere. Jesus had been teaching publicly every day since He had arrived. He did observe the Passover with only His disciples, but that was for the purpose of being with them privately on this last occasion. Paine then goes so far as to accuse Jesus of cowardice.
The idea of his concealment not only agrees very ill with his reputed divinity, but associates with it something of pusillanimity; and being betrayed…being apprehended…shows that he did not intend to be apprehended, and consequently, that he did not intend to be crucified (31).
This is a good example of what happens when logic is based upon a false premise. In the first place Jesus was not hiding. On occasion, He did slip away from those who desired to kill Him, but the reason was that it was not yet the time for Him to die on the cross. He had a purpose in coming to earth. He had things to accomplish before He gave Himself up to die. Jesus never played the part of a coward. He faced down His detractors with actual (not pretended) logic (Matt. 21:23-27; 22:23-33).
Part of the plan was for Jesus to be betrayed and to be delivered into the hands of wicked men who would crucify Him. He foretold what would happen at Jerusalem three times (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34). He also said that the Father loved Him because He laid down His life, that He might take it again. "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command have I received from My Father" (John 10:18).
Since Jesus was on the Mount of Olives (and it was after dark), He could see the Romans coming with torches, led by Judas. Yet He stood His ground. When Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the high priest, Jesus calmly healed it and instructed the disciples not to use the sword (John 18:1-12). Far from being a coward, Jesus displayed great power and restraint in allowing them to crucify Him. Jesus always knew that He was to suffer death in that manner; He was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). When death was imminent, Jesus said, "It is finished." To say that He did not intend to be crucified is ludicrous.
Equally so is the notion that Jesus came to fight against Rome. Paine writes: "…neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans" (15). Did Jesus plan to conquer Rome? Hardly. If He had planned to conquer Rome, He would have succeeded. Does Paine not remember that the Jews came by force to make Jesus a king? He rejected their attempt and departed by Himself, alone (John 6:15). Perhaps the inaccurate author also forgot that, before Pilate, Jesus proclaimed: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here" (John 18:36).
Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom, the church. When He ascended into Heaven, He was given this kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14; Acts 2:33). Since that time He has been head over it (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). Paine seems to have missed what Christianity is all about—it is not about developing a strong military in order to dominate and rule by force. The spiritual kingdom is about serving God because we love Him and because He made salvation available to us. While He requires us to be faithful to Him to the point of giving our lives, if need be, it is more important that we live for Him Who died for us (2 Cor. 5:15; 2 Cor. 7:1; Rom. 12:1-2). Jesus reigns in the hearts of His followers.
Deity
As cited earlier, Paine said, "I believe in one God and no more…" (6). Christians would agree with that statement, but what does the author mean by one God? He means that one is singular in number, rather than being the plural one that most Christians believe in. The idea that there is more than one in the Godhead he blames as human invention and the priestcraft (7). He thinks that rational men will return "to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God and no more" (7).
He makes no comment on the very beginning of the Bible, where God says, "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26). Likewise, he is silent about the fact that the word usually translated "God," Elohim, is plural. (El in the singular also appears.) He may complain about priests and the Catholic Church from sunup to sundown, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew Old Testament, which was written hundreds of years before their existence. The Catholic church may rightly be blamed for certain abuses, wrongful practices, and false doctrines, but there is no reason to attempt to blame everything that has ever gone wrong on them.
The idea of the Trinity did not suddenly appear in some church council somewhere. We see the Father and the Holy Spirit present for the Son's (Jesus') baptism (Matt. 3:13-17). People were to be preached to, taught, and baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20). All three are mentioned together in 2 Corinthians 13:14. References are made in the New Testament to the Godhead (Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9). No priest or man invented this doctrine.
Nor did it first appear in the New Testament. As already noted, plurality is implied in the very first book of the Bible. Beyond that, however, is the fact that Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10-11 all mention the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is also mentioned apart from the adjective holy—as early as Genesis 1:2, where the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. So what is this notion about getting back to a singular God when the one God has always had three within it?
Jesus also appears in the Old Testament, though not by that name. Neither is He referred to as "the Son." He is Jehovah, the Angel (Messenger) of Jehovah (the Lord). In that role, He appears several times in the Old Testament, including the book of Genesis. Why is He referred to as the Angel (which usually implies a created being)? He is so called because He is the Father's messenger. God the Father sent God the Son with various missions to perform. His final mission was as the Savior of mankind (John 3:16). That He is rightly called Jehovah, just as the Father is, is seen in Scripture. John was to prepare the way of the Lord (Jehovah) (Isaiah 40:30), which he did in preparing the way for Jesus (Mark 1:3). God has always consisted of three personalities, Who are one in their nature.
Mythology
More will be said about the Deity of Jesus later, along with the resurrection, but the reader is asked at this time to notice Paine's giant leap concerning Christianity.
It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian church sprung out of the tail of heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty to thirty thousand… (11).
Paine is building upon a false foundation. As already pointed out, the concept of the Trinity is taught in the Old Testament. Paul explains how polytheism came about. Sometime after the Flood, men began to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). They knew that God existed, but even if later generations began to doubt the truth concerning the Flood, they still had ample evidence of the existence of God in the Creation (which Paine agrees with). However, men did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful for all those things He provided. They foolishly walked toward darkness and began creating idols. They exchanged the truth of God for lies (Rom. 1:18-25).
The truth concerning the nature and power of God, including the concept of the Trinity, was known long before the invention of idolatry. Christianity did not spring from any concept of mythology, which included the worship of idols. The Israelites were not allowed to worship graven or carved images (Ex. 20:4-6). In the New Testament, Christians were to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21). Thus, Christianity is based upon truth, not a modification of false religion.
For what reason would the world at the time Christ existed be interested in yet another variation of mythology? Why would they not have reasoned, "Well, this is just version 5.0 of the kinds of mythology we have heard all of our lives"? The reason is that this was not just another myth or legend. People saw the power of God firsthand. Jesus was not some demigod who went about, showing feats of strength. He actually helped mankind. Jesus did not have several wives and illegitimate sons or become jealous over other gods or human beings. What a refreshing change it was when people observed a man "who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him" (Acts 10:38).
On the Day of Pentecost, Peter did not invent myths about Jesus to make Him sound extraordinary; he simply reminded people of what they already knew—that Jesus was "a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you also yourselves know" (Acts 2:22). People in the first century knew the difference between truth and mythology—even if Thomas Paine could not so distinguish. They believed because of the evidence.